|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to attempt to argue that given the current structure and nature of PFS, being strict about pretty much any of the PFS specific rules serves no purpose. In fact, it does more harm than good.
The idea I'm discussing here applies pretty much across the board, but in order to make the point I'm going to start with a specific example that I think is particularly apt: the discussion over rebuilding after the Crane Wing errata.
Crane Wing and Crane Riposte were altered and many people believed that either they should not have been altered, or that the changes went too far and made the feat path unattractive. They wanted to be able to rebuild their character to a greater or lesser degree. I don't want to argue whether or not their opinions about the errata are correct. This is not another Crane Wing rules thread. One of the points I will try to make is that whether or not they are correct is irrelevant to how their situation ought to be handled.
Full disclosure: I believe Crane Wing deserved errata, but that the errata it got was not very satisfying. I do not, however, have a horse in the race. I had only one character with Crane Wing who is now retired, and I specifically avoided taking it anymore after using it with that character, because I felt it was too powerful and was annoying to GMs.
Several solutions were proposed for people who felt dissatisfied with their characters after the errata:
1. Allow them to replace Crane Wing and Crane Riposte, but nothing else (the current rule, which raised many complaints).
2. Allow to also replace Crane Style.
3. Allow them to replace all the Crane feats, and any feats they took as a prerequisite to those feats.
4. Allow them to do the minimum rebuild they felt was necessary for them to be satisfied, whatever that entailed, and have it approved by their local venture captain or lieutenant.
5. Allow them to rebuild the character completely, from the ground up, or just to make another character altogether with their current character's XP.
Of the possible approaches, the strictest one (save for forcing the players to keep the errata'd feats as well) was implemented. How do we determine whether this approach was the best one? Several points were made attempting to pacify the frustrated Crane Style players, among them:
1. The feat path is still good now so you should just keep it.
-Frustrated Player: the premise of my concern is that the path is not good now, and anyway the point is that I don't like the character anymore and I am reasonably entitled to that feeling
2. You're being allowed to replace the things that got changed so that should satisfy you.
-Frustrated Player: builds are an interlocking puzzle that often don't function the same when you remove even one piece, and anyway the point is that I don't like the character anymore and I am reasonably entitled to that feeling
3. The game is supposed to be social anyway, man, so just relax and enjoy the company of your friends! :)
-Frustrated Player: I can do any number of social activities if that's all I care about, but I have chosen this one because the mechanics of it are enjoyable to me, and anyway the point is that I don't like the character anymore and I am reasonably entitled to that feeling
And so on. I do not empathize with these players' feeling that they need to rebuild their characters, in this particular case. I do, however, believe they should be allowed to do it, and I do entirely empathize with their frustration at the pointless condescension they receive for wanting to. Because they are 100% correct about their central premise, which is very simple and which all the arguments against them ignore:
There are upsides (primarily, happy players) to allowing the rebuilds, and there are no downsides to doing so.
Someone tell me the downside. I want one reason that affects gameplay in any negative, quantifiable way. In other words, something other than "It just bothers me when people rebuild their characters." I want something valid and substantive that shows that allowing the player in question to rebuild his character alters the way the game plays for anyone else. It doesn't. To oppose it on the grounds that it just "bugs you" is pure selfishness. You are actively preventing someone else's enjoyment of the game in order to keep yourself from being annoyed by something that you have no good reason to be annoyed by.
An errata is essentially the admission of a mistake. A mistake was made in allowing the altered rule/game element to have been created in the first place. Guess what, Paizo? This does not make you look bad. Making mistakes is fine (to a point, anyway), as long as you correct them and fix the problems that the mistakes created. Doing so is not a sign of weakness; it is admirable. These players were affected by your mistake. Just give them whatever they need to fix it. It takes you exactly zero work or effort to do so. When somebody wants something done (for whatever reason) and there is literally no good reason not to do it, that person has a right to be upset that the thing isn't happening.
I was going to expand this to a broader point about the essential pointlessness of most of the PFS rules. Basically, I think there needs to be a lot more focus on restricting things that actually negatively affect game play and/or allow characters to be too powerful (like Crane Wing, which needed errata but caused confusion only because it was one of oh so many things that does and thus seemed capricious/arbitrary), and a lot less focus on restricting stuff that does neither of these things (like letting people rebuild).
Full-on, heavy restrictions of the latter kind might serve a purpose, as they create an overall environment of gameplay that can potentially have a certain aggravating charm (I gather this was part of the appeal of Living Greyhawk). But if you aren't going to go all the way with stuff like this, you shouldn't go half way either, because the resultant system is just mostly incoherent, with rules that cause frustration because they serve no aesthetic or mechanical purpose. Be the strict game or be the liberal game, but don't be some pointless fusion of the two. But anyway, I think will save all that for another post, as this one is massive already.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it is very difficult to determine where and how to draw lines. With regard to rules and running scenarios as written, grey areas can result in character death and repeatedly demonstrated player anger.
So, for a global campaign, with thousands of players, eliminating as many grey areas as possible is the simplest solution. For the most part, this means rules as written, run scenarios without deviation, and ban anything problematic to the experience of the campaign.
In a home game, this would clearly not be the best solution. House rules and player/GM agreements work very well for creating a great home game.
