|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I posted about this before, but am making a new thread for two reasons. First, a few issues came out in the earlier thread that seemed worth including in the discussion from the start, and second, a lot of other issues came up that probably shouldn't have been included at all.
Last time around, the issue of constant liberal rebuilding got brought up and sort of took over the discussion. To be clear, this thread is NOT about whether people ought to be able to rebuild at a whim, or just play different characters every game, or anything like that. I understand why people do not want this, and I respect their reasons, (even if I could raise some critiques about them). Also, I am actually very pleased with the (semi) recent inclusion of a rebuilding option following the retraining rules. I think it was a sensible way to approach the issue, to a point. This thread is about the points where the current retraining rules fail us.
I would like us to address the following three questions:
1. Is allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild of a character sometimes definitely better for the game?
2. Is allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild of a character sometimes the only fair course of action?
3. Is this a case where Paizo/the PFS community ought to permit this behavior even if it cannot officially endorse it (similar to the way the police in most cases simply do not give tickets for going less than 10 mph over the speed limit)? Or should some official policy of circumstantial rebuilding be adopted?
My answers are yes, yes and maybe. Before I get into my reasons I will say that I am unlikely to find common ground on this issue with anyone who does not accept the following premise:
It is the nature of the Pathfinder system that in the case of many character builds (especially ones sufficiently complicated to be interesting, at least to a relatively experienced player) every part (abilities, feats, skills, magic items, etc) of said build relates to every other part, such that removing or altering even one thing will in many cases drastically negatively effect the way the build plays.
I could give a lot of examples of this, but I would prefer to avoid it. Like I said, if you don't accept this premise, you probably aren't going to agree with anything else I have to say about this topic. I personally believe the above premise to be fairly self evident. Accepting this premise means that you are not going to find the degree of retraining available in the current system satisfactory in many instances. So, back to my answers to the questions proposed.
1. Yes. This is particularly the case when a player wants to alter a character build that is too powerful and/or is based on unclear or controversial rules. In either of these cases, the player is very clearly doing what is best for the game by rebuilding, and oughtn't be hindered in doing it.
2. Yes. This is particularly the case when a player wants to alter a character build that has been impacted by errata or rules clarifications, or a character build that is based on unclear or controversial rules. To me it seems obvious that the responsibility for rules that are unclear (or especially those that are problematic to the point of errata) lies squarely with Paizo. Players whose builds are affected by such rules shouldn't be hindered if they choose to rebuild. To do so winds up punishing these players (due to the premise stated earlier), which is something akin to entrapment.
3. I'm not sure about this one, but I'd like to hear some opinions about it.
|
Rebuilding is already allowed using retraining, and is allowed for times when errata makes changes. All of your scenarios are fine, assuming that the players all act with the restraint you suggest. However, long experience with the campaign shows me this will not be the case - some people take a mile every time an inch is given, making it less desirable to give even an inch next time.
The recent crane wing change did not ban the feat, it made it less powerful (in fact, it fixed it from being WAY overpowered to something that is about right). A limited rebuild was thus allowed, to avoid allowing people to switch completely to some other broken build instead of just adapting to the slight change. If they had banned Crane Wing instead, I would be in full support of a total rebuild (which is already provided for in the Guide). If people feel their character is unplayable because it isn't invulnerable any more, well, they're playing on "EASY" mode anyway.
|
Yes
Yes
Maybe. I agree that it would be a good idea if it wasn't abused. I don't know if it would be abused or not.
Right now people sometimes "cheat". As you say, sometimes it is in order to help the game. And sometimes it is for the benefit of the cheater.
The one thing that really troubles me is that the newer player is more likely to be hurt than the experienced one. Most of the more experienced have multiple characters so losing one is less of an issue. And there are lots of rules pitfalls we're likely to avoid.
I suspect the best answer is to keep the rules fairly strict with the knowledge that sometimes people will break the rules, very often for good reason. And to not worry about the rules breaking too much as long as it remains infrequent
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reformatted the OP to make responding easier...
1. Is allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild of a character sometimes definitely better for the game?
1. Yes. This is particularly the case when a player wants to alter a character build that is too powerful and/or is based on unclear or controversial rules. In either of these cases, the player is very clearly doing what is best for the game by rebuilding, and oughtn't be hindered in doing it.
