What is the official word on re-builds of the Play-Test Warpriest to the ACG Warpriest?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wakedown wrote:
Alceste008 wrote:
I figured I would go ahead and post the sections in question below..

The gist I'm getting is that some folks are reading the Additional Resources ACG section as taking precedence over the rebuilding rules in the Guide to Organized Play, thus the line on page 28 isn't applicable because other rules are given specific to ACG.

The line on page 28 is very liberal, in essence meaning:

"If a class... is altered: You may rebuild your character.."

"If a prestige class... is altered: You may rebuild your character.."

"If a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character.."

Technically all the classes were altered, many in less dramatic ways than others, so this would open full rebuilds to everyone if you took this line on page 28 and ran with it.

The question is - can you? Or is the section in Additional Resources in fact overriding the Guide to Organized play for the ACG Playtest classes.

I can think of a lot of ACG class characters that folks would like to play as soon as this weekend or in upcoming conventions that are awaiting guidance in how much they can rebuild, if anything.

I can understand that opinion. If both the docs were just talking class you go the more specific / later one. However, the guide specifically mentions ability score change for a class feature. None of the other changes from test document to published document apply because they are covered by the later doc. Thus, the only class that should be allowed a rebuild is the Warpriest.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember there being a similar conflict like this when the Synthesist Summoner was banned, where ability scores weren't allowed to be rebuilt, screwing over many characters.

At the time, someone pointed out the rule in the PFS guide, and Mike retracted his earlier ruling about not allowing ability score changes to be made, saying to instead follow the PFS guide's rule for a full rebuild.

Grand Lodge

May I play devil's advocate here?

How would you know that someone did or did not completely rebuild their character? There is no indication of class/level/etc on a chronicle. No mention of what feats, skills, traits, etc., that a character has.

Character sheets have no "history" that can be tracked.

For those of us who want to play by the rules, yes, this is an important discussion but if someone is not going to follow the rules, there is little that I believe we can do about it.

I actually believe that that is a serious flaw in the OP setup. Characters should be required to be entered online where changes can be inspected (will never happen but one can dream).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Avatar-1 wrote:

I remember there being a similar conflict like this when the Synthesist Summoner was banned, where ability scores weren't allowed to be rebuilt, screwing over many characters.

At the time, someone pointed out the rule in the PFS guide, and Mike retracted his earlier ruling about not allowing ability score changes to be made, saying to instead follow the PFS guide's rule for a full rebuild.

Shockingly history will repeat itself.

Weird I know.

Quote:

Not at my table, no. I won't sign off on a complete rebuild (warpriest to, say, ninja) and if I look through your chronicles and see that another GM has done so, the character will need to be readjusted back according to the AR document before it's legal. (If that means that your warpriest is stuck with a lot of ninja gear, sorry.)

Is that unfortunate for the Charisma-based warpriest? Yes, but that's the risks you take, playing the play-test version of rules. We knew that, going in.

If Mike or John rule otherwise, I will of course follow their guidance.

The same is true here. I assure you that synth summoner situation isn't even listed as the stats did not "change" but the stats needed were replaced. Which is the same type of situation.

You're violating the rules by forcing them to swap back. Eventually Mike will say something on this and I'm sure he will have learned from last time.

It's very clearly listed in the guide. A stat required for an ability was swapped. A full rebuild is permitted. Full stop. That is the exact situation listed in the guide.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately, I want the people at my table to have fun. If they using a rule supporting their claim. I will follow it. If the rules are grey I will almost always side with the players. Because I want them to have fun.

wrecking someones time because you are being pedantic about a ruling is silly. Now I have seen DM be strict about a ruling and they were wrong. Well that is horribly obscene.

Just make sure if you stand against a rule, make sure you take the time to make sure you are argueably correct.

Sczarni

Finlanderboy wrote:

Ultimately, I want the people at my table to have fun. If they using a rule supporting their claim. I will follow it. If the rules are grey I will almost always side with the players. Because I want them to have fun.

wrecking someones time because you are being pedantic about a ruling is silly. Now I have seen DM be strict about a ruling and they were wrong. Well that is horribly obscene.

Just make sure if you stand against a rule, make sure you take the time to make sure you are argueably correct.

