|
I petition to even the field, that early entry be banned for all PrCs.If it were done at the PFRPG rules level (i.e., reversing that FAQ) then I'd be fine with it. But let's definitely not do it at the PFS level. If we start changing whichever rules enough people don't like, then we need to stop referring rules questions to the Rules forum and just answer them all here, and stop telling people that PFS just follows PFRPG rules wherever possible.
Generally I'd agree with you. But one of the reasons is to make it the same rule across the board. This would do that.
Its obvious that even the design/development team wasn't fully convinced in their own decision based on the note on the FAQ. James Jacobs also was, seemingly, vehemently against that rule applying to the Evangelist PrC.
As such, there is no reason to reverse this ruling by the PFS team.
|
It seems like it would be far less heartache to open up new content then it would be to reverse a previous ruling and then tell everyone they have to rebuild their characters. There isn't even something close for them to rebuild into you just actually have changed their entire class progression.
Allowing Evangelist early entry won't cause any new power related concerns any more so than other options which I would argue also haven't caused any power related concerns.
|
|
I have to agree with all the posters that advocate just dis-allowing the SLA early entry technique.
In my opinion the very clear intent was to limit entry to a specific level tiers (can't say level because of the difference between wizard and sorcerer spell-casting) but NOT place the undue hardship the 'traditional' method (of requiring skill ranks) places on less intelligent characters or characters in low skill point classes such as cleric/sorcerer.
I don't care whether or not they are overpowered nearly as much as the 'oddity' of a situation to coerces people that want to play fun (and frankly often weaker PrCs) to pigeonhole themselves into one of the few corner case so they can qualify for early entry.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I concur with everyone who's unhappy with the SLA / early entry into Prestige Class situation. It's weird. (And I say this as a player whose Aasimar barbarian / sorcerer / eldritch knight benefits from the ruling.)
Could someone recommend an essay or discussion on the nature of Prestige Classes? Maybe the designers could make a more consistent rule if we had a better handle on just what the game feature is supposed to do?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Generally I'd agree with you. But one of the reasons is to make it the same rule across the board. This would do that.I petition to even the field, that early entry be banned for all PrCs.If it were done at the PFRPG rules level (i.e., reversing that FAQ) then I'd be fine with it. But let's definitely not do it at the PFS level. If we start changing whichever rules enough people don't like, then we need to stop referring rules questions to the Rules forum and just answer them all here, and stop telling people that PFS just follows PFRPG rules wherever possible.
So would lifting the Evangelist-only restriction. Except that of these two ways of making it "the same rule across the board", in one case it complies with standard PFRPG rules and in the other it's yet another PFS exception that must be learned and remembered. The two are not equal (at least, not if we still have a goal of keeping PFS rules as close to PFRPG rules as can be reasonably maintained).
Its obvious that even the design/development team wasn't fully convinced in their own decision based on the note on the FAQ.
Not so. Note that the "we'll reverse it if it breaks anything" part is an edit added after the fact. Here's how the story went down:
First, it was just the FAQ.
Then those who are adept with rules started noticing the ramifications of it (i.e., early entry into PrCs) and posted about it.
Then there was an outcry, on par with the old Flurry/TWF angst. People cried out that it couldn't possibly mean that, that XYZ pedantry means it doesn't work (like "it says 'spells', plural"), that everything would break if it were true, and that surely even if it were true then it was an oversight and the developers will reverse it as soon as they realize.
Dozens of threads were started. SKR in particular (and also the PDT account) appeared in many of them, shooting down excuse after excuse of why the FAQ couldn't possibly mean early entry.
Finally, after their FAQ-flag queue was flooded with posts asking the same already-answered questions over and over again in attempts to get the PDT to either reverse the original FAQ or make another ruling to block its ramifications, they finally added that note to say that it really does work that way.
The promise to revisit it if it broke anything was not an announcement of their own uncertainty, it was a pacifier added after the fact, in response to (unfounded) public outcry.
I know that's not as visible when you're looking back a year later, but I was right there in the middle of it, watching the whole thing unfold in real time. The design team consistently and repeatedly asserted the legitimacy of early entry, then finally gave in to the vocal minority who would be satisfied by nothing less than an explicit declaration of validity and a promise that the sky wouldn't fall.
But in any case, the point is that regardless of whether that FAQ is kept or reversed, if PFS still has a goal of sticking to PFRPG rules wherever possible, it should do so here too. Either follow the PDT's current ruling, or convince them to reverse it, but don't go a different direction. (Or at least, don't go a different direction and then still claim to be a campaign that follows PFRPG rules wherever possible.)
The deviation gains us nothing.
|
|
'oddity' of a situation to coerces people that want to play fun (and frankly often weaker PrCs) to pigeonhole themselves into one of the few corner case so they can qualify
I'm personally thankful that doing some amount of pigeonholing lets me actually play the prestige class for more levels and enjoy what it has to offer. I'm sure anyone else who has actually used this option feels the same way and probably wouldn't be so happy losing their character.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Could someone recommend an essay or discussion on the nature of Prestige Classes? Maybe the designers could make a more consistent rule if we had a better handle on just what the game feature is supposed to do?
What does that have to do with whether or not PFS should stick to PFRPG rules?