I myself have a witch that is sitting at level 4 and will likely never be played again. This is because I saw what Evil Eye, Misfortune, and Slumber do to PFS scenarios and wanted no part of it. If I were allowed to rebuild the character into something that is not a witch, I would.
Would it be better for the game if I could rebuild the witch? I don't really see how. Allowing a rebuild would not remove my troublesome witch from the game--I've already done that myself. Maybe there is a player out there saying "this character is so overpowered that I am not having fun, but I can't rebuild him, so I must keeping playing this unfun character." In my experience, they just tend to make a new character instead.
Also, in my experience, most players with overpowered characters have multiple characters. They've developed their mastery of the system over time and don't often make their ultimate steamroller at #####-1. So the "no rebuilds hurts newbies the most" for doesn't track for me when we're talking about table-dominating characters.
Also also in my experience, most players seem to very much enjoy their overpowered characters, which, I assume, is why they built them in the first place.
2. Is allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild of a character sometimes the only fair course of action?
2. Yes. This is particularly the case when a player wants to alter a character build that has been impacted by errata or rules clarifications, or a character build that is based on unclear or controversial rules. To me it seems obvious that the responsibility for rules that are unclear (or especially those that are problematic to the point of errata) lies squarely with Paizo. Players whose builds are affected by such rules shouldn't be hindered if they choose to rebuild. To do so winds up punishing these players (due to the premise stated earlier), which is something akin to entrapment.
I disagree very much with the bolded statement above. If you build a character with unclear or controversial rules, you are taking that risk. Note that this was not the case with Crane Wing, where the ability was not unclear, but changed rather dramatically.
Another personal example: I have a Maneuver Master/Lore Warden that uses his Flurry of Maneuvers ability while wearing armor. I consider that a controversial and unclear rule. I do not object if a GM says I can't do it, nor would I demand or expect a rebuild if it were clarified as such.
Most new players do not build their characters around unclear or controversial rules unless they found a build on the forums or were given it by a more experienced player. New players do often misunderstand rules (we had a local player who misunderstood how the Diehard Feat worked, for example). I do not think the fault for that misunderstanding lies with Paizo.
3. Is this a case where Paizo/the PFS community ought to permit this behavior even if it cannot officially endorse it (similar to the way the police in most cases simply do not give tickets for going less than 10 mph over the speed limit)? Or should some official policy of circumstantial rebuilding be adopted?
I'm not sure about this one, but I'd like to hear some opinions about it.
The campaign coordinators have made it very clear that we should not endorse breaking campaign rules. With that in mind, there's not much else the discussion on this particular matter (#3) can go productively.
---
You didn't mention it, but I expect that this topic will be revived when the ACG is published in August. There will be a lot of people with characters whose abilities and power level may become drastically altered without triggering any of the rebuild options granted in the Additional Resources and Guide to OP.
It would be nice if rebuilds were allowed if, for example, a counter-spell focused Arcanist becomes useless due to changes in class features. I expect you might push for a complete rebuild:
"I don't want to play a level 7 Arcanist, I wanted to play this level 7 Arcanist."
That's not unreasonable. But if your full rebuild turns your Arcanist into a Gunslinger/Shieldmarshal, is it fair to the other characters starting from scratch that you get to start out in your prestige class, never having spent a single gold for ammunition up to this point?
|
That's not unreasonable. But if your full rebuild turns your Arcanist into a Gunslinger/Shieldmarshal, is it fair to the other characters starting from scratch that you get to start out in your prestige class, never having spent a single gold for ammunition up to this point?
Just as a counterpoint on this: The played PC at least would probably have spent gold on ammunition, but, I, or anyone, as a GM, could make a GM credit PC at almost any level, which could include your Gunslinger/Shieldmarshal who has never spent a penny, except for basic ammo, on ammo replacement.
Heck, I have a PC who I played at first level, as a Fighter (Archer), through the First Steps series when it was legal. I then put my GM credit for running Feast of Ravenmoor on him, making him 3rd level. After that, I played through The Dragon's Demand in home game mode, and targeted this same PC with the 4 chronicles earned from that game.
