Rethinking Evangelist PRC Early Entry


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Walter Sheppard wrote:
@ Jiggy: I have no problem with getting a sweet payoff for investment as you mentioned, so long as its when intended: level 16. Not at level 14.

What if the intended build doesn't have a payoff? What if the only way to get an appropriate payoff is by doing something that wasn't intended?

Quote:
How is this not evidence enough for you that we shouldn't allow it in PFS? In my mind its clearly a clerical error, a loophole, a janky legality that shouldn't be allowed.

I don't believe that "wasn't intended" is sufficient criteria to disallow something. I believe that illegality should require something to be disruptive (whether because of power level, impracticality for organized play, disharmony with the setting, etc).

Only disruptiveness should prevent legality.
Non-intent does not imply disruptiveness.

If you believe that there are things which ought to be banned even when they're not disruptive, then that's a fundamental difference of philosophy about what the point of the game is, and frankly, begins to draw close to resembling "One True Way"ism.

Quote:
All that aside, if you agree that at level 14, through early entry, this PRC becomes one of the most powerful character options, then why would we want to allow it in PFS?

Because (again, going by your assessment, which may or may not even be accurate) the very slight increase in power is justified by the increase in investment compared to a non-Evangelist.

Quote:

We should be keeping the power between builds relatively close, not allowing existing strong character builds another venue for further power creep. Nothing is gained except that those already dominant builds are rewarded and, by comparison, other less popular builds are punished.

I'd be far more on board by a change that strengthened straight rogue builds than a change that strengthens wizard and animal companion builds.

And now you've hit on something pretty important. I've been very deliberately avoiding any kind of "caster-martial disparity" or "rogue/fighter/monk suck" type of discussion in this thread. That always seems to invite certain posters to come and derail any potentially productive discussion with defense of their babies, and anyone who mentions what I'll call "Core Imbalance" gets everything they say dismissed.

So I've been deliberately sticking to Paizo's usual model of only comparing builds/options to very similar builds/options for the purposes of determining balance. But now, we're at a crossroads.

We've jumped through all the requested hoops to prove that, when comparing like-style builds (such as caster to caster), even an early-entry Evangelist barely keeps up, with one little sweet spot as a return on investment. Caster-to-caster, early entry Evangelist is, in fact, well-balanced. But as you're now beginning to recognize, that balance disappears when you compare caster to martial. But if you make that comparison, it will bring to light an aspect of the game that a lot of people would rather look away from.

So what now? If we want to maintain that the Core is even close to balanced, then we need to go with what the data has shown us: early entry is still just a minor return (if any) for an investment, and therefore balanced. But keeping the ban on an option that might give a slight boost to wizards is pretty much an admission that, despite what the public line might be, full casters are decisively stronger than other options and therefore need a tighter rein against any buffs. Making a ruling based on not wanting to buff the strongest character types admits that there are strongest character types.

Is that a balor you're ready to grapple?

The Exchange 3/5

Just as a little reminder to everyone Evangelist itself doesn't require you to be a caster at all and can be used to progress all classes. It is only as strong as the class you are using for its aligned class in the first place. It probably can even add some versatility to some of the more narrow base classes that didn't have such options before.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Firstly, the earliest level at which you can enter the evangelist prestige class is level 4, because the other restriction is imposed by the deific obedience feat, which requires 3 ranks in knowledge religion. So with early access, you get the capstone at level 13. You get the third boon at level 12, and the second boon at level 9.

I already presented a revised partial build that demonstrates that a hunter at level 9 would be able to get an insane amount of benefit from the 2nd tier Erastil boon, dealing over 200 points of damage in the first round if all its attacks hit, and each attack being at least +16 to hit, and from the second round onwards this would just get worse since he adds his own damage on top of that. This is with feats left to spare on his animal companion and the hunter himself, and assuming only 1 core item at 18000gp that is viable in any event since it serves as a persistent party-buff. Jiggy you claim that a charging cavalier or barbarian can match or beat that easily. I'm inclined to disagree. A cavalier might come close if charging, but on subsequent rounds after that the hunter's cats will be full-attacking with all their attacks at full attack bonus and both of them benefiting from the teamwork feats and the hunter providing support or even more damage as required.

Other substantial tier 2 bonuses include Desna's (for sorcerers/oracles, never worry about spell resistance ever again), Gorum's (for some cavalier/druid/hunter builds who want an all-day bonus instead of a massive 1/day boost) and Irori's for monks.

All things considered, I don't think we've proven at all that evangelists barely keep up. Some builds and classes will more than keep up if they are granted early access. Paizo's original view was that prestige classes should not be so powerful that they eclipsed base classes. Then they allowed early access because prestige classes were generally substantially weaker than base classes. The evangelist is one of the most powerful prestige classes because for 9 levels out of 10 it advances all the base classes' abilities whilst adding to them, and in some cases improving saves, skill points and BAB. And some of the abilities synergise VERY well with some of the base classes, such as the ones I mentioned above. It does not need the additional boost of early access that was granted when prestige classes were all generally substantially weaker.