So, it is what it is. I personally view the entire paradigm of PFS play as it's own form of game, different from "standard" Pathfinder play. This means that when I sit down to an entire table of fighters or a Gunslinger named "Shootie-Killie", it's simply all part of the PFS paradigm I expect and roll with.
In return, I get to play with thousands of players and GM's I never would have met.
TL/DR: Pathfinder Society is its own beast. Embrace its paradigm as a different game completely from Pathfinder.
|
The downside to easy retrains is that players can easily and quickly refeat, or modify their character to fit a scenario or party. This does not make sense from a roleplay or environment perspective at all. Your fighter is heavily trained in dual axes for one scenario, next scenario hes heavily trained for sword and board tanking with bodyguard, next scenario he suddenly slings enchantments, and buff spells. There is no character consistency, no consequence to actions, thus people will care less about characters, leading to less general enthusiasm.
It punishes the player who wants to focus on their character, come with back story, and build their character as the story dictates, taking their mistakes in stride, and rewards cheese monkeys who simply build for the scenario.
That is the reason for expensive retrains, and why retrains are very rarely given for free.
|
|
Sometimes it is very difficult to determine where and how to draw lines. With regard to rules and running scenarios as written, grey areas can result in character death and repeatedly demonstrated player anger.
So, for a global campaign, with thousands of players, eliminating as many grey areas as possible is the simplest solution. For the most part, this means rules as written, run scenarios without deviation, and ban anything problematic to the experience of the campaign...
TL/DR: Pathfinder Society is its own beast. Embrace its paradigm as a different game completely from Pathfinder.
I've heard basically this same response to a lot of issues that have been raised over the way PFS is structured. While I don't altogether disagree with your statements, they strike me as something akin to a party line or a thought destroying cliche. For one, you haven't really answered my specific points. You seem to just be saying "accept that PFS must be this way and will never change." I'm not trying to be offensive, but "embrace its paradigm?" It would be accurate, albeit inappropriately dramatic, to describe that sentiment as somewhat Orwellian.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The downside to easy retrains is that players can easily and quickly refeat, or modify their character to fit a scenario or party. This does not make sense from a roleplay or environment perspective at all. Your fighter is heavily trained in dual axes for one scenario, next scenario hes heavily trained for sword and board tanking with bodyguard, next scenario he suddenly slings enchantments, and buff spells. There is no character consistency, no consequence to actions, thus people will care less about characters, leading to less general enthusiasm.
It punishes the player who wants to focus on their character, come with back story, and build their character as the story dictates, taking their mistakes in stride, and rewards cheese monkeys who simply build for the scenario.
That is the reason for expensive retrains, and why retrains are very rarely given for free.
I'm not seeing how "be more lenient with errata-related retrains" leads to "people will be rebuilding their character for each and every scenario".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sometimes it is very difficult to determine where and how to draw lines. With regard to rules and running scenarios as written, grey areas can result in character death and repeatedly demonstrated player anger.
So, for a global campaign, with thousands of players, eliminating as many grey areas as possible is the simplest solution. For the most part, this means rules as written, run scenarios without deviation, and ban anything problematic to the experience of the campaign.
In a home game, this would clearly not be the best solution. House rules and player/GM agreements work very well for creating a great home game.
So, it is what it is. I personally view the entire paradigm of PFS play as it's own form of game, different from "standard" Pathfinder play. This means that when I sit down to an entire table of fighters or a Gunslinger named "Shootie-Killie", it's simply all part of the PFS paradigm I expect and roll with.
In return, I get to play with thousands of players and GM's I never would have met.
TL/DR: Pathfinder Society is its own beast. Embrace its paradigm as a different game completely from Pathfinder.
What does any of that have to do with the actual topic? This reads like all you saw was the thread title; the post had nothing to do with "run as written" or "gray areas" or anything you're talking about.
|
|
I'm not seeing how "be more lenient with errata-related retrains" leads to "people will be rebuilding their character for each and every scenario".The downside to easy retrains is that players can easily and quickly refeat, or modify their character to fit a scenario or party. This does not make sense from a roleplay or environment perspective at all. Your fighter is heavily trained in dual axes for one scenario, next scenario hes heavily trained for sword and board tanking with bodyguard, next scenario he suddenly slings enchantments, and buff spells. There is no character consistency, no consequence to actions, thus people will care less about characters, leading to less general enthusiasm.
It punishes the player who wants to focus on their character, come with back story, and build their character as the story dictates, taking their mistakes in stride, and rewards cheese monkeys who simply build for the scenario.
That is the reason for expensive retrains, and why retrains are very rarely given for free.
Someone tell me the downside. I want one reason that affects gameplay in any negative, quantifiable way. In other words, something other than "It just bothers me when people rebuild their characters." I want something valid and substantive that shows that allowing the player in question to rebuild his character alters the way the game plays for anyone else. It doesn't. To oppose it on the grounds that it just "bugs you" is pure selfishness. You are actively preventing someone else's enjoyment of the game in order to keep yourself from being annoyed by something that you have no good reason to be annoyed by.
From the opening post.
EDIT: I read several things in this article:
1. Free retrains for folks focused around a changed feat chain
2. Retrains need to be a bit cheaper.
3. The rules in general for all this are overly strict.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"My character meant to take crane wing, I need to retrain the dodge feat I have already taken as without Crane wing the whole feat chain is useless."