That makes him 7th level, but, since I never played him after he got his third XP, he is still fully eligible for the 1dt level retrain rules. Right now, I am leaning toward Fighter (Weapon Master) with a longbow, but I could, just as easily, make him just about any class and PrC, without bending the rules at all, as long as I don't try and sell back any partially or wholly used consumable...
|
|
1. Is allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild of a character sometimes definitely better for the game?
2. Is allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild of a character sometimes the only fair course of action?
3. Is this a case where Paizo/the PFS community ought to permit this behavior even if it cannot officially endorse it (similar to the way the police in most cases simply do not give tickets for going less than 10 mph over the speed limit)? Or should some official policy of circumstantial rebuilding be adopted?
I agree with a slightly altered premise, that SOME builds require all parts to work exactly as expected. I don't think that "ones sufficiently complicated to be interesting" require all things to be interlinked in such a way that any sort of minor change renders the character unplayable.
I agree that in some cases allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild is the best/most fair option.
I however think these cases are covered in the guide, as evidenced by the most liberal retraining option:
If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment.
I don't think a single feat changing, even one "vital" to the build is enough to allow a "liberal" rebuild.
Personal Example: Farak, the Most Powerful Mage in All Absalom was Synthesist 1/Paladin 2/Ninja 2/Pathfinder Delver 2 when Synthesist was removed as an option from organized play. Farak's best skills dropped by about +10 each and he had some other problems as well.
Even this significant alteration/nerf did not render him unplayable. Sure it rendered him a lot less powerful, but that's okay. Having a +47 Intimidate isn't actually what made him interesting/fun to play. His personality and crazy tricks were.
I understand that some people may feel a character is unplayable if there are more powerful options out there. Like when people complained about their arcane tricksters/eldritch knights once SLAs started qualifying, I would attest that this just isn't true.
I enjoy making powerful/effective characters, however if squeezing every last drop of power out of a character is what gives you your jollies, I might suggest that you find a different way to enjoy PFS, since things can change without full rebuilds and that power level will trivialize 99% of content anyway.
I'm currently playing Dragon's Demand on campaign mode and plan to apply the sheets to a level 2 character and bring them up to 6.
Here is the character I was originally thinking of making. This is a complicated character with a lot of moving parts. The character plan was originally simpler and more powerful before the Animal Companion level limit limit. (The Animal Companion hit level 19 at lvl 9 and character was a full Oracle Caster)
I'm glad I choose to make something else. I don't need something that powerful + complex. The campaign does not benefit from me making that character. If I had not realized this until after I had played him I would "lose" all those credits applied to him. If that's the price we're worried about avoiding by allowing more "liberal" rebuilds I just don't see the argument.
Do not falsify rolls, do not falsify your Chronicle sheets, and do not add new items to your inventory without buying them properly. Do not lie to a GM under any circumstances.
When rebuilding your character in any way, you must describe all changes on your next Chronicle sheet in the Notes section, and your GM must initial that section.
|
|
Kinevon
Indeed - this is a currently 100% legit 'rebuild' with no restrictions. It can also be used as a resurrection.
GM 6 scenarios - retire old character / build new one according to specification at level 3
GM 9 scenarios - retire old character / build new one according to specification at level 4
GM 12 scenarios - retire old character / build new one according to specification at level 5
Etc
This is the reason I would like a samsaran boon (they don't exist as far as I know) - to role-play a resurrection of a character which I care for a lot and who died - fully rebuild with small changes at a similar level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not unreasonable. But if your full rebuild turns your Arcanist into a Gunslinger/Shieldmarshal, is it fair to the other characters starting from scratch that you get to start out in your prestige class, never having spent a single gold for ammunition up to this point?Just as a counterpoint on this: The played PC at least would probably have spent gold on ammunition, but, I, or anyone, as a GM, could make a GM credit PC at almost any level, which could include your Gunslinger/Shieldmarshal who has never spent a penny, except for basic ammo, on ammo replacement.
Absolutely true. And that character automatically earns full prestige and any desired boons from those chronicles. They do miss out on Day Jobs (in the absence of a certain boon), but they've spent nothing on ammunition or consumables.
I'm okay with GM babies getting that little boost. I think it's fair to assume that once you factor in prep time, the GM put in a lot more time and effort earning those chronicles than the players did. I think some reward is warranted.