Well said.

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

People could just keep their Charisma scores on their warpriests. The Society has enough socially awkward murderhobos already.

Scarab Sages 4/5

Mike Brock has started to weigh in on other threads (see the Cape of Feinting thread), so I'm hoping that means he's recovered from Gen Con and will get to this soonish. My guess is he and John know exactly how the rebuild or lack of one is supposed to work, since this isn't a new question. Unfortunately, the language in the Additional Resources combined with the guide has created a confusing situation. I think everyone is probably best off waiting a few more days before making any changes to their characters. Provided of course you don't expect to play them this weekend.

I have an Oracle/Warpriest, but I shouldn't end up playing him this week. Doing a full rebuild on him wouldn't feel quite right to me, since he was an Oracle for 5 levels before the Warpriest even existed. I retrained a level of fighter for prestige into Warpriest, then took a 2nd level to get Fervor. The change to remove Charisma hurts a little. He's only got a 12 Wisdom. It'll cost him 3 Fervor if there's no rebuild, but I knew that was a possibility. I'll make the character work with or without a rebuild.

It would be nice to know for sure what the situation is, though, as having a situation where 5-star GMs and Venture Officers adamantly disagree about what the rule is is really worse to me in some ways than the actual impact to the characters. I understand why everything was timed to coincide with Gen Con, but I do wish there weren't so many changes all at once. Staggering them would have at least given the staff time to provide examples of how the changes for the ACG classes work or the changeover in factions and what vanities are retained or lost. Right now there is a whole lot of disagreement and confusion on both issues, because we only have the guide and the additional resources to go by and no concrete examples.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrRetsej wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

Ultimately, I want the people at my table to have fun. If they using a rule supporting their claim. I will follow it. If the rules are grey I will almost always side with the players. Because I want them to have fun.

wrecking someones time because you are being pedantic about a ruling is silly. Now I have seen DM be strict about a ruling and they were wrong. Well that is horribly obscene.

Just make sure if you stand against a rule, make sure you take the time to make sure you are argueably correct.

Well said.

Was just about to post a very similar entry. Why are we all playing this game?

I play to have fun.

I really don't understand those here who are taking the hardline against allowing the players to change; in the case of the War Priest it seems only logical. Would anyone really want someone to lose the enjoyment of the game over a rules dispute after something was majorly altered from Playtest to Final. That too me just seems mean spirited. If you could explain to me how damage could be caused to the "Overall Campaign" by allowing people to make the change I would listen, but I doubt you could make a relevant argument over the critical misstep it would cause the overall campaign by allowing a few rebuilds in this case.

Let's all just play nice and have fun.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

RocMeAsmodeus wrote:
People could just keep their Charisma scores on their warpriests. The Society has enough socially awkward murderhobos already.

Yeah, but I switched to Intelligence, figuring if I couldn't be pretty, I'd at least be smart. I was very tired of not rolling skill checks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Avatar-1 wrote:

I remember there being a similar conflict like this when the Synthesist Summoner was banned, where ability scores weren't allowed to be rebuilt, screwing over many characters.

At the time, someone pointed out the rule in the PFS guide, and Mike retracted his earlier ruling about not allowing ability score changes to be made, saying to instead follow the PFS guide's rule for a full rebuild.

Paizo (aka through Mike as their representive) is the ultimate owner of the two documents (guide & additional resources)in question. Paizo as owner can change the intent and meaning of those docs as they see fit. Until that time, the logic heavily favors the class feature ability change being a more specific condition thus rebuild being allowed.

3/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Finlanderboy is on the right track. What DMs should not try to do is use pedantic readings (and misinterpretations of the rules) to tear down a player's character when the entire purpose of the game is to be a fun social activity.

I too am very disappointed to see long time 5-star DMs in this thread going against the spirit and precedent of the rebuild rule, which as far as I can tell is to allow players to salvage character broken by rule changes. And seeing this now I am glad that I purposefully did not play any playtest classes above 1st level.


Saint Caleth wrote:

Finlanderboy is on the right track. What DMs should not try to do is use pedantic readings (and misinterpretations of the rules) to tear down a player's character when the entire purpose of the game is to be a fun social activity.