Wouldn't a petition to reevaluate that FAQ be better suited to the Rules forum or maybe Product Discussion or something?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for this special exception that deviates from PFRPG rules, we're adding a piece of complexity to an already complex system in order to get... what? Presumably some sort of concern for power, but what power are you seeing?
Evangelist is different from other prestige classes (except Dragon Disciple) in that it is fully a gestalt of two or more classes.
An Eldritch Knight, for example, gains the full BAB and d10 hp of a fighter, but only some of the fighter feats (and none of the other class features), and gains some of the spell-casting levels of wizard, but only some of the bonus feats (and none of the other class features).
By contrast, the Evangelist gains ALL of the aligned class abilities (delayed by only one level) and then adds a bunch of new abilities on top of that.
A wizard* 5/evangelist 7, has:
- +7 BAB, that is higher than a wizard 12;
- 6th-level spells, same as a wizard 12;
- All of the same class features as a wizard 12, including bonus feats, and (Sp) and (Su) abilities granted by their school specialty;
- 7 more hp than a wizard 12;
- All of the Evangelist abilities on top of that: two more class skills, +2 dodge bonus to AC, two divine boons, and a free language.
This prestige class is more powerful than other prestige classes. You get all the benefits of your base class plus a lot more.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So for this special exception that deviates from PFRPG rules, we're adding a piece of complexity to an already complex system in order to get... what? Presumably some sort of concern for power, but what power are you seeing?Evangelist is different from other prestige classes (except Dragon Disciple) in that it is fully a gestalt of two or more classes.
An Eldritch Knight, for example, gains the full BAB and d10 hp of a fighter, but only some of the fighter feats (and none of the other class features), and gains some of the spell-casting levels of wizard, but only some of the bonus feats (and none of the other class features).
By contrast, the Evangelist gains ALL of the aligned class abilities (delayed by only one level) and then adds a bunch of new abilities on top of that.
A wizard* 5/evangelist 7, has:
- +7 BAB, that is higher than a wizard 12;
- 6th-level spells, same as a wizard 12;
- All of the same class features as a wizard 12, including bonus feats, and (Sp) and (Su) abilities granted by their school specialty;
- 7 more hp than a wizard 12;
- All of the Evangelist abilities on top of that: two more class skills, +2 dodge bonus to AC, two divine boons, and a free language.
This prestige class is more powerful than other prestige classes. You get all the benefits of your base class plus a lot more.
This post would make a lot of sense in a discussion about whether Evangelist should be legal at all.
But if we're starting with the assumption that it's going to remain legal, then the comparison you need to make is between standard Evangelist and early Evangelist.
Do that, and share what you come up with. After all, that's really all this thread needs. Either it really is a power issue and we keep the restriction in pace, or it's not and it would be safe to get back in line with PFRPG rules.
Don't really care which way it goes, as long as we either go back to matching PFRPG rules or have an actual, legitimate reason to deviate. If that reason is that getting the Evangelist's class features two levels earlier is overpowered, so be it, but that's gonna need to be shown, not just assumed.
So far, nobody's shown it, or really even tried.
|
|
I think you just traded a spell progression level for a bab and some abilities. I'm not gonna lie I would be pretty sad when I don't get my 7th level spell next level and probably was upset when I didn't get my 6th, 5th, 4th level spells etc before this. In fact the only reason I could even consider this trade is because of those abilities which is why this prestige class is perfectly acceptable.
|
|
If losing out on one level of spell progression is going to make you sad, then don't take a prestige class that removes one level of spell progression.
"I gave up one level of spell progression. All I got in return was +1 BAB every 4 levels, +1 hp per level, a slew of spell-like abilities, weapon proficiency in my deity's favored weapon, a free language, two more class skills, and a lousy +2 dodge bonus to AC. :("
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If losing out on one level of spell progression is going to make you sad, then don't take a prestige class that removes one level of spell progression.
"I gave up one level of spell progression. All I got in return was +1 BAB every 4 levels, +1 hp per level, a slew of spell-like abilities, weapon proficiency in my deity's favored weapon, a free language, two more class skills, and a lousy +2 dodge bonus to AC. :("
You just tried to suggest that +1/4 BAB, +2 AC, and weapon proficiency would be part of an attractive deal for a wizard.
And anyway, that's still beside the point: you get those things with the (already legal) traditional entry (and it hasn't broken anything so far). For the purpose of this thread, you need to demonstrate that the change from entering at 6th to entering at 4th makes a game-warping difference.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the purpose of this thread, you need to demonstrate that the change from entering at 6th to entering at 4th makes a game-warping difference.
Actually, I don't. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo. It always has been.
How will changing this rule improve the campaign?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Here's an interesting question: If I make a cleric 1/wizard 3/mystic theurge 1 (using early entry for Mystic Theurge), can I go into Evangelist and use Mystic Theurge as my aligned class?
That's a rules question, and one which has been asked a lot and I'm sure is on the Design Team's radar.
|
|
So for this special exception that deviates from PFRPG rules, we're adding a piece of complexity to an already complex system in order to get... what? Presumably some sort of concern for power, but what power are you seeing?
I am arguing that we should add this point of clarification, or a house rule, to reduce the complexity. It's not about power. It's about the current interpretation being the interpretation that leads to more complexity and annoyance. Reversing this SLA does not increase the complexity. Sure, it introduces another point of difference between the PFS and standard Pathfinder, but we've already got a gigantic Additional Resources worth of document that does that; this is hardly a significant increase in that document, but the simplification of the rules system that would result would be a substantive change.