I'm less okay with "the loophole I was exploiting got closed, so I should get to rebuild my character at level 9 to try out this other rules exploit I discovered."*
*Again, not what happened with Crane Wing.
---
With respect to characters built around "unclear or controversial" rules, I'd also say this:
- If a rule is unclear and your interpretation sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Ask someone else about it before you make your character dependent on it. Search the forums, post a question if you can't find the answer, ask your VO.
- If a rule is controversial, do not build your character around it--unless you are willing to play that character without the benefit of that rule (should a GM diagree or a FAQ be posted) or retire that character should it be rendered unplayable.
|
|
About selected rebuilds
I think one scenario - in my personal view - much more worthwhile to allow selected rebuilds are characters build by inexperienced players which fall below the power curve of the pregens.
This would actually help (in theory) the campaign as it would help closing the gap between a tricked out build planned at level 1 with all options and a player who might have done stupid choices because he just didn't know better.
I say theoretically this should help the campaign. Practically I wouldn't know how to define this - apart of a case by case decision - and putting this into rules would likely cause the opposite.
I thought I add this. I'm not opposed to rebuilds out of principle. But no rebuilds seems the least worse option in absence of a case by case decision.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with a slightly altered premise, that SOME builds require all parts to work exactly as expected. I don't think that "ones sufficiently complicated to be interesting" require all things to be interlinked in such a way that any sort of minor change renders the character unplayable.
I agree that in some cases allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild is the best/most fair option...
Actually I agree with your rephrasing.
I don't think a single feat changing, even one "vital" to the build is enough to allow a "liberal" rebuild.Personal Example: Farak, the Most Powerful Mage in All Absalom was Synthesist 1/Paladin 2/Ninja 2/Pathfinder Delver 2 when Synthesist was removed as an option from organized play. Farak's best skills dropped by about +10 each and he had some other problems as well.
Even this significant alteration/nerf did not render him unplayable. Sure it rendered him a lot less powerful, but that's okay...
I see now where I am being misunderstood, I think. My argument has nothing to do with any annoyance at characters becoming less powerful. I understand that was the problem a lot of the Crane errata complainers had, but I personally do not care about that. I am concerned about rebuilding for exactly the opposite reason: it helps people who want to be less powerful or who want to return to compliance.
I have never seen anyone try to do a major rebuild to become more powerful. I have personally only seen people do significant rebuilds (both legal and illegal) for three reasons.
1. Their existing build is too powerful.
2. Their existing build relies significantly on unclear or controversial rules that often annoy GMs (ice tomb, inquisitor bane, whatever...there are countless examples of such rules).
3. Their existing build was too similar to that of another character they played with regularly, and they didn't want to cramp the other person's style.
It seems to me like it is important to allow people to rebuild for the above reasons (especially the first two). On the other hand, I can't think of a way to systematically allow this kind of rebuild, but also disallow power-gamer motivated rebuilds. For this reason we're stuck with, it seems to me, two options, which is what I was saying:
1. Have some kind of more liberal rebuilding option in general.
2. As a community just choose to ignore it when people rebuild for good reasons, and only stop people from rebuilding for bad reasons.
Also, it seems to me that we shouldn't be in the business of ruling on the "legitimacy" of a player's feeling that his build no longer does what he wants it to after something is changed. That's a pretty subjective thing.
Furthermore, and no offense intended, but of course guys like Pirate Rob are going to discourage "cheating." They thrive on (some might say exploit) the existing system. I personally don't think anybody should be making 9th level characters with 19th level animal companions, or characters with +47 skill bonuses at 7th level, in the first place. It's admittedly interesting and funny that they can do this, but it shouldn't actually transpire as anything more than a thought experiment. I think we should absolutely encourage people like this to "cheat" by bringing their builds back down to earth by whatever means necessary.
And finally, I want to say something about this oft-tossed around notion of "cheating." It seems to me that "cheating" necessarily involves behavior that secures some advantage for the cheater. If someone is not doing that, then "cheating" strikes me as a strange word to describe their actions. For example, someone in another thread was talking about wanting to be allowed to play a Commoner, just to make the game harder. Now, let's say his local GM/players didn't know this was forbidden and let him play one. I will grant you that the player in question is not playing by the rules, but I also wouldn't say that he's cheating. It feels like we need another word here.