I too am very disappointed to see long time 5-star DMs in this thread going against the spirit and precedent of the rebuild rule, which as far as I can tell is to allow players to salvage character broken by rule changes. And seeing this now I am glad that I purposefully did not play any playtest classes above 1st level.

As am I. Eventually it will be clarified (and a rebuild will be permitted) but I'd loath to not be allowed a rebuild when something as significant as a stat is changed. It explicitly calls it out in the rules. There's no real conflict or confusing interpretation of the rules unless you chose for there to be one.

Specific>General. This is literally a PHB rule.

General for ACG - You can't retrain or rebuild you can only use the updated version unless a rule was removed or prerequisites changed.

Specific from guide - You can always rebuild if a stat required for a class feature is altered.

Therefor the specific guide rule clear.

I don't even understand the confusion.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'm a bit confused that we still don't have an answer to this, the Faction change issue, the Tech Guide issue, and the like sine before Gencon.

I just mean it's kind of odd that we haven't really even seen something like "We know and are looking into it", rather than "drop everything and do it now".

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Maybe they've been on vacation this week?

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/55/55/5

They have, in fact, been on vacation. I'm pretty sure they weren't secret about this fact (but not, like, announcing it publicly). I mean, after running nonstop from PaizoCon to PaizoConUK to GenCon with more than usual on their plate than even a normal "con season" brings...

Yea, I'd personally be cutting Mike and John and everyone else at Paizo *quite* a bit of slack right about now :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me that just about everybody agrees with the "specific trumps general" rule, but it also seems to me that there are two ways to read that:

You could argue (as the majority here have) that the AR rule is general for ACG, and the Guide provides the specific for the class feature dependent ability change for the Warpriest only.

However, you could also argue that the Guide provides the general rule for how to handle rule changes as a result of playtests, errata, etc., and the AR provides the specific on how to do that with the ACG.

A ruling from the PFS team would definitely be helpful (once they've had a chance to recover); I absolutely agree that the primary goal here is "have fun" but I would like to know what to tell a player asking for advice.


Has there been a official answer on this yet?

Shadow Lodge

Nope. Far as I can tell, none of the issues since preGenCon are being squared away, though there was an official response in the PFS Guide thread a few days back about a Sept update for something.

Scarab Sages

I say if someone paid the $40 for the new book let them have the rebuild. Treat your customers with respect. I think that trumps everything.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm caught up on this thread. Based on my reading, the main quandaries boil down to the following:

  • Are playtest warpriests able to adjust their ability scores based on the fervor class ability's new dependence on Wisdom?
  • Are playtest warpriests able to adjust character features tied to these ability scores (e.g. losing ranks in Diplomacy to instead put them in Sense Motive)?
  • Are playtest warpriests able to alter any other character choices/options (e.g. feats) as part of any rebuilding process?
  • Are playtest warpriests able to take archetypes as part of any rebuilding process?
  • What are the warpriest's retraining synergies (as per Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Campaign's retraining rules on page 190)?

    From more of an "interpretation of the law" of the perspective, it sounds like the following are also important:

  • What is the intended interaction between the Guide's and the Additional Resources' entries about retraining for the warpriest?
  • Should one or both be revised based on any of the above rulings?

    DM Beckett wrote:

    Honestly, I'm a bit confused that we still don't have an answer to this, the Faction change issue, the Tech Guide issue, and the like sine before Gencon.

    I just mean it's kind of odd that we haven't really even seen something like "We know and are looking into it", rather than "drop everything and do it now".

    Yep, I started with getting more of the sanctioning projects done and catching up on upcoming scenario assignments. There are still a lot of pre-Gen Con inquiries that I'm still following up on.

  • Shadow Lodge

    No worries. Like I said, that wasn't meant as a "do it now" as much as I just kind of find it odd that official clarification on a lot of things has been noticeably silent across the board, PFS and PF.

    Shadow Lodge

    I'd also like to add in, "Can PFS reword Divine Protect to only apply to prepped casters where it's much more in line, but still cool, and make it legal?"

    Half joking.

    But only half. Seriously, Clerics need some new shiny, too.

    Maybe.