Making the ruling that SLAs do not provide prerequisites for prestige classes would reduce complexity, reduce complication. You get the latter when you have weird edge cases that result from interactions of the rules in strange and highly individual ways, instead of things that are clear and come out as expected. The developers as a whole have, I believe, made a mistake by issuing the FAQ that SLAs can provide prerequisites for prestige classes. In home games, we can fix it. In PFS, we're stuck with it. The point of this would be, at least for PFS, to make everything more sane.
Again, better would be to get the developers as a whole to reverse that ruling. (Then, people who want it can create the more complicated system in their home games by a house rule.) But, if we're not going to get that, at least we can turn down the fiddilybits knob just a little bit on PFS. John has the ability to do that much unilaterally.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Jame Jacobs is one of the rules guys.No, he's the Creative Director.
This is an awful lot like splitting hairs, Jiggy. He's a developer that wrote the Core Rulebook. His perspectives on a lot of things hold water at tables I play at. To accept some of his rulings and not others is to pick and choose what rules to follow, if you choose to follow any of them.
When he posts that SLAs don't qualify for early entry into Evangelist, that's the Pathfinder rules decision, as far as I'm concerned.No, it's not. He often says things that are in flat contradiction to how the rules actually work. A post from him about how something is supposed to work can certainly give us insight into what the intent was when something was written, but is no more of a "rules response" than say Chris Lambertz telling us how she would run things.
If you were to take posts from JJ as being "the Pathfinder rules decision", I could make you cry with the list of posts I could come up with that you'd need to start enforcing in contradiction to the actual rules of the game. :/
He's human and makes mistakes, as everyone does. However, in this regard, there has been no other developer chatter on the subject, so I would surmise he is likely correct. If he was incorrect, surely a developer would have pointed it out by now as that post was made some time ago.
Feel free to compare apples to oranges if you so choose, but Chris Lambertz is not the creative director. Similar to highlander, you can only really compare James Jacobs to James Jacobs. There can be only one.
------------------------------------
Good update John!
My thoughts:
- Inner Sea Gods had a few editorial issues out of the gate, and given the lay out of the other two companion prestige classes I agree with your assessment that the intent was that all three prestige classes be accessible after level 5.
- ISG is chock full of juicy stuff for any religious PC and changing the entry requirement from level 4 to level 6 on one of the three PRCs isn't going to cause a wave of people to suddenly start buying this book. There are already 2 prestige classes that are legal for 19 deities (so 38 prestige options), not to mention pages of feats, spells, and magic items. All of this without considering that Evangelist is all ready legal. The only thing that isn't legal is getting into it two levels early.
- I think it sends a bad message to change PFS policy so soon after announcing Core. Especially when part of the Core selling points was that the Core campaign would in no way effect the current PFS campaign. This would help invalidate those claims as this argument began in a Core thread.
- If the reason that early entry to this PRC was disallowed was because of my first point (pending what that developer said), then that is all need be said on the matter. Even if there is a solid argument for why entry at level 4 versus level 6 exists, it doesn't matter. The PRC was designed to be entered at level 6, not level 4. Case closed.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For the purpose of this thread, you need to demonstrate that the change from entering at 6th to entering at 4th makes a game-warping difference.Actually, I don't. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo. It always has been.
You mean like how someone had to prove it was overpowered in order to put the restriction into place to begin with?
Oh wait.
The "status quo" is for PFS to use the PFRPG rules. If the burden of proof is on the folks who want to deviate from the status quo, then it's sitting squarely on the shoulders of those who want a special exception for this one class.
The fact that the ruling got made without ever getting that proof first doesn't change that. I am retroactively asking for the proof that justifies having deviated from the status quo. If there's no proof, then we should revert back.
How will changing this rule improve the campaign?
By reducing the number of exceptions to "PFS uses PFRPG rules" that new participants in the campaign have to find/remember. (Also I value congruency between claims and actions, so I'd really like it if I could be confident that a campaign claiming to stick to the ruleset except where necessary for balance concerns was actually doing so; gimme the proof, and I'll have that confidence!)
|
|
As a minor note, I've never had any problem explaining to new players how Pathfinder treats SLAs in regard to prestige classes. Some friends who have a background in D&D 3.X and earlier may go "how peculiar!" but on the whole anyone this is explained to is excited to be able to play the Eldritch Knight or Bloatmage or Mystic Theurge of their dreams.
But I will reemphasize that the discussion on whether or not SLAs should allow early entry has no place in this thread, wherein we only care specifically if getting into Evangelist a couple of levels early should warrant this exception barring early entry.
The only option suggested that would be potentially "too powerful" to gain is the Summon Monster V ability that is not legal. People have mentioned that the "burden of proof" is on the individuals who would like to see this restriction removed, but I'm bemused by that. I can't offer up any situations where removing this restriction would lead to an overpowered character, nor can anyone who dislikes the possibility of removing the restriction-- doesn't that prove the point?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is an awful lot like splitting hairs, Jiggy. He's a developer that wrote the Core Rulebook. His perspectives on a lot of things hold water at tables I play at. To accept some of his rulings and not others is to pick and choose what rules to follow, if you choose to follow any of them.Jame Jacobs is one of the rules guys.No, he's the Creative Director.