Similarly, I've heard GMs be accused of cheating. But GMs can't win. So how can they cheat? The GM's goal is to make people have fun and make them want to be in his games more. It is also, perhaps, to challenge players. In any event, his goal is not to "win," as this is impossible. He does not reap any additional rewards from players struggling, failing or dying.
This is a point I have been trying to make for a while. The real problem players never cheat. Why would they? They can already secure themselves nearly unlimited power/advantages by playing strictly by the rules. The hardcore min-maxers LOVE the rules. They love RAW. They know that playing by the rules allows them to go on flagrantly abusing the system unhindered. It is for this reason that I encourage behavior that emphasizes personal responsibility over rules following. When people have morals, they don't need rules (and oddly enough, beyond a certain point rules actually seem to erode morals). But for this to work, the higher ups would have to take some kind of definite moral stance when it comes to min maxing, which they seem reluctant to do.
I guess I just wish they'd get off the fence. Declare that the game is about rules and RAW, or declare that the game is about RAI, GM fiat and social contract. Having half the community screaming that it's the former and the other half screaming that it's the latter is crazy-making. I honestly don't know who to believe anymore.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a point I have been trying to make for a while. The real problem players never cheat. Why would they? They can already secure themselves nearly unlimited power/advantages by playing strictly by the rules. The hardcore min-maxers LOVE the rules. They love RAW. They know that playing by the rules allows them to go on flagrantly abusing the system unhindered. It is for this reason that I encourage behavior that emphasizes personal responsibility over rules following. When people have morals, they don't need rules (and oddly enough, beyond a certain point rules actually seem to erode morals). But for this to work, the higher ups would have to take some kind of definite moral stance when it comes to min maxing, which they seem reluctant to do.
I guess I just wish they'd get off the fence.
Well said. One could argue that RAW is too-often used as a mechanism for absolving oneself of any social responsibility. "It's legal, so I deserve to play this superpowered character. It's not my fault that I'm steamrolling scenarios and soloing everything, it's the campaign's fault!"
-Matt
|
|
And finally, I want to say something about this oft-tossed around notion of "cheating." It seems to me that "cheating" necessarily involves behavior that secures some advantage for the cheater. If someone is not doing that, then "cheating" strikes me as a strange word to describe their actions. For example, someone in another thread was talking about wanting to be allowed to play a Commoner, just to make the game harder. Now, let's say his local GM/players didn't know this was forbidden and let him play one. I will grant you that the player in question is not playing by the rules, but I also wouldn't say that he's cheating. It feels like we need another word here.
Perhaps you weren't referring to me, but I never said 'cheat'. I said "we should not endorse breaking campaign rules." Intent to the benefit or detriment of a player was never implied.
I think that for a lot of these questions, one crucial aspect is often overlooked or minimized: Pathfinder is a social game. None of these issues exist in a vacuum.[list]
If PFS is easy, why do you need these game-breaking options? Do you think it would be so easy if you opted not to use these game-breaking options in the first place?.
If you want to challenge yourself, make a rogue or a monk or whatever class is the forum's martyr of the month. Build a character around Vital Strike or some other "trap" feat. Defy conventional wisdom.
And if you find that the problem is the weakness of the other players around you, take on the ultimate challenge: making them better. Build a pure support character that makes everyone around you shine. You might be surprised fun it can be to shine the spotlight on someone else.
---
BACK ON TOPIC:
I have never seen anyone try to do a major rebuild to become more powerful. I have personally only seen people do significant rebuilds (both legal and illegal) for three reasons.1. Their existing build is too powerful.
There are plenty of ways to soften a powerful build. You can choose not to use Power Attack or Deadly Aim. You can choose to do non-lethal damage whenever possible. You can use buffs instead of Save-or-Die/Save-or-Suck spells. You can legally train out the more troubling aspects.
2. Their existing build relies significantly on unclear or controversial rules that often annoy GMs (ice tomb, inquisitor bane, whatever...there are countless examples of such rules).
I have very little sympathy for this, as most people I have encountered who use such builds built them that way quite intentionally. Finding out that people don't like playing with a character that breaks the game should not come as a surprise.