    Might be serious. :P

    4/5

    John Compton wrote:

    I'm caught up on this thread. Based on my reading, the main quandaries boil down to the following:

  • Are playtest warpriests able to adjust their ability scores based on the fervor class ability's new dependence on Wisdom?
  • Are playtest warpriests able to adjust character features tied to these ability scores (e.g. losing ranks in Diplomacy to instead put them in Sense Motive)?
  • Are playtest warpriests able to alter any other character choices/options (e.g. feats) as part of any rebuilding process?
  • Are playtest warpriests able to take archetypes as part of any rebuilding process?
  • What are the warpriest's retraining synergies (as per Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Campaign's retraining rules on page 190)?

    From more of an "interpretation of the law" of the perspective, it sounds like the following are also important:

  • What is the intended interaction between the Guide's and the Additional Resources' entries about retraining for the warpriest?
  • Should one or both be revised based on any of the above rulings?
  • I'd say that just about covers it. Although the question of retraining synergy is less specific to the Warpriest and more an issue for all ACG classes, especially if the Warpriests do get any kind of rebuild.

    Also, I believe the Additional Resources still implies Core Deities only for Warpriest. Having your clarification in there would be nice.

    Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/55/55/5

    One more tiny question (admittedly more of a rules call than a PFS call), but does a neutral warpriest with an evil deity lose the ability to heal themselves entirely (the text doesn't say one way or the other which makes the issue a bit ambiguous for more than one of my locals who've asked me this)?

    Thanks.


    Mike Bramnik wrote:

    One more tiny question (admittedly more of a rules call than a PFS call), but does a neutral warpriest with an evil deity lose the ability to heal themselves entirely (the text doesn't say one way or the other which makes the issue a bit ambiguous for more than one of my locals who've asked me this)?

    Thanks.

    If you mean by using Fervor than yes, if you worship an Evil Deity you spontaneously cast inflict spells which puts you in the Negative Energy section of Fervor and Channel Energy.

    4/5

    DM Beckett wrote:

    I'd also like to add in, "Can PFS reword Divine Protect to only apply to prepped casters where it's much more in line, but still cool, and make it legal?"

    Half joking.

    But only half. Seriously, Clerics need some new shiny, too.

    Maybe.

    Might be serious. :P

    If that were the case, I think we would see an influx of channeling specialized clerics. :p Envoys of balance everywhere!

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    DM Beckett wrote:
    No worries. Like I said, that wasn't meant as a "do it now" as much as I just kind of find it odd that official clarification on a lot of things has been noticeably silent across the board, PFS and PF.

    I'm just surprised because ACG was finalized and sent off to the printers way back in February or so. While I understand that there are other projects requiring manpower and priority, not having transitional rules for rebuilds & training synergies ready at launch for an organized campaign is a bit disappointing. (While training synergies may fall under the purview of the developers/rules team and be something PFS organizers have to wait on like the rest of us, clear and unified rebuild rules should have been in place.)

    Obviously there are other factors at play that I as a consumer don't know about--as someone who works in a public-facing position but also deals with all the corporate cogs and gears in back, I know there's only so much PFS organizers can or will share. I just hope that for any future products like the ACG that campaign leadership has transitional stuff ready at launch.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I got all excited to see a developer response and then noticed it was just re-stating the question, heh. I'm glad they're looking at the question though! Edge of my seat waiting for an answer here - this issue is very relevant to my warpriest.


    Still no answer. I'm assuming as nearly a month has passed and many people have already been playing their fully rebuilt PC's that the Devs sided with full rebuilds based on the wording? The wording did seem pretty clear that they were full rebuilds and I know several players who rebuilt PC's (some deservedly so, like my friend who had a worthless monk after crane nerf) based on that ruling and have been playing said PC's.

    Shadow Lodge

    Im still hopefull for a full or nearly full rebuild, but so far in our home game we have basically placed PFS on hold until its all figured out. Ive got 3 games reported that need the Factions altered once we get word on that and no one is really interested in continuing with the numeria/tech scenarios.