A messageboard post is not a "ruling". James Jacobs doesn't make rulings. He comments, he discusses, but he does not make rulings. In fact, since we're talking about PFS here, the only "rulings" are printed rules, official FAQs, and clarifications from campaign leadership (i.e., Mike and John). Thus, even aside from the fact that commentary from JJ is not a ruling in any sense of the word, there's also the fact that only two people from Paizo can make messageboard posts that impact PFS.
He's human and makes mistakes, as everyone does. However, in this regard, there has been no other developer chatter on the subject, so I would surmise he is likely correct. If he was incorrect, surely a developer would have pointed it out by now as that post was made some time ago.
So the design team makes a ruling, JJ contradicts it, and in order for you to not consider his contradictory post to be official, you need the design team to come back and re-state that the rules/FAQs they already put into place have not just been overturned? Would you really expect a developer to jump out and make a comment every time a Paizo employee makes an incorrect claim about the rules?
"They didn't repeat themselves after JJ contradicted them" is not the same as "No other developer chatter on the subject".
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I apologize Jiggy. Let's use your facts for my argument then.
In this instance the rulings came from Mike and John and now non-Paizo people are arguing for those rulings to be changed. Since one of the only types of rulings in PFS is a clarification from campaign leadership, why are we debating anything? A rules decision for PFS has already been made.
This thread is the essence of "I don't like this I want it changed," IMO.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This thread is the essence of "I don't like this I want it changed," IMO.
I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise. Aren't we allowed to ask for a change when we don't like something? Heck, isn't that how the entire CoreCampaign came into existence, because there were things that a portion of the playerbase didn't like and wanted to be different? Isn't that how the quickrunner's shirt got banned, by non-Paizo people voicing their dislike of it and asking for action? Why do you talk like this is a bad thing?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the purpose of this thread, you need to demonstrate that the change from entering at 6th to entering at 4th makes a game-warping difference.Actually, I don't. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo. It always has been.
How will changing this rule improve the campaign?
I agree 100% that the burden of proof is on the people that want this changed. It has been status quo for the last 6 months that you cannot use SLAs to early entry your way into Evangelist. Now some people are arguing for it to be changed. Those people need to convince the campaign leadership why.
Here are some reasons I came up with a while ago for why early entry evangelist would be detrimental to the campaign.
You know all those pounce kitties that everyone hates? Well, at level 11 an early entry evangelist of Erastil gets this.
Twin Fang (Ex) Once per day as a standard action, you can summon an exact double of your animal companion. The double acts and thinks like your animal companion in every way, and obeys your commands just as the original would. Your original animal companion and its double understand and trust each other perfectly. The double remains for 1 round for every Hit Die you possess, and then vanishes. If you don’t have an animal companion, you instead gain the ability to use summon nature’s ally V as a spell-like ability once per day.
Great, two pounce kitties for a fight once per day! Or, as a more cynical poster could frame it “two disposable PCs that out damage 90% of character builds!”
---------------------More animal companion irritances. At level 11, an early entry evangelist of Gorum gets this.
If you make a full attack while mounted, your mount also attacks with great enthusiasm. You must attempt a Ride check as normal to fiht with a combat-trained mount. If your Ride check succeeds, your mount can attack with a +4 bonus on its attack and damage rolls.
Put another way, “since you cannot fail Ride checks at level 11, your mount gets an un typed +4 to hit and damage whenever you make a full attack.” That seems pretty strong, especially when general consensus is that animal companions do not need to be buffed.
-------------------Blaster casters often get flak for obliterating encounters before other PCs get to act. Surely early entry evangelists of Rovagug, the God of friendship and constructive table behavior would receive similar criticsm. Especially when they have access to this at level 11.
By calling on the rage of the Rough Beast, you gain the ability to deal terrific damage with your spells. You can use this ability when casting a spell that deals hit point damage and has a casting time of 1 standard action or less. You can choose to cast the spell as a full-round action to gain a +4 bonus to its save DC. In addition, you treat all 1s rolled on your damage dice for the spell as 2s instead.
That’s pretty not-terrible for a character that already has the potential to dominate the spotlight at a table. Do they really need this buff?
-----------------------Ultimately, what is the goal of all this? Are there really so many theoretical builds that require entry to this PRC two levels early? Are there players whose creativity is honestly being squelched by this minor change? Is there truly nothing else in the book that holds interest for PFS aside from early entry evangelists? Or is this just another tweak that if made would cause more power creep in PFS?
Please, tell me that I am wrong and give me examples that disprove the evidence I've already found to condemn this idea. If I'm truly in the wrong here, show me what is right.
If SLAs end up getting changed to no longer provide early entry into prestige class, i at least hope they lower the entry level on Mystic Theurge. It's too painful to level into otherwise, and not worth it anymore.
|
|
Walter, each example you gave is pretty easily rebuttable, which I will do so below if it helps. As stated before, it's very difficult to try to come up with examples of why the Evangelist would be broken with the earlier entry, and that is the entire point of why there's no reason for the restriction. I don't see what else we could provide as our "burden of proof" beyond what's already been discussed as far as a lack of power level imbalance by attaining slightly earlier entry.
|
|
Great, two pounce kitties for a fight once per day! Or, as a more cynical poster could frame it “two disposable PCs that out damage 90% of character builds!”