3. Their existing build was too similar to that of another character they played with regularly, and they didn't want to cramp the other person's style.
If you're playing with someone regularly, I feel like this is something you might see coming and remedy quite easily. Level 1 retrains, for example. Unless you've just moved into a new but regular weekly game, it seems unlikely that you'd run into a "huh! we both have level 9 Oath of Righteousness Paladins, maybe I should change mine into a Sorcerer"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Is allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild of a character sometimes definitely better for the game?
Yes, very much yes. I don't know if there are regions with such a terrible player mindset where players would routinely abuse this to the point of saying nobody should be able to do it throughout the campaign.
2. Is allowing a (fairly liberal) rebuild of a character sometimes the only fair course of action?
Objectively speaking, it is probably not the only fair course of action, but I'm sure it's the easiest, most consistent, and most reasonable. So a player had a broken option before it got errata'd, and now they get to rebuild it. Who cares? Let them. I don't like powergamers taking options I think are broken either, at all, but not allowing rebuilds for this kind of thing is a wide net of punishment. Let's put the fun back in the game, and let's maximise it. We don't want people to get bitter.
3. Is this a case where Paizo/the PFS community ought to permit this behavior even if it cannot officially endorse it (similar to the way the police in most cases simply do not give tickets for going less than 10 mph over the speed limit)? Or should some official policy of circumstantial rebuilding be adopted?
The PFS rules can be written, in the guide, to have clearer guidelines about how rebuilding should be handled. It can be a rough guide of "you can rebuild if" and "you shouldn't rebuild if" with two sets of dot points, and then trust players to abide by it. We're always playing with the honour system, and this is a great area where it should be applicable to keep players happy - especially inexperienced ones, but even veteran players who just get caught off-guard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally rebuilds are requested for people who build characters that are honestly not hugely effected by errata they just want to be more powerful than they will be with the new options, and honestly that is not a good reason to retrain.
On this we are in perfect agreement. What frustrates me, however, is that these people also ruin the option for everyone else, and it's an option that can add a tremendous amount to the game if used appropriately. In fact, it seems like these gamers always wind up being the reason we can't have nice things in general.
|
|
To be honest, that last bit is the most exasperating issue for me. It seems to me that every time a loophole is closed or a powerful option removed, the first to complain are the same people who brag about the cakewalk that is PFS.
If PFS is easy, why do you need these game-breaking options? Do you think it would be so easy if you opted not to use these game-breaking options in the first place?.
If you want to challenge yourself, make a rogue or a monk or whatever class is the forum's martyr of the month. Build a character around Vital Strike or some other "trap" feat. Defy conventional wisdom.
I DON'T use those options. Your exhortation to "defy conventional wisdom" describes the way I build perfectly. I DO play mostly Monks and Rogues and similar classes. I DO have a character built around Vital Strike. In fact, she is a Monk(/Fighter). She Vital Strikes because she spends her move actions doing what? Using freaking Archon Style is what, so that she can absorb hits that would target other players. Did I mention that she also has 18 Intelligence?
All the things you're suggesting are the things I do. I intentionally go out of my way to handicap my own builds and play with all the stuff nobody ever uses. All told, I have 7 characters with levels in the oft-maligned classes of Monk, Rogue and Investigator. Aside from the weird Rogue/Druid, I have 0 characters with levels in any of what are sometimes called the "tier one" classes. The Druid is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. I would actually like to rebuild that character into a Hunter, just because it's less powerful and I find it a little more interesting (possibly only because of the novelty, but still). But I can't.
I do have a couple of characters that are overpowered. One was a Monk with Crane Style (she's already retired so I don't care about the errata for her sake, if that's what you're thinking). She was a tank, at least, so she wasn't ending encounters or anything. She was just totally invincible (suffered 0 damage playing Waking Rune in hard mode). The other is an Alchemist archer (so that's two strikes against her). She's based on using explosive missile, which I have only ever heard being derided. This also means she makes only one attack per round. She doesn't have fast bombs, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Clustered Shots or boots of speed. I was just trying to make a character that would simulate something like an erinyes, flying around and shooting flaming arrows. She's still too good. She's too good by accident. Here, again, I would happily rebuild her if I had the option. But I don't see any point in just sort of making her crappier. I'm not even sure what I'd change since it would be so arbitrary. I think you can see, in a case like this, why I'd much rather just make her something else entirely. Anyhow, those are my higher level characters, and I've tried harder more recently to avoid this stuff from the get go.