    Scarab Sages 4/5

    Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
    Still no answer. I'm assuming as nearly a month has passed and many people have already been playing their fully rebuilt PC's that the Devs sided with full rebuilds based on the wording? The wording did seem pretty clear that they were full rebuilds and I know several players who rebuilt PC's (some deservedly so, like my friend who had a worthless monk after crane nerf) based on that ruling and have been playing said PC's.

    John Compton replied to this thread 3 days ago seeking confirmation of all of the issues in the thread. That leads me to believe he and Mike are working on a response. I'm hopeful that might be coming in the form of a blog on Monday. That would make sense given the need to reach the broader PFS audience and that this is not the only issue that needs clarification.


    Did they come out with a ruling yet? Know a few people based off their (seems to be RAW) reading of the rules played rebuilt PC's this weekend.

    4/5

    My Warpriest is parked and soaking up GM credit. I'm hoping to play him in two weeks but I don't want to lock in anything until I know what changes are legal.

    I am concerned that a lot of people will have already rebuilt their characters and will either be unable or 'unable' to return them to pre-GenCon form should it turn out rebuilds aren't allowed. I've got backup HeroLab files at every XP, but I don't expect anyone else to be that ridiculously anal.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    On the plus side, I would like to thank management for letting us play these classes in PFS during the playtest. On the minus side...

    5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'd be really interested to see how many PFS players who use the playtest material actually submit playtest reports... as a complete NON-fan of playtest material in the campaign, I would love to know if the numbers actually bear out the hassles, problems, and bad feelings that accompany every round of inevitable changes when the playtest becomes the published version. Paizo has stated they don't want errata to kill the game, but by allowing playtest material in their OP campaign, they are creating the same issue.

    What if playtest material was made available in PFS by GMs, and not by players? In other words, a GM could say, "I'm a playtest GM - bring all the new playtest characters to my table!" Those are the folks more likely to report useful results, and it spares the newer GMs, already overwhelmed with the system mastery requirements, from having to learn 10 new classes in a week, twice a year. That way, everyone opts in to being a play-tester, and knows from the start that this character is likely to require changes. While you might get less playtest data from PFS, it will be better data.

    (Yes, I know... cons, mustering, other problems, yadda yadda. GMs would have to "opt in" to playtesting for big cons, but they'd know that in advance.)

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I like that idea a lot, GM Lamplighter. With that said, I had a lot of fun playing a Warpriest in the playtest at normal tables.

    4/5

    GM Lamplighter wrote:
    I'd be really interested to see how many PFS players who use the playtest material actually submit playtest reports...

    Speaking only for myself, I was barely able to get any games in due to the relatively short playtest window for the ACG.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    redward wrote:
    GM Lamplighter wrote:
    I'd be really interested to see how many PFS players who use the playtest material actually submit playtest reports...
    Speaking only for myself, I was barely able to get any games in due to the relatively short playtest window for the ACG.

    Relatively short? It felt like it took an eternity! I was so incredibly eager to get my hands on the real ACG... waiting for it was harder than most book releases.

    Paizo Employee 5/5 Designer

    The Morphling wrote:
    redward wrote:
    GM Lamplighter wrote:
    I'd be really interested to see how many PFS players who use the playtest material actually submit playtest reports...
    Speaking only for myself, I was barely able to get any games in due to the relatively short playtest window for the ACG.
    Relatively short? It felt like it took an eternity! I was so incredibly eager to get my hands on the real ACG... waiting for it was harder than most book releases.

    Unfortunately, though, most of that time you spent waiting (over half a year) wasn't part of the playtest window. It's just that your playtest characters remained legal past the window until the book's release.

    4/5

    The Morphling wrote:
    redward wrote:
    GM Lamplighter wrote:
    I'd be really interested to see how many PFS players who use the playtest material actually submit playtest reports...
    Speaking only for myself, I was barely able to get any games in due to the relatively short playtest window for the ACG.
    Relatively short? It felt like it took an eternity! I was so incredibly eager to get my hands on the real ACG... waiting for it was harder than most book releases.

    The playtest, the window in which player feedback could be incorporated into the development process, was relatively short. The classes in playtest form remained available for PFS after the playtest itself was closed.