You could just cast a spell or charge them yourself with this action. Also the cat already won the combat so it seems to me nothing changed here.
your mount gets an un typed +4 to hit and damage whenever you make a full attack.” That seems pretty strong
You lost your full bab dropping down to 3/4ths bab and the best you can muster is +4 on charges only? This didn't even come close to seeming strong.
You can choose to cast the spell as a full-round action to gain a +4 bonus to its save DC. In addition, you treat all 1s rolled on your damage dice for the spell as 2s instead.
Great I can make my spells a little bit better as a full-round action to make up for my lost caster level.
If the animal companion dominated the spotlight already why is this the problem? If the blaster dominated the spotlight already why is this the problem?
My goal was getting to enjoy the content paizo created from Inner Sea Gods. I even ask in the original post for people to not throw this out because they think there is enough content already. Paizo makes new content for us to play with. Why should they even make you stuff such as the advanced class guide if you don't even want to play what they make?
I personally would enjoy Evangelist. I was disappointed when it wasn't allowed as written upon release. Sometimes it takes time for things to change and change isn't always for the worse and certainly not here.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I agree 100% that the burden of proof is on the people that want this changed. It has been status quo for the last 6 months that you cannot use SLAs to early entry your way into Evangelist. Now some people are arguing for it to be changed. Those people need to convince the campaign leadership why.
Well, I already laid out a post explaining in detail why, with the one caveat for a possible power concern. And as for the power concern... what exactly would you (or anyone else) accept as proof? Do I need to stat up every possible build and say "this one's not broken either"? Let me know what it would take, and I'll see what I can do.
Here are some reasons I came up with a while ago for why early entry evangelist would be detrimental to the campaign.
There we go! Now we're getting somewhere! We can have an actual, real discussion now!
Okay, and you're cool with all of those things happening in Eyes of the Ten? Because if not, then what you should be arguing for is to just ban Evangelist. Or if it is fine in EotT, then I'd be curious to hear what's so different about 11th and 13th level that it's okay for the latter but not the former. This is what we should be discussing.
Also: with aasimar no longer being available, the things you list all require a dip into Scryer wizard. Do bonuses to animal companions still sound like an issue when you have to do that to get them? This is what we should be discussing.
Ultimately, what is the goal of all this? Are there really so many theoretical builds that require entry to this PRC two levels early? Are there players whose creativity is honestly being squelched by this minor change?
I can't speak for anyone else, but my goal is just to have PFS's practices match its claims, and modifying PFRPG rules without a basis is contrary to that. Frankly, I don't care whether we lift the restriction, get the PDT to change the SLA FAQ, or even just ban Evangelist. Any one of those would achieve my goal here, it's just that one of the three would be easier and have fewer repercussions.
Is there truly nothing else in the book that holds interest for PFS aside from early entry evangelists?
Someone wants something from a book allowed, therefore they must not be interested in anything else in the book? What the hell?
Or is this just another tweak that if made would cause more power creep in PFS?
That's what I've been trying to find out this whole time.
Please, tell me that I am wrong and give me examples that disprove the evidence I've already found to condemn this idea. If I'm truly in the wrong here, show me what is right.
Dunno whether you're right or not; so far I'm just trying to get a real discussion happening so we can actually find out.
|
|
It seems like what you're looking for Walter, upon further consideration, is for OP or another person who agrees with the premise to provide examples of how early-entry Evangelist enables new builds. That seems like a flawed requirement, though, since we're basically trying to state that it does NOT lead to new broken builds.
What it does do is unarguably make it more attractive to actually BE an Evangelist, and therefore get to enjoy some things that are very cool and fun but are being overlooked due to how gosh-dang late you get them in your PFS career.
Does that make sense, Walter?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or is this just another tweak that if made would cause more power creep in PFS?That's what I've been trying to find out this whole time.
I just gave you three examples of builds that are powerful character options. Your proposed change would allow players to access them two levels earlier. That is the definition of a change being made precisely for mechanical benefit.
There is no roleplaying gain here, there is no change being made for the good of the campaign, it is a change that solely makes specific builds stronger in PFS, builds that many feel are already strong--people with animal companions and blaster casters.
That is the essence of my counter argument.
--------------------
That argument has been refuted by saying that those builds are already strong, so making them even stronger doesn't matter.
If the animal companion dominated the spotlight already why is this the problem? If the blaster dominated the spotlight already why is this the problem?
That seems counter intuitive to me. Typically in games when something is more powerful than other things, we nerf that, not help enable it.
My argument has been refuted by saying that I need to provide overpowered builds to discredit the proposal being presented, and that I have failed to do so.
Walter, each example you gave is pretty easily rebuttable, which I will do so below if it helps. As stated before, it's very difficult to try to come up with examples of why the Evangelist would be broken with the earlier entry, and that is the entire point of why there's no reason for the restriction.
Apologies that what I consider to be powerful options doesn't match up with what you consider to be powerful character options. I think having two animal companions once per day is stupid strong, considering how awesome animal companions already are. I think being able to cast any blasting spell and have the DC increase by 4 and damage dice that roll 1s be treated as 2s is amazingly good. But that's not good enough I guess.
My argument has been refuted because people claim there is no difference between level 11 and level 13.
Okay, and you're cool with all of those things happening in Eyes of the Ten? Because if not, then what you should be arguing for is to just ban Evangelist. Or if it is fine in EotT, then I'd be curious to hear what's so different about 11th and 13th level that it's okay for the latter but not the former. This is what we should be discussing.