"i have taken monk level only to take crane wing at level 11, I shall be allowed to rebuild my character from first level onward."
Extreme example, but if you allow player A to retrain his whole character from level 1 onward because he has taken crane wing, any character that has taken any of the prerequisites should have the same right, don't you think?
But then we would have plenty of player retraining their characters simply because they can, not because the change in the feat has really affected them.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Zach Williams - Yes, I see that he asked someone to show him the downside of lenient parameters of the one-time rebuild allowed when an errata occurs. Your post, however, shows a downside of allowing free rebuilds between every single game session. The question I asked you is how you got from the former to the latter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "strictness" is more in line with consistency in how other changes have been made (as outlined in the Guide to the Pathfinder Society). Basically, if an item, feat, or similar enumerable aspect of the character is affected, you can replace that item/feat/aspect. Examples of this include the Bracers of Falcon's Aim (refunded full gold amount) and Amulets of Mighty Fists (refunded the cost difference).
Now, as to the other options... I cannot speak for Mike or John on there, but here are my ideas as to why.
First, I need to address this:
Because they are 100% correct about their central premise, which is very simple and which all the arguments against them ignore:There are upsides (primarily, happy players) to allowing the rebuilds, and there are no downsides to doing so.
2. Allow to also replace Crane Style.
3. Allow them to replace all the Crane feats, and any feats they took as a prerequisite to those feats.
I'm going to say this, as my opinion, one that I believe is correct, but again, is just an opinion: The characters who had Crane Wing/Riposte are not broken. There, I said it. They are not 100% correct that they should get a rebuild. While those characters are not as passively defensive as they were before, those characters still have good defense-oriented abilities that still allow them to occasionally deflect attacks and counter attack when doing so. That part never changed with the errata and FAQ update. Especially by keeping Crane Wing, it is still a great feat on its own right and is useful for a switch-roled PC who occasionally needs to tank or protect him/herself.
Part 3 is also made more complicated if they used classes (with bonus feats) to meet the other prerequisites instead of taking feats per level. That leads into...
4. Allow them to do the minimum rebuild they felt was necessary for them to be satisfied, whatever that entailed, and have it approved by their local venture captain or lieutenant.
This is way too vague to be an acceptable, consistent solution. For those it affected, this could range from players who will make the minimal amount of changes "Guess I'll go Dragon Style instead" and replace the 3 feats to "Well, I wouldn't have taken these two levels... oh and I would have gotten this feat instead too... and bought this item instead of that item."
Not to mention there are players that do not have a nearby VL/VC to contact. Even then, assuming you decide to contact one electronically, you're putting the onus on them to "sign off" on the accepted change. This puts extra work to the VO's and will arguments still will occur as the VOs may have different opinions to what would be an 'acceptable' change.
It's the same reason why having VO's sign off of someone having ownership of a book so they don't have to bring it to an event was not accepted as a solution for those debacles.
5. Allow them to rebuild the character completely, from the ground up, or just to make another character altogether with their current character's XP.
Opinion time again: repeating this but, I don't believe characters built solely around Crane Wing/Riposte are useless and still cannot be fun with the errata/FAQ update. Paizo didn't remove defensive counter-attacker as a viable option. Is it weaker? Yes. Is it useless? No. Even without Crane Wing/Riposte, it still works.
Fact time: This is against any other similar change that did not involve an archetype. The big example was when the Vivisection/Synthesist/Grave Walkers were banned a couple of years ago. Those were allowed the rebuilds because whole class features were altered, not singular feats. As I noted above, the defensive build wasn't removed, just tweaked; the character paradigm still exists. For those archetypes, those were removed outright and thus the rebuilds.
I have a counter question to propose to you Erick: your belief with the rebuilds is that it should be allowed because an option was changed. But would you allow a rebuild if a new option was available? Example, a player created a fighter/monk because he wanted a PC that punched things. But now, with the Advanced Class Guide playtest, there's the brawler class which is exactly what that player wanted to do. Would you allow the rebuild? Why or why not?
|
Long overdue discussion. My personal opinion is this one would be the best option:
4. Allow them to do the minimum rebuild they felt was necessary for them to be satisfied, whatever that entailed, and have it approved by their local venture captain or lieutenant.
VLs and VCs have enough on their plate without having to approve characters. If the players are satisfied with their game, I'm pretty sure that's all they care about.
The cost of hard consistency isn't worth making players upset with the game over. We're playing a game on the honour system, if we want people to follow it, we should be able to make these kinds of allowances and trust people to make their own definition of minimal. That should be the best kind of "subjective consistency" we use.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
as well as any other abilities related to fighting defensively
I only took Weapon Focus to help offset the attack penalty for Fighting Defensively, so I can retrain that, right?
I would have dipped a level of [insert non-full-BAB class here], but since I'm always taking a penalty for Fighting Defensively, the BAB loss was just too much and so I dipped samurai instead. So I can retrain that level now that I'm not fighting defensively all the time, right?
|
|
The downside to easy retrains is that players can easily and quickly refeat, or modify their character to fit a scenario or party. This does not make sense from a roleplay or environment perspective at all. Your fighter is heavily trained in dual axes for one scenario, next scenario hes heavily trained for sword and board tanking with bodyguard, next scenario he suddenly slings enchantments, and buff spells. There is no character consistency, no consequence to actions, thus people will care less about characters, leading to less general enthusiasm.