Jiggy, you wanted a side-by-side comparison. Show me how a 9th level hunter, or any partial-caster, can keep up with the damage output in my post. Average of 200 damage at 18+ to hit in round 1 plus 2 free grapple attempts at 22+ CMB, then from round two having that same damage (and grabs) on a different target or even more damage and substantially better to-hit on the same target, plus support from spells from the hunter. At level 9.

The Exchange 3/5

I don't think Evangelist levels were good on the Druid. I do think it's probably decent for the Hunter but that's only because Hunter isn't even on the same tier as Druid. Becoming better at what you do won't change the fact that at the end of the day the class just doesn't perform well in comparison to Druid (there are few things which do after all).

Do we really have to turn this into some sort of damage comparison thread? Damage has never mattered when compared to versatility and options higher tier classes are known for and I don't think early entry Evangelist alters those tiers.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Well, Jiggy was proposing to do a "side by side comparison with a similar build" and claiming that any such comparison would show that the difference was not great. I've given him something to try to prove his point against.

200+ damage at +18 or more to hit on the first round, and from second round onwards even better to-hit and damage if the target from round 1 still lives. Also from round 2 onwards they are receiving spell support from a secondary caster.

If I had more time I'd probably do the monk as well, but I suspect that we'd also find that the evangelist monk would gain more from getting the 2nd tier ability from Irori at level 9 than any similar unarmed build could get at the same level. For reference, we're talking damage increase from 1d10 (avg 5.5) to 2d8 (avg 9), for a +3.5 damage to each punch as well as penetrating some DR. And I'm VERY certain even less unarmed warrior builds can hope match the utility gained at level 12 by the irori monk/evangelist.

But the best part? You say a +4 bonus to a caster's stat isn't a big deal. How about a +8? One of the tattoos the Iroran evangelist gets at level 9 can be used as a swift action for a +4 sacred bonus to WIS, which would stack with the untyped bonus he could give himself at level 10. Zen archers, Druids, Clerics, Shamans, wild-blooded celestial sorcerers... nope, all classes that need the boost badly.

The Exchange 3/5

I'm still not very concerned about the wisdom bonus they get for one minute once a week as a standard action at level 12.

Also if its not too much to ask could you post under one name or the other? It gets a bit confusing sometimes sorting out who is who if people change their alias within the same thread though I realize this is a feature of this forum. It also might misrepresent the volume of opinions for one side of a discussion or the other.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Once a week is still going to work out as once a scenario, and some scenarios are resolved in a single in-game day with no time to rest and recover anyway.

The Exchange 3/5

It is still 3 levels higher than you thought, a standard not a swift, and for one minute. Adding 2 DC is literally just potent magic, an ability Exploiter Wizards and Arcanists have been enjoying for 3+1/2 lvl times a day since level 1 as a free action.

Grand Lodge

GM Aram Zey wrote:

Well, Jiggy was proposing to do a "side by side comparison with a similar build" and claiming that any such comparison would show that the difference was not great. I've given him something to try to prove his point against.

200+ damage at +18 or more to hit on the first round, and from second round onwards even better to-hit and damage if the target from round 1 still lives. Also from round 2 onwards they are receiving spell support from a secondary caster.

If I had more time I'd probably do the monk as well, but I suspect that we'd also find that the evangelist monk would gain more from getting the 2nd tier ability from Irori at level 9 than any similar unarmed build could get at the same level. For reference, we're talking damage increase from 1d10 (avg 5.5) to 2d8 (avg 9), for a +3.5 damage to each punch as well as penetrating some DR. And I'm VERY certain even less unarmed warrior builds can hope match the utility gained at level 12 by the irori monk/evangelist.

But the best part? You say a +4 bonus to a caster's stat isn't a big deal. How about a +8? One of the tattoos the Iroran evangelist gets at level 9 can be used as a swift action for a +4 sacred bonus to WIS, which would stack with the untyped bonus he could give himself at level 10. Zen archers, Druids, Clerics, Shamans, wild-blooded celestial sorcerers... nope, all classes that need the boost badly.

1. You're assuming both that you hit with every attack, and that the target has 0 damage reduction. Also that you get to pounce against every opponent. Many opponents have defenses in place at higher tiers to prevent you from freely charging every first round, and that they don't have larger reach than you for things like Trip on an AOO, or just killing your AC in some cases. Don't forget spells. Under the perfect circumstances you can do massive damage, but author's have made it difficult to allow you to do that in the content from recent years. I can think of bosses that put a wrench in this plan in 8-9 plus for the past 3 years just off the top of my head. This also involves revolving a large chunk of a character on your animal companion, which I would argue are not the most optimal builds, although they do epitomize rocket tag.

And when it goes optimally, it is just straight overkill. There are barbarian, cavalier, archer