I am far cooler with them happening when the developer intended they happen, which is why the PRC assumes entry at level 6 instead of level 4. Please show me a developer post that supports your argument that the PRC was designed to be entered at level 4. All I can find is a post from John and JJ saying why it is restricted to level 6 entry.
------------------If I am honestly the only one here that take issue with early entry into Evangelist and no one else minds, then it probably is in the good of the campaign to allow it. However, I think that it's something that was ruled correctly in the first place by John, and opening up the option will lead to a lot more detrimental situations in the campaign than anything else. Also, if early entry is allowed I predict it will never be removed, even if it is harming the campaign. Why? Because people complain a lot when things get taken away from them. Just look up the synthesist threads that followed that rules change.
I don't know what more I can say about this. So I'll just be done for a bit.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just gave you three examples of builds that are powerful character options.
Yes you did, and that was one of the first really productive things to come into the discussion. It was the first step toward actually working through something. Please don't bail on me now.
Your proposed change would allow players to access them two levels earlier. That is the definition of a change being made precisely for mechanical benefit.
I can't speak for anyone else's motives, but at least for me, the mechanical benefit would be a side effect, not what the change is "made precisely for". The goal (for me) is some congruence between campaign mantras and campaign practices. How come you never reply to that?
there is no change being made for the good of the campaign
I call "matching what we say about the campaign" to be good for the campaign. I also think the stated goal of only banning or allowing things (rather than making exceptions to official rules) to be good for the campaign. I think accumulating special exceptions to how the rules work is bad for the campaign, and doing so while repeatedly telling the public that we avoid doing so is even worse for the campaign.
it is a change that solely makes specific builds stronger in PFS, builds that many feel are already strong--people with animal companions and blaster casters.
That is the essence of my counter argument.
And we should follow up on this. You've gotten it started. Let's keep going. For instance, what would the tablemates of the hypothetical users of the abilities you listed be doing at the same level? Let's make some comparisons and see where it comes out in the end.
That argument has been refuted by saying that those builds are already strong, so making them even stronger doesn't matter.
Yeah, that "rebuttal" is pretty jacked. Totally with you there.
My argument has been refuted by saying that I need to provide overpowered builds to discredit the proposal being presented, and that I have failed to do so.
Personally I think you don't need full builds or anything; your example abilities should probably be good enough to work with here.
My argument has been refuted because people claim there is no difference between level 11 and level 13.
No.
That is not what happened. What happened is I asked you to talk about it more. I know a lot of threads turn into each side telling each other they're wrong without any presentation of real information, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can get our hands dirty and really work on the issue, if we're willing to do some back-and-forth on something other than each other's rightness and wrongness.I am far cooler with them happening when the developer intended they happen, which is why the PRC assumes entry at level 6 instead of level 4. Please show me a developer post that supports your argument that the PRC was designed to be entered at level 4. All I can find is a post from John and JJ saying why it is restricted to level 6 entry.
Show you a developer post stating that a character option was supposed to be used in a particular way? I always figured that the various character options were like LEGO pieces, each intended to function a certain way, and then put together with other pieces to create a final result, without any "intent" from the developers that the final construction look a particular way. Isn't that the whole point of a modular system of customizability?
So no, I can't show you commentary demonstrating that Evangelist was designed to be attainable at 4th level. I also can't show you commentary stating that Brawler and Lore Warden were designed to be combined as the most efficient route to some of the Improved Maneuver feats, or that the fighter was designed to be a good dip for a melee cleric, or that the ranger was designed to be a good dip for a fighter who wants to activate a few choice wands without UMD.
But I can show you what those same developers wrote that shows that all these different character options were designed to be interlocking parts of a larger system rather than single-track career paths, so that you can end up creating something of your own. That's the whole reason classes changed from something that's locked in at character creation to something that's selected level-by-level as you please. Pathfinder is not an action figure to be bought and played with as-is, it's a LEGO set to be rearranged and reassembled into your own creations. You don't look at someone's LEGO building that differs from the picture on the box and say "Can you show me where the developers said those LEGOs were designed to be put together that way?"
....
!
|
|
That argument has been refuted by saying that those builds are already strong, so making them even stronger doesn't matter.
Yeah, that "rebuttal" is pretty jacked. Totally with you there.
To be fair I never say these options are stronger. In fact I think they are far worse. I said:
You could just cast a spell or charge them yourself with this action.
This is in fact a true statement. You can absolutely use your action to cast an encounter ending 6th level spell. Is another, weaker, animal companion better than a Druid who dazing Wall of Fires an entire encounter? I don't think so. At least be fair and don't assume I agree these options are stronger.
|
|
Having opposing positions isn't the same thing as bickering, UndeadMitch. And using an argument about a topic as a reason to ban it seems silly.
Walter, as Ragoz said, we didn't think that the options actually made the characters stronger. And if you do think that, well, there's nothing we can do about that other than talk about why you think that, in face of what we felt was evidence to the contrary.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Okay, and you're cool with all of those things happening in Eyes of the Ten? Because if not, then what you should be arguing for is to just ban Evangelist. Or if it is fine in EotT, then I'd be curious to hear what's so different about 11th and 13th level that it's okay for the latter but not the former. This is what we should be discussing.
Jiggy, the difference between getting access at level 9 versus level 11 is just that--a difference of two levels.