It punishes the player who wants to focus on their character, come with back story, and build their character as the story dictates, taking their mistakes in stride, and rewards cheese monkeys who simply build for the scenario.
I think this a well constructed explanation of the counter argument. But let's examine it, because I don't think that, in the end, it holds up.
1. "Players can easily and quickly...modify their character to fit a scenario or party."
First, why would this be appealing to a min-max player, as you seem to suggest, and second why is it a bad thing? I have an evolutionist summoner who does exactly the thing that you suggest is a negative (modifies to fit the party at each game). It causes no problems, gives me no significant advantage over a regular summoner, and is lots of fun as I don't have to play the same thing every game. And since players really don't know much about the situation their characters are going into, I don't see how "refeating every game" is much use from a min-maxer's perspective. It would only be appealing to the person who is like "my dude is gonna fight with two weapons today and a greatsword tomorrow, just cause it's fun to mix it up" and I see no problem with this at all. It's cool, in fact.
2. "This does not make sense from a roleplay or environment perspective at all."
You're telling me it makes more sense that a warrior uses a greatsword all the time rather than using different weapons in different situations? It might, for some characters, but I cannot agree that there is any inherent logical or aesthetic necessity to it. My evolutionist has an aesthetic justification for changing her eidolan's stats every game, but there are as many potential aesthetic/storyline justifications for this kind of thing as there are character concepts. And who says it's even the same character? There is no significant or meaningful dramatic through-line for individual PFS characters anyway, so why is this important? You the player might be going to different cities playing with different groups all the time, and your character is constantly traveling the world being paired up with different agents for different tasks. I can't imagine a better possible set-up for a revolving door of characters. PFS games are overwhelmingly episodic in structure, despite small gestures to the contrary.
3. "There is no character consistency, no consequence to actions, thus people will care less about characters, leading to less general enthusiasm."
I simply don't know why you think this is so. Your so called "character consistency" is what diminishes my enthusiasm. If it helps you be more enthusiastic, then do it. But don't make me do it too. Also, there are already few to no consequences to actions, and when there are (like when some confusing RAW gets clarified in an unexpected way leading to a non-functional character)they are usually aggravating and not at all interesting. Consequences must be interesting or they have no value and are an unnecessary hindrance.
4. "It punishes the player who wants to focus on their character, come with back story, and build their character as the story dictates..."
No it doesn't. This is the main thought I wish I could dispel. Nothing I do with my character punishes you or your character, save for making him so powerful that you are overshadowed. As far as backstory and similar aesthetic concerns, such things are not served by having a continuous, unchanging character any more than they can potentially be by having a character that changes, or different characters altogether. This is really a false point on your part. And as far as "build their character as the story dictates" I'm not even sure what that means when you say it, but I'm quite certain it means an entirely different thing to me.
So basically I don't think of any of these points stand up to careful consideration. We're back to "it annoys me when you rebuild." Look, min-maxers are going to min-max and roleplayers are going to roleplay. Both are going to use the flexibility of the system to do more of either thing. My suggestion is that allowing rebuilds enhances the potential of aesthetic/RP based players far more than it does the min-maxers (who can already easily trivialize the game anyway).
And besides, even if I would personally support a completely laissez-faire approach to rebuilding, I'm not advocating that because I recognize it just blows people's minds for some reason. I'm only talking about taking a somewhat more liberal approach to it in cases where there is errata and/or clarification of confusing RAW that results in a player being dissatisfied with their character (or for other reasons where the player is provably inconvenienced in some way).
Again, the only thing that should concern us is characters being too powerful. I know one person locally who built a character that was routinely one-shotting bosses before they even got a chance to act. This person very admirably chose to rebuild the character. He changed his archetype, I think, and a couple of levels, and generally gave him a more interesting but far less powerful schtick, tactically speaking. The necessary changes were beyond the bounds of the prestige-retraining system, which I don't think was even in place at the time. The basic aesthetic concept of the character remained the same. This player did 100% the correct thing, which was 100% illegal. Obviously, there is some disconnect here. Many people treat rules as though they justify their own existence. You're being bad when you break a rule, they think, because it's bad to break rules. But this is incorrect thinking. It is only good to obey good rules. Rules that serve no purpose are mere inconveniences, and those that prevent correct or useful behavior ought logically and morally to be broken.
|
|
The more liberal you make the line, the more likely those willing to abuse the rules can.
Its a balancing act. Where do you draw the line?
Just what changed?
All prereqs only if you have what changed?
All prereqs period?
Entire character concept?
The more broad you make the options, the more people can take advantage.
You can't write a rule with all kinds of exceptions and what not. The rule needs to be simple. Or confusion will reign.
So simple, unfortunately means more restrictive to keep those who would abuse tge more liberal rule in check.
|
|
as well as any other abilities related to fighting defensivelyI only took Weapon Focus to help offset the attack penalty for Fighting Defensively, so I can retrain that, right?