I have noticed I have a great time playing whenever there are two or three other players, and none of them are particularly well optimized. Add a 5th (not to mention 6th) player, or even one optimized guy, and the whole thing goes to pot. The "optimized guy" doesn't even have to be particularly optimized, in fact, to have the same effect, if he's a Wizard, Paladin, Alchemist, Magus, Sorcerer, Gunslinger, or certain other classes.
Anyway, I suppose we're off topic again, but I felt like I had to answer that charge since it was so off target. Not that you had any way of knowing it was off target, because I recognize that my comments often give the unfortunate and mistaken impression that I am a "power gamer," when in fact I go pretty far out of my way not to be.
|
|
It is the nature of the Pathfinder system that in the case of many character builds (especially ones sufficiently complicated to be interesting, at least to a relatively experienced player) every part (abilities, feats, skills, magic items, etc) of said build relates to every other part, such that removing or altering even one thing will in many cases drastically negatively effect the way the build plays.Virtually the ONLY time that happens is when a player is deliberately exploiting one or more corner interpretations of a rule to get an effect, a bonus that's clearly not intended...
First of all, that hasn't been my experience at all. I've seen plenty of cases where the misinterpretation of the rules was absolutely genuine. Or it wasn't even a misinterpretation (as with Crane Style), and the rug just got pulled out from under them.
Furthermore, in many cases even when this is true (someone is using the rules in a strange way that probably fit RAW but probably aren't RAI, say), the resultant character is still at a completely reasonable power level overall. The person who does this kind of thing often could have made a much more powerful character by using existing, unquestionable mechanics, but they wanted to do something interesting or unusual. They made the weird character using the weird mechanic with the specific intent of NOT following the usual formula of uber-power.
When there is errata in such a case, you wind up punishing the player not for trying to be powerful, but just for trying to be different. That's a real shame.
|
|
...
I don't think I've read anything about your character builds prior to this post, nor do I recall you complaining about any such changes and I didn't mean to make any assumptions on your part.
I am interested to know how that session of Waking Rune was run. My encounter with the gentleman in question--which was not on Hard Mode--led off with an Empowered Spoiler, and I don't know how anyone could have avoided damage if they were in the area of effect.
I'm not questioning your experience, just interested in comparing GM tactics.
|
|
My thinking about and understanding of this keeps evolving as I have these discussions with people, and several of you in this and other threads have been very insightful and given me a lot to think about, so thank you for that.
It is clear that rebuilding can be used for evil, for good and for awesome. It would be difficult if not impossible to make a rule that barred the first, but allowed the latter two. It is also clear that frequent rebuilding negatively impacts some players' sense of verisimilitude and/or achievement.
On the other hand, this and other threads have made it just as apparent to me that there are A LOT of perfectly reasonable misunderstandings about the rules, as well as vast cultural differences from group to group concerning the very way the rules are approached in the first place, especially with regard to challenge level, RAW/RAI and reskinning/fluff issues, all of which are extremely relevant to this discussion.
For these reasons, my current stance is that a policy ought to be implemented along the lines of the following (all of which would be in addition to the existing rebuild rules):
1. Each character gets 1 lifetime, no questions asked rebuild, or can simply be retired at any time and have their XP transferred to a new character.
And/Or...
2. Each player gets 1 no questions asked rebuild of any one character per GM star.
And/Or...
3. No questions asked rebuilds are available as boon options at conventions (and ideally are not super hard to get).
The first suggestion is probably a little too much, but the second and third, or something similar, seem more than fair to me. It's awesome that Redward is such a team player and retired his overpowered Witch at 4th level, but really he ought to be allowed to transfer that XP somewhere else. And that's just one of many such examples.
This kind of policy would hopefully reduce the overall polarized, judgmental attitude that seems to be taking root in our culture somewhat, and that I am very much concerned about. It would also, perhaps, diffuse some of the tension over things like Crane Wing, Thunder and Fang, etc.
