|
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.)
But that's the same for everyone else too. Home Games, non-PFS. Everyone is stuck with the broken stuff for months until it's either officially changed/updated or the book comes out. Positive consequences is that people have the opportunity to try new things, tinker around and see how other options work, and prepare for the down the road. I'm not sure I understand what you are meaning by "Negative Consequences to the campaign"? PFS is nothing like a normal campaign, and already has options to rebuild, factions randomly vanishing according to an out of game date, and random rebuilds for other classes if/when options become legal or illegal. A playtest to final class/race/etc. . . rebuild seems pretty miniscule in the grand scheme of things to me, though a huge amount of this angst could have been avoided, admittedly, if we had more communication from PFS leadership. I don't mean that in the sense of pointing fingers or calling anyone out, just saying the issue might be more with how so many thing are just up in the air around the playtest classes rather then the playtest itself, in or out of PFS. It's just much more pronounced in PFS as a DM can't make a call on this particular issue.
|
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:)
Personally I don't care that they removed Charisma. My Warpriest was a 10 Charisma before, and he'll probably stay a 10 Charisma. His Int, however, is 7 =P
Blessings were improved. I'm a fan of that. The biggest improvement IMO was qualifying for bonus feats using their level in place of their BAB. That opens up so many options that the playtest version didn't have, and that no other 3/4 class has.
It allowed my Warpriest, who uses an Earthbreaker and Klar, to take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at 6th. With his Favored Class Bonus I'm able to grab Greater Two-Weapon Fighting at 11th. I have a friend doing the same for Vital Strike.
Sure, I lost a couple points off my attack rolls, but in all honesty I didn't need them to begin with, and what we got in exchange was well worth it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, a warpriest gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats. The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes and racial Hit Dice). Finally, for the purposes of these feats, the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest level as his fighter level.
The line of Two-Weapon Fighting feats are all Combat feats.
I agree you can't take EWP at 1st level. But you can take ITWF at 6th.
Beta testing in any endeavour has never been for the risk adverse.I agree. This is exactly why it should not be forced onto every PFS game by making it PFS-legal.
PFS is not a campaign that exists to serve it's own purpose. PFS exists solely as a marketing tool and research tool for Paizo. It will always serve those functions first, which is why allowing playtest material is good for PFS. It lets Paizo use PFS to serve its primary roles; market a new product and conduct research.
|
|
While that of course is true, frankly that doesn't matter to many (most?) of the people playing the campaign. If the campaign starts to turn into a mess, with frequent rules changes and genre shifts so that the players lose interest, then Paizo will lose that marketing avenue. Of course, maybe you will gain more players than you lose.
It sounds like Paizo gains very little from having the playtest material in the PFS campaign, due to the limited window and limited feedback. It also sounds like it causes a lot of problems for the campaign, in terms of handling rebuilds, dealing with broken stuff without being able to ban/errata things, and so on. My question, not having access to the data, is this: if Paizo did not legalize playtest material for PFS, who would lose? At worst, players would have to wait a few more months for the new classes, but that would sort itself out in a year as the schedule stabilized.
Or, put the playtest rules in as NPCs and let the GM's do the playtesting! ;)
Venture-Captain, Texas—Waco
|
Or, put the playtest rules in as NPCs and let the GM's do the playtesting! ;)
Obviously that won't work: Scenarios linger forever so we'd be stuck with playtest-version NPCs for years! That would cause even more confusion than the current situation.
Put me down as voting to allow a rebuild, or at least a stat-shuffle.
While that of course is true, frankly that doesn't matter to many (most?) of the people playing the campaign. If the campaign starts to turn into a mess, with frequent rules changes and genre shifts so that the players lose interest, then Paizo will lose that marketing avenue. Of course, maybe you will gain more players than you lose.
It sounds like Paizo gains very little from having the playtest material in the PFS campaign, due to the limited window and limited feedback. It also sounds like it causes a lot of problems for the campaign, in terms of handling rebuilds, dealing with broken stuff without being able to ban/errata things, and so on. My question, not having access to the data, is this: if Paizo did not legalize playtest material for PFS, who would lose? At worst, players would have to wait a few more months for the new classes, but that would sort itself out in a year as the schedule stabilized.
Or, put the playtest rules in as NPCs and let the GM's do the playtesting! ;)
Presumably Paizo would lose. In addition to the (albeit limited) playtest feedback they also get to spend 8 months generating buzz on their premier product for the year. This certainly has an impact on sales. Also, if your buzzin' your buyin', doesn't just apply to the source of the buzz. Basically they get to be the source of the "next big thing" for 8 months out of every year. This almost certainly boosts general brand sales.
I get that folks don't want to have crazy stuff in their game, but that's what you sign up for (and the trade off) with a managed campaign like PFS.
|
|
Did campaign leadership make a decision on this this week? I know I'll be playing with more people this weekend who are using fully rebuilt PC's, and the longer this goes on the harder it will be to change, especially as this seems to be a widespread community idea. Met several more people on PFSOC who did full rebuilds with these rules this week.