I would have dipped a level of [insert non-full-BAB class here], but since I'm always taking a penalty for Fighting Defensively, the BAB loss was just too much and so I dipped samurai instead. So I can retrain that level now that I'm not fighting defensively all the time, right?
Honestly, why the heck not? Again, what is the downside of allowing this?
|
|
as well as any other abilities related to fighting defensivelyI only took Weapon Focus to help offset the attack penalty for Fighting Defensively, so I can retrain that, right?
I would have dipped a level of [insert non-full-BAB class here], but since I'm always taking a penalty for Fighting Defensively, the BAB loss was just too much and so I dipped samurai instead. So I can retrain that level now that I'm not fighting defensively all the time, right?
I think you're being sarcastic, but that should be a valid retrain. If you took Weapon Focus solely to balance Crane feats that are no longer applicable, then why not take it out? Same with the samurai level. That's actually a good example.
The problem is that the character's main premise has been lost, so any pre-requisites you used to support that also need to be changed as if you never intended on taking the altered rules.
|
|
The more liberal you make the line, the more likely those willing to abuse the rules can.
Its a balancing act. Where do you draw the line?
Just what changed?
All prereqs only if you have what changed?
All prereqs period?
Entire character concept?
The more broad you make the options, the more people can take advantage.
You can't write a rule with all kinds of exceptions and what not. The rule needs to be simple. Or confusion will reign.
So simple, unfortunately means more restrictive to keep those who would abuse tge more liberal rule in check.
What is this potential "abuse" you're concerned about? What is someone going to do with their rebuild that's going to crack the game open, that they can't already do within the rules by making a new character or something? There are so many many legal ways to abuse the system already. Why aren't we dealing with those? Why are we talking about rebuilds as abusive instead of talking about Clustered Shots or rage cycling or Gunslinger/Paladins or slumber hex or (insert any one of a hundred spells)?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just get a free complete rebuild? Top to bottom, retrain as much or as little as you would like?
The people who value the story of their characters would change exactly as much as they feel necessary (maybe none at all). The people who value mechanics over flavor/story/whathaveyou may change enough to be nigh-unrecognizable. Is that really an issue?
|
|
Why not just get a free complete rebuild? Top to bottom, retrain as much or as little as you would like?
The people who value the story of their characters would change exactly as much as they feel necessary (maybe none at all). The people who value mechanics over flavor/story/whathaveyou may change enough to be nigh-unrecognizable. Is that really an issue?
Exactly. I really don't see the problem with just letting the player build a completely new character with the old character's XP. I have yet to hear a good reason to oppose this. The closet thing I've heard is "it's inconsistent with the way things have been done in the past." Um, yeah...isn't the way things have been done in the past kind of the whole problem?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's this idea that you put in all this work to get your character up to where it is. So allowing others to get around that in any way is an affront to all those who "legitimately" put in the work.
Rules wise, and balance wise, there's really no reason you couldn't let players write up a brand new character every level. You could have gold amounts and spending caps for each level and it would be perfectly fair and balanced.
But doing that kills the progression and the building of character power and personality that comes with leveling the same character over time. In that sense, rules changes should only allow retraining when they change the concept, not just the details of how it functions.
So I don't think it's a matter of negatively impacting the campaign, but rather enforcing the progression of character. So that when you have a level 10 cleric, it means you have 10 levels of history and experience with that character, which makes that particular character uniquely special.
|
|
So that when you have a level 10 cleric, it means you have 10 levels of history and experience with that character, which makes that particular character uniquely special.
In this instance, isn't striking some of its history as much of an affront as striking all of its history?
"My character used to be a Cleric."
"My character used to win jousts by deflecting lances with her bare hands."
|
|
So I don't think it's a matter of negatively impacting the campaign, but rather enforcing the progression of character. So that when you have a level 10 cleric, it means you have 10 levels of history and experience with that character, which makes that particular character uniquely special.
I like the cut of your jib.
In this instance, isn't striking some of its history as much of an affront as striking all of its history?
"My character used to be a Cleric."
"My character used to win jousts by deflecting lances with her bare hands."
But in this instance, the cleric still can. Not 100% of the time, but still reliably well if built as such.
|
|
I have another question to add to this discussion (since the other one didn't get answered yet): Let's say as a last day thing, SKR changes Crane Wing again, but makes it better. Should all of the PCs who took the feat changes be allowed to get Crane Wing/Riposte back?
Likewise, what if a full rebuild was allowed instead, but then the above happened. Would you allow then to rebuild back to their previous PC?
|
|
I have another question to add to this discussion (since the other one didn't get answered yet): Let's say as a last day thing, SKR changes Crane Wing again, but makes it better. Should all of the PCs who took the feat changes be allowed to get Crane Wing/Riposte back?
Likewise, what if a full rebuild was allowed instead, but then the above happened. Would you allow then to rebuild back to their previous PC?
No- -their PC is no longer affected by the errata. It wouldn't apply to them. Seems pretty cut and dry.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally see no problem with allow rebuilds, complete or partial. If it's due to an errata, let it happen for free. It's true that this means some people may make stronger characters than they had before, but why should that be a problem?
If someone comes with an overpowered summoner that's all of a sudden an overpowered barbarian, I'm still doing my thing.
Maybe that person's next character would be just as OP. Maybe the next player (and we do see different players in PFS) would bring something just as OP.