To those of you who feel I am belaboring this issue, I appreciate your indulgence and I ask that you reconsider. It may not have much effect on the way you play, personally, but it could mean quite a lot to many other players. Please bear in mind that not everyone sees the world and the game in the same way you do, and it would be best if we could find ways for us all to play the same game together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please bear in mind that not everyone sees the world and the game in the same way you do, and it would be best if we could find ways for us all to play the same game together.
I realize other people see it differently than me, but to be frank, if you are willing to change every defining thing about an existing character to something completely different and have no problems with how that effects the character's story, then you and I are not playing the same game.
IMO, rebuilds are nice...in moderation. They dont need to be as plentiful as you seem to want or need them to be. Just my 2cp though.
|
|
3. No questions asked rebuilds are available as boon options at conventions (and ideally are not super hard to get).
You my already be aware of this, but this boon is an option at GenCon, however it is super hard to get--you have to GM a minimum of 8 tables as a Tier 1 GM. The alternative reward is the choice for Tier 1 GMs is to create a character from one of the following races: grippli, ratfolk, samsaran, suli, or vishkanya, which is also the reward for GMing 7 tables.
That's the current level of "value" the campaign coordinators place on such a boon.
So in terms of "boon value", it is roughly equivalent to giving each player one free use of a restricted character race.
Many have argued for just such a thing--every player gets one "free" character of a race not otherwise openly available.
I'm not presenting this as an argument either way, just as information for the discussion.
|
|
I only want to rebuild the characters that I built legally that are now illegal due to changes the paizo staff decided to make. I understand that I am allowed to rebvuild what they changed, but my abilities are all tied together.
I am not asking for exceptions, just not to be cheated.
What was it that got changed?
|
|
You my already be aware of this, but this boon is an option at GenCon, however it is super hard to get--you have to GM a minimum of 8 tables as a Tier 1 GM. The alternative reward is the choice for Tier 1 GMs is to create a character from one of the following races: grippli, ratfolk, samsaran, suli, or vishkanya, which is also the reward for GMing 7 tables.That's the current level of "value" the campaign coordinators place on such a boon.
So in terms of "boon value", it is roughly equivalent to giving each player one free use of a restricted character race.
Many have argued for just such a thing--every player gets one "free" character of a race not otherwise openly available.
I'm not presenting this as an argument either way, just as information for the discussion.
I was not aware of this, thanks for the head's up. I guess I just feel pretty strongly that a case can be made for the expansion, even if relatively slight, of this kind of rebuild given the sheer amount of misunderstandings and disagreements that seem to exist about many facets of the rules. That's really the bottom line.
I think needing to GM eight slots at GenCon (in addition to effectively giving up the option of playing one of those other things) is too high a price to have to pay. I would think GMing a couple of tables at your local Con ought to be more than enough.
|
|
I realize other people see it differently than me, but to be frank, if you are willing to change every defining thing about an existing character to something completely different and have no problems with how that effects the character's story, then you and I are not playing the same game.
You and I are not playing the same game. And that's ok, or anyway it should be. But based on your statement "...and have no problems with how this affects the character's story," which seems to me like a very narrow way to look at things, I think it's safe to say that we will have a very hard time understanding each other. I have detailed in this and other threads the reason that I find this kind of thinking spurious. What I have never really understood is why so many players think it is not only acceptable to enforce this way of viewing story continuity on others, but that they are in fact entitled to do so and that it is even somehow a moral position. I must confess that baffles me. Nonetheless, I have taken pains to respect that thinking, and to consider it in my suggestions.
|
|
Just to give the common Mike Brock response, if you the rebuild boon would be much easier to achieve, then what should be the incentive/boon/whatever be for the Tier 1 GMs?
I think the race boon is right on the money. I am hoping to GM at that tier at Gencon, and as of now I have no idea which boon I'll choose. That's going to be an aggravatingly hard decision.
EDIT: Not to mention you're already getting a room, a book, a shirt, and whatever else...
|
|
What was it that got changed?I only want to rebuild the characters that I built legally that are now illegal due to changes the paizo staff decided to make. I understand that I am allowed to rebvuild what they changed, but my abilities are all tied together.
I am not asking for exceptions, just not to be cheated.
You are asking this question? Yet you are ont he boards that post them....