We are playing a game where power is directly correlated to character level. The higher your level, the stronger your character. It is the basis for our understanding of power in the game. It's why there are low tiers and high tiers, and why people are typically counseled to not play up--the fear being that their lower levels will result in a more difficult scenario.
So when you ask what is so different about getting these abilities at level 11 versus level 13 it is by definition silly. The difference is that you are getting them two levels earlier! You are getting abilities designed for a level 13 PC while only being level 11. Its the reason why levels matter in this game. If there is mechanically no difference between levels, then it wouldn't matter when you got class abilities. But levels matter in pathfinder, and even more so in PFS. Levels determine what scenarios you can play.
So to answer your example question--I have no problem with PCs having these abilities in Eyes of the Ten, when they reach level 13. I do have a problem with PCs having these abilities at level 11, two levels before intended.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Walter, as Ragoz said, we didn't think that the options actually made the characters stronger. And if you do think that, well, there's nothing we can do about that other than talk about why you think that, in face of what we felt was evidence to the contrary.
Also the cat already won the combat so it seems to me nothing changed here.
How I read that comment: "The PC is already powerful, so allowing them to be even more powerful doesn't matter."
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Show you a developer post stating that a character option was supposed to be used in a particular way? I always figured that the various character options were like LEGO pieces, each intended to function a certain way, and then put together with other pieces to create a final result, without any "intent" from the developers that the final construction look a particular way. Isn't that the whole point of a modular system of customizability?
So no, I can't show you commentary demonstrating that Evangelist was designed to be attainable at 4th level. I also can't show you commentary stating that Brawler and Lore Warden were designed to be combined as the most efficient route to some of the Improved Maneuver feats, or that the fighter was designed to be a good dip for a melee cleric, or that the ranger was designed to be a good dip for a fighter who wants to activate a few choice wands without UMD.
But I can show you what those same developers wrote that shows that all these different character options were designed to be interlocking parts of a larger system rather than single-track career paths, so that you can end up creating something of your own. That's the whole reason classes changed from something that's locked in at character creation to something that's selected level-by-level as you please. Pathfinder is not an action figure to be bought and played with as-is, it's a LEGO set to be rearranged and reassembled into your own creations. You don't look at someone's LEGO building that differs from the picture on the box and say "Can you show me where the developers said those LEGOs were designed to be put together that way?"
Jiggy, I think that the developer of the PRC would easily be able to say what level they envisioned a PC being able to enter their PRC.
For example, if we asked the developer of the Sentinel or Exalted, they would say, "after level 5 of course. One requires a BAB of 5+ and the other requires 5 ranks in a skill."
If the developer of a PRC was unable to do that, I would question the very balance of the prestige class. When characters can access PRCs directly impacts how powerful they are.
|
|
I don't think early entry has changed game balance in any significant way. Eldritch Knights can even enter their prestige class 5 levels early. If this issue is a problem then maybe it should be fixed on its own merits but until then Evangelist should be treated just the same as any other prestige class option.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, the difference between getting access at level 9 versus level 11 is just that--a difference of two levels.
We are playing a game where power is directly correlated to character level. The higher your level, the stronger your character. It is the basis for our understanding of power in the game. It's why there are low tiers and high tiers, and why people are typically counseled to not play up--the fear being that their lower levels will result in a more difficult scenario.
So when you ask what is so different about getting these abilities at level 11 versus level 13 it is by definition silly. The difference is that you are getting them two levels earlier!
Your "two levels are two levels" tautology would be applicable if every two levels were the same, but they're not.
What happens if you advance a fighter's class features by two levels? You get a feat. One extra feat.
What happens if you advance a rogue's class features by two levels? You get a Talent, and 1d6 Sneak Attack.
What happens if you advance a cleric's class features by two levels? You get a whole spell level ahead of the power curve, add 1d6 Channel dice, and get your higher-level domain powers earlier.
So yeah, in a general sense, levels measure power, but not all levels are created equal (especially when, as in the case with early entry, we're only talking about class features and not things like BAB, saves, or HD).
Heck, you can SLA your way into Eldritch Knight four levels early, and all you gain is +2 BAB (and lose a wizard bonus feat in the process). If your "two levels are two levels" idea were true, then early entry to Evangelist would be equivalent in power to +1 on attack rolls.
Obviously, that's not the case.
Which means "two levels" is not a defined amount of actual power.
Which means we need to evaluate the power gap by some metric other than "two levels".
And that means we need to do actual comparisons.
Things like "the early-entry Evangelist can do X at Y level, while his table mates can only do Z at the same level".
Something like "A CRB draconic sorcerer's highest-level blast spell at 11th level is [whatever] for X damage, but the early-Evangelist guy's highest level blast spell is [whatever] and would instead be doing Y damage with a +4 to the DC, and the difference between the two is too far in the Evangelist's favor for the price paid."
Something like that.
But "two levels early is two levels too powerful" is meaningless when when in some cases twice that many levels nets you nothing but +2 to hit and in other cases (like Mystic Theurge) two levels early means a whole extra spell level in two different spellcasting progressions. The difference in how much power two levels can be is just too big for "two levels early" to actually measure anything on its own.
EDIT:
Jiggy, I think that the developer of the PRC would easily be able to say what level they envisioned a PC being able to enter their PRC.