I enjoyed the development of a character from level to level. There's a reason there are 20 levels of power at which to play in this game. I even enjoy the early ones where characters are weak.
So you could say that we don't allow complete rebuilds because the whole bent of the game is to play a character from bottom to top. Some games don't have scaling power levels. Some do. I enjoy this part of the game, but I suppose that if push comes to shove, I don't see it as essential.
|
|
I think there's this idea that you put in all this work to get your character up to where it is. So allowing others to get around that in any way is an affront to all those who "legitimately" put in the work.
Rules wise, and balance wise, there's really no reason you couldn't let players write up a brand new character every level. You could have gold amounts and spending caps for each level and it would be perfectly fair and balanced.
But doing that kills the progression and the building of character power and personality that comes with leveling the same character over time. In that sense, rules changes should only allow retraining when they change the concept, not just the details of how it functions.So I don't think it's a matter of negatively impacting the campaign, but rather enforcing the progression of character. So that when you have a level 10 cleric, it means you have 10 levels of history and experience with that character, which makes that particular character uniquely special.
This is tricky for me. I think you have hit the nail on the head, in terms of describing the opposition some people have to the rebuilding idea. Here's why I don't buy it.
1. Given the ease of PFS scenarios, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that you are going to get your character to whatever goalpost you are going for. Pride in this accomplishment would be far more persuasive if it were more difficult to accomplish. If the game were really hard, I would find this position much more meaningful. And yet, still...
2. The main thing you have "legitimately put in the work" to achieve is XP. Even if we allowed constant rebuilds, the person still can't have an 8th level character without playing through 7 levels of whatever.
3. I think it is superficial to view a character's uniqueness or specialness as a derivative of the number of games the character has been in. I've seen plenty of frankly lame character concepts at high levels that were far less interesting, unique and special then other concepts I've seen in their first game, which were just cool ideas right out of the gate.
4. If it's interesting to you to play the same character up through all the games and levels and "earn" everything you have, then do so. Me being allowed to rebuild does not prevent you from doing so. It does not undercut the fact that you did so. If it does somehow undercut the "specialness" that your character derives from being played through each individual session and building up history, then I guess I have to question whether that specialness really exists. Because if it's a real thing, the difference should be present and apparent. You should welcome players that rebuild, just to highlight the contrast between them and your hard-ass badass that paid his dues, dammit.
5. "Rules wise, and balance wise, there's really no reason you couldn't let players write up a brand new character every level. You could have gold amounts and spending caps for each level and it would be perfectly fair and balanced."
Honestly, that should be all that matters to us, unless, as I said, we want to go really far in the restrictions and/or difficulty direction and make PFS more of a Living Greyhawk and/or Dark Souls type experience where achievement and the possession of unique items/spells/whatever is really significant.
EDIT: And all of this is sort of beside the point anyway. It's more to do with the discussion of an overall liberal rebuild policy. None of it really addresses the value of allowing people to rebuild in the specific instance where their character has been compromised by a rule change or clarification.
|
|
Honestly, why the heck not? Again, what is the downside of allowing this?as well as any other abilities related to fighting defensivelyI only took Weapon Focus to help offset the attack penalty for Fighting Defensively, so I can retrain that, right?
I would have dipped a level of [insert non-full-BAB class here], but since I'm always taking a penalty for Fighting Defensively, the BAB loss was just too much and so I dipped samurai instead. So I can retrain that level now that I'm not fighting defensively all the time, right?
Let me counter with this: what is the upside of allowing this? Why should a complete rebuild be allowed for a single feat change that doesn't affect the character design? You said it is to keep players happy, but why should a full rebuild be necessary to keep those players happy?
To answer your question, the downside of this is because PFS doesn't allow rebuilding a character because you do not like it. Because honestly, that's what this is. Something changed, and now the players do not like an aspect of their PC(s). In this case for Crane Wing, the PCs are good defensively, but just not as good as they were before. That's all. I note that being nerfed sucks, but it doesn't justify redoing everything.
|
|
5. "Rules wise, and balance wise, there's really no reason you couldn't let players write up a brand new character every level. You could have gold amounts and spending caps for each level and it would be perfectly fair and balanced."
Honestly, that should be all that matters to us, unless, as I said, we want to go really far in the restrictions and/or difficulty direction and make PFS more of a Living Greyhawk and/or Dark Souls type experience where achievement and the possession of unique items/spells/whatever is really significant.
So, just to be clear, is this what you're advocating? Character progression is no longer tracked and players just bring an in-tier character with purchases capped by WBL?
Because you can do that right now. You don't need an Organized Play Campaign for that. You just need 4 friends, 4 hours and $4.
|
|
5. "Rules wise, and balance wise, there's really no reason you couldn't let players write up a brand new character every level. You could have gold amounts and spending caps for each level and it would be perfectly fair and balanced."
Honestly, that should be all that matters to us, unless, as I said, we want to go really far in the restrictions and/or difficulty direction and make PFS more of a Living Greyhawk and/or Dark Souls type experience where achievement and the possession of unique items/spells/whatever is really significant.
So, just to be clear, is this what you're advocating? Character progression is no longer tracked and players just bring an in-tier character with purchases capped by WBL?