    /Rogue ninja'd

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    redward wrote:


    /Rogue ninja'd

    Illegal hybrid! Can't multiclass rogue with itself :)

    Shadow Lodge

    GM Lamplighter wrote:
    What if playtest material was made available in PFS by GMs, and not by players? In other words, a GM could say, "I'm a playtest GM - bring all the new playtest characters to my table!" Those are the folks more likely to report useful results, and it spares the newer GMs, already overwhelmed with the system mastery requirements, from having to learn 10 new classes in a week, twice a year. That way, everyone opts in to being a play-tester, and knows from the start that this character is likely to require changes. While you might get less playtest data from PFS, it will be better data.

    Probably not a good idea, as it would just limit the actual playtest data even more. I'm not sure if DM's are really even the target reporting audience as much as the players, so it seems kind of counterintuitive. For PFS, if they did do this, I would honestly hope they do it for 1-3 star DM's only, and not Cons and big events, but specifically focus more towards home games. But all in all, I'm not sure it's a good idea at all. Playtest data should come from as many different avenue and playstyles as possible. PFS DM's, as we have seen with the Magus and Summoner, are perfectly within their rights to say no to some classes or options if they choose to.

    The Morphling wrote:
    Relatively short? It felt like it took an eternity! I was so incredibly eager to get my hands on the real ACG... waiting for it was harder than most book releases.

    The actual window to play and report was incredibly short, and also included two separate version of a playtest, leading a lot of people to complain that (at least for some classes) that the playtesting was basically ignored.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Good point, I hadn't thought about that.

    The playtest turned out to be great though, right? They got rid of the atrocious first design of the Warpriest, and fixed Arcanist a lot. They solved the issues with Swashbucklers not being able to play their characters until level 2 due to the missing required feats.

    Sure, it maybe could have been longer. But I feel it did its job.

    Paizo Employee 5/5 Designer

    The Morphling wrote:

    Good point, I hadn't thought about that.

    The playtest turned out to be great though, right? They got rid of the atrocious first design of the Warpriest, and fixed Arcanist a lot. They solved the issues with Swashbucklers not being able to play their characters until level 2 due to the missing required feats.

    Sure, it maybe could have been longer. But I feel it did its job.

    I think there were a huge number of great improvements last time around (I personally was particularly impressed by the subtle, elegant changes Sean put into the final hunter from the playtest second version to make it awesome), I think this time we can do even better than last time!

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

    I'm one of the (few? many?) people that believe the Warpriest was actually improved rather than nerfed.

    5/5

    DM Beckett makes great points on why using playtest material in PFS is good for the *playtest*... I've yet to be convinced that doing so is good for the PFS campaign itself, though. Especially since a lot of that time, there is no data even being used. In other words, Paizo already knows what they need to fix, but PFS has to keep using the broken stuff for months. This is a problem for GMs and players alike. These continued, "I want a rebuild!" discussions every year are proof that there are negative consequences to the campaign.

    Can someone offer positive consequences that outweigh this?

    (I'm not naive, I can think of some, but they seem to be aimed at the grey-area builders looking for more +1's and not the campaign as a whole. I'm looking for a net-positive reason for this to keep happening.)

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Nefreet wrote:
    I'm one of the (few? many?) people that believe the Warpriest was actually improved rather than nerfed.

    Can you explain? I don't remember the exact changes, but what was improved on (in terms of power, not design) the Warpriest in the actual book? I had thought it was literally just a reduction of BAB on sacred weapon attacks, and perhaps some blessing tweaks.


    The Morphling wrote:
    Nefreet wrote:
    I'm one of the (few? many?) people that believe the Warpriest was actually improved rather than nerfed.
    Can you explain? I don't remember the exact changes, but what was improved on (in terms of power, not design) the Warpriest in the actual book? I had thought it was literally just a reduction of BAB on sacred weapon attacks, and perhaps some blessing tweaks.

    They monostat'd them and took Charisma out of the equation. Thats the only real change I noticed.

    IMO, its about an even trade off. But I don't like playing PC's with a Charisma between 5 and 20:)

    Silver Crusade

    Monostatting is pretty huge. Don't know if its BAB huge, but still pretty nice. There are no 6-level casters with full BAB, so I'm fine with it.

    51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / What is the official word on re-builds of the Play-Test Warpriest to the ACG Warpriest? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.