Yes, and every LEGO set comes with instructions on how to make the thing in the picture, exactly as the designer envisioned it. Doesn't make it wrong to go a completely different direction as long as the pieces fit.
Contributor
|
Evangelist is different from other prestige classes (except Dragon Disciple) in that it is fully a gestalt of two or more classes.
An Eldritch Knight, for example, gains the full BAB and d10 hp of a fighter, but only some of the fighter feats (and none of the other class features), and gains some of the spell-casting levels of wizard, but only some of the bonus feats (and none of the other class features).
By contrast, the Evangelist gains ALL of the aligned class abilities (delayed by only one level) and then adds a bunch of new abilities on top of that.
A wizard* 5/evangelist 7, has:
- +7 BAB, that is higher than a wizard 12;
- 6th-level spells, same as a wizard 12;
- All of the same class features as a wizard 12, including bonus feats, and (Sp) and (Su) abilities granted by their school specialty;
- 7 more hp than a wizard 12;
- All of the Evangelist abilities on top of that: two more class skills, +2 dodge bonus to AC, two divine boons, and a free language.
This prestige class is more powerful than other prestige classes. You get all the benefits of your base class plus a lot more.
This isn't a fair contrast. Compared to the 12th Level Wizard, a wizard 5/evengelist 12:
- Has a BAB that's only +2 higher.
- Has a Fortitude and Will save that's –1 lower.
- Has one fewer 6th level spell and one fewer 5th level spell.
- Has a caster level that's one lower and all of the wizard's school powers are one leve llower.
- An evangelist doesn't stack her Prestige Class level with her aligned class's level for the purpose of determining if she qualifies for feats. This means a fighter won't qualify for Weapon Specialization / Greater Weapon Focus and a wizard won't qualify for most of the awesome arcane discoveries that wizards can take, nor can she qualify for the small number of feats that require a high wizard level.
In the above list, what does the wizard REALLY get that makes it better at what it does? Don't most wizards favor battlefield control? A higher BAB isn't going to help with that, and most of the Evangelist's class features focus on generalization.
That's right. This is a prestige class that, aside from the deific boons, favored generalization over specialization, in a game that's generally about specialization. Its relaly not this tremendous power creep like everyone thinks it is.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It is a strange world to me when +2 BAB is not considered a significant boost.
It is a strange world to me when someone can read the above post and think this is what's being said.
What was actually said was that +2 BAB is less of a benefit than other, allegedly comparable situations provide.
Getting into EK four levels early gets you +2 BAB (or +1 BAB per two levels of early-ness, to be clear in our comparison), while getting into MT two levels early gets you higher-level spells in two classes' worth of casting.
It's not that +2 BAB "is not considered a significant boost", it's that it's not on the same tier as other, similarly-acquired things.
Yeah...If I could get all that in a feat, I'd take it on every martial character I had.
If you were being honest to the example, you wouldn't be able to take that hypothetical feat on your martials, only on your wizards and sorcerers.
Stop twisting things. It doesn't help anyone.
Just chiming in to say early SLA entry is an absolutely fantastic addition that suddenly allows a whole section of the CRB to be used again without being pathetically behind the ballgame.
It's also not very relevant to this discussion.
I've also had some home-game experience GMing with the evangelist on a wizard. Nothing the wizard gained was worth the loss of the caster level, and he often complained about being a spell-level behind. Spell levels are a really big deal. A lot of the gafaffule surrounding the evanglist just never materialises in actual play, when the reality of the lost spell level for a bunch of reasonably situational bonuses hits home.
I feel like the 6th level prereq remains mostly because of the inertia of legacy and partially because people get so caught up with the SLA argument and they use the unique design of this class as a focal point. Most of the posts in this thread, including mine and including from VCs, is arguing about SLA rulings that are ultimately not relevant. All that is relevant is:
'will allowing 4th level entry of evanglist compared to 6th level entry result in disruptive play'.
I have yet to see any convincing argument for this. None of the later level evangelist powers give them anything more powerful than one might expect from an equivalent wizard one spell level higher (which is really the litmus test for disruptive potential). How, exactly, is this destroying sessions? The best I could see was a reasonably tame and very limited copycat ability on the druid: incidentally one of the worst spellcasting classes to pick up evangelist on due to the loss of AC, spellcasting and wildshape progression.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's not the time and place and i don't post much... and i probably shouldn't... but i really, REALLY, hate anything that invalidates a tactic as a second-hand thing... like a Swashbuckler saying "eeh... no you missed me... also a free attack-- hyah~!" and i feel this might be a good place to get this answered.
So on to my question, since levels aren't a measure of power, as a GM may i treat all parry&riposte or immediate-action counter-spell toting arcanists as three levels higher when determining things like APL?
Also, more on topic: An early entry Mystic Theurge at level 11 has access to 5th level divine/arcane spells whereas an 11th level non-early entry only has 4th level of both. That's a pretty big power difference if you ask me. Rather than finding a shortcut/fineprint means of empowering prestige classes i would rather them be errata to how much power they should actually have based on their difficulty of entry.
Rather than finding a shortcut/fineprint means of empowering prestige classes i would rather them be errata to how much power they should actually have based on their difficulty of entry.
This is never going to happen. As a central philosophy, paizo seeks to modify core as little as possible, and what you ask is an incredible amount of work for similar functional gain. We should be pragmatic in our expectations here.