Because you can do that right now. You don't need an Organized Play Campaign for that. You just need 4 friends, 4 hours and $4.
Well, look, I'm trying to straddle two sides of this discussion at once. On the one hand, it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that I don't support this. I would totally support this, but it's not the point I'm making right now. I know this goal is unattainably revolutionary, so what's the point in advocating it? So yes I support it but no I am not currently advocating it. All I am advocating now is increased (not total) liberalism in terms of rebuilding under a fairly narrow set of circumstances.
And I'm sorry, but people need to stop coming back with the argument of "why don't you just go do a home game then?" There are plenty of reasons to want an organized experience that is different from the current one, but that is still impossible in a home game. Not to digress too much, but the most obvious one is being relieved of the burden of organizing/coordinating sessions. There are many more.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The campaign leadership has a ton of experience at their disposal about running and managing an organized play campaign.
A part what has been learned over time is, do not explain your decisions. When you explain a decision it fractures into endless debate and squabbling. So like parents who have learned how to handle their kids the campaign leadership knows when and how to set boundaries for the good of the campaign.
They do not owe us an explanation if that explanation degrades the organized play environment.
Another way of saying it would be, it is more important when viewed from the larger perspective to keep the campaign 'fun' than it is to keep it 'fair'.
So we a re child and should be treated as such? I look at myslef like an adult. I value adult learning and logic. If I am treated like a child and ignored I am likely to take my business elsewhere.
Treating your customers without the respect they feel they deserve will lose them as customers. If Paizo is fine with giving up customers to keep their unique rules on making the game less enjoyable for people. That I feel is a poor choice to make.
|
|
Let me counter with this: what is the upside of allowing this? Why should a complete rebuild be allowed for a single feat change that doesn't affect the character design? You said it is to keep players happy, but why should a full rebuild be necessary to keep those players happy?
Your question answers itself. It's what IS necessary in order to keep them happy. They shouldn't need to explain why if there's no reason not to do it. It's like if I went to a hotel and the manager said "we have rooms with two double beds and rooms with one queen. It is equally easy for me to assign you either room. I have assigned you the one with the queen." To which you reply "Actually, I'd like the double beds please." And the manager says to you "justify your reasons for needing this in order to be happy with your experience, or I am not giving it to you." Um...seriously?
To answer your question, the downside of this is because PFS doesn't allow rebuilding a character because you do not like it.
That's not a reason. You're just restating the existing, bad practice. Once again, the rules do not justify themselves by virtue of someone deciding that they are the rules.
I note that being nerfed sucks, but it doesn't justify redoing everything.
Again, these people have nothing to justify, because there is no problem with letting them do it. I still haven't heard a reason not to.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically, allowing rebuilds does not present a problem. That has never been, and never will be the reason that limits must be placed on them.
You discredit all roleplaying and verisimilitudinous reasons, but frankly, those are the major reasons.
This is a "role" playing game. Not a "roll" playing game. I know some people treat it like the latter, and for the sake of not calling "badwrongfun" that's fine. Everyone is entitled to have fun playing this game however they wish up to the point it conflicts with anyone else's style of fun.
But this is a "role" playing game. And the campaign leadership has determined that this campaign will mainly be a "role" playing campaign. It is because it is organized play that it actually does cater quite well to the "roll" players out there as well. And frankly, that can be a good thing.
I'm going to go out on a limb here (and I don't think its a real big or long one) and say that the majority of people who play Pathfinder Society prefer "role" playing to "roll" playing. Perhaps not the vocal majority (which consists of those who post on these boards), but the vast majority. A huge portion of the Lion's share. They like to "role" play.
When other campaigns out there have allowed willy nilly rebuilds (everytime a new source book came out, you could do a total rebuild to try out the new stuff--this was a way to try and sell those new books too), the "role" players basically stopped playing, because now it wasn't about playing a character in a shared story anymore, but more about who could create the best collection of stats.
And when you have the Lion's Share of your player base stop playing the game, because it no longer appeals to you, then the campaign fails. Just like those that allowed willy nilly rebuilds did.
So there is your reason. This is why allowing liberal rebuilds is bad for the campaign.
It is not a mechanical reasons. And I'm not going to appeal to your better sense of verisimilitude either. Its obvious that verisimilitude is not important to you. And that's ok.
But its important to the vast majority of players in the campaign, and as such, it is important to the campaign staff. As such, we are most likely not going to see rebuilds any more liberal than they already are.
Currently, I think they are quite generous.
You have free and total rebuilds up to the point you play your first scenario after gaining 3 XP.
You have Ultimate Campaign rebuilds that cost prestige and gold. You should have seen how many "role" players thought even allowing this much was going to ruin the campaign. Fortunately the cost is at about just the right price point that this has not come true.
You have a fairly generous rebuild rule for when rules changes happen that directly affect abilities, feats, etc. that you already have. As a matter of fact, the errata to the Elf/Aasimar Oracle FCB should only have allowed you to change your FCB. But the rebuild offered for this is quite extensive. You can trade out elements that directly were tied to the revelation tied to the FCB. You can change the revelation. You can change your entire race.
So there you go. That's the reason as I see it.
If you don't think that's a good enough reason, then there is not going to be a reason you agree with. And so the argument is pointless.
|
|
Let me counter with this: what is the upside of allowing this? Why should a complete rebuild be allowed for a single feat change that doesn't affect the character design? You said it is to keep players happy, but why should a full rebuild be necessary to keep those players happy?
Your question answers itself. It's what IS necessary in order to keep them happy. They shouldn't need to explain why if there's no reason not to do it. It's like if I went to a hotel and the manager said "we have rooms with two double beds and rooms with one queen. It is equally easy for me to assign you either room. I have assigned you the one with the queen." To which you reply "Actually, I'd like the double beds please." And the manager says to you "justify your reasons for needing this in order to be happy with your experience, or I am not giving it to you." Um...seriously?
To answer your question, the downside of this is because PFS doesn't allow rebuilding a character because you do not like it.
That's not a reason. You're just restating the existing, bad practice. Once again, the rules do not justify themselves by virtue of someone deciding that they are the rules.
I note that being nerfed sucks, but it doesn't justify redoing everything.
Again, these people have nothing to justify, because there is no problem with letting them do it. I still haven't heard a reason not to.
You have heard many reasons.
Just because you choose not to accept them, does not make them bad reasons.
|
|
The campaign leadership has a ton of experience at their disposal about running and managing an organized play campaign.
A part what has been learned over time is, do not explain your decisions. When you explain a decision it fractures into endless debate and squabbling. So like parents who have learned how to handle their kids the campaign leadership knows when and how to set boundaries for the good of the campaign.
They do not owe us an explanation if that explanation degrades the organized play environment.
Another way of saying it would be, it is more important when viewed from the larger perspective to keep the campaign 'fun' than it is to keep it 'fair'.
So we a re child and should be treated as such? I look at myslef like an adult. I value adult learning and logic. If I am treated like a child and ignored I am likely to take my business elsewhere.
Treating your customers without the respect they feel they deserve will lose them as customers. If Paizo is fine with giving up customers to keep their unique rules on making the game less enjoyable for people. That I feel is a poor choice to make.
Damn right, Fin. Boy, have you opened up a can of worms here, Eric. I'm going to mark this for FAQ. If you are correct, I want someone from the Paizo staff to come on here and say "We view ourselves as older wiser parents and our customers as children, and we do not owe you any explanations for our decisions." Just come and say that, and all these conversations can go away foerever, at least where I'm concerned. Because you can be damn sure I'm not going near a Paizo product or these boards again if that's the culture there.
My mind is blown. I can't believe that you, Eric, or anyone, would not only accept but actually promulgate and ratify such a position on the part of the staff. Do you enjoy being treated like a child? Do you feel you deserve it? I certainly do not.
|
|
You have heard many reasons.
Just because you choose not to accept them, does not make them bad reasons.
I swear, I really haven't. I don't merely "not accept them." I have explained why the very few that have been offered are unpersuasive.
EDIT: And anyway, stop moving the battleground. Again, all I am advocating here is limited rebuilds in the very narrow circumstance where a player's character has been compromised by rules changes and clarifications (and maybe a handful of other outside instances, like a player who wants to rebuild an overpowered character).
Stats are important. You make something cool? You want stats that make it feel the same way.
Crane style now does hardly anything, taking away the feeling of a real defensive combatant.
Great, +4 to ac! Once a round, against one attack, that can't save you from the random dice gods.
|
|
I swear, I really haven't. I don't merely "not accept them." I have explained why the very few that have been offered are unpersuasive.
You have heard many reasons.
Just because you choose not to accept them, does not make them bad reasons.
unpersuasive to you.
Just because we haven't persuaded you, does not make them bad reasons.
It just means that you don't agree with them. That's fine.
But you have the reasons. You can accept them, or not, as you wish.
But you can't say there aren't any reasons. There are.
|
|
StuffAlthough icehawk was much more agresive than I would be, but I agree with his statement.
As for Mr. Christian. I disagree completely with. Willy nilly rebuilds I think is nto fair either. Although if paizo wants to mix up the rules that were already established. That is something different.
COmparing the two is an unfair arguement.
You are correct. A line does have to be drawn.
But there are many requests for essentially unfettered rebuilds in this thread. So my correlation is not an unfair argument.
It is "THE" argument we are having.
The line that is drawn, is the one that the campaign leadership is comfortable with.
You guys don't have to like it, but it is what it is. Accept it, or not. But can we please move on past this old argument that is likely not going to be resolved to your liking?
|
|
EDIT: And anyway, stop moving the battleground. Again, all I am advocating here is limited rebuilds in the very narrow circumstance where a player's character has been compromised by rules changes and clarifications (and maybe a handful of other outside instances, like a player who wants to rebuild an overpowered character).
Upthread you indicated that free and total rebuilds wouldn't hurt anything, so why not allow them.
If that's not what you are meaning to argue, then why say it?
Say what you mean to argue, or people are going to respond to what you are actually saying.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still haven't heard a reason not to.
Because it rewards those people who (often deliberately) sail close to the wind in exploiting overpowered options that are almost certain to receive errata at some point in the future. Under your scheme, they would get the benefit of that option (before the errata), AND the chance to rebuild for free (using the latest rules from just-released books). At least as it stands, there's a tiny element of risk to min-maxing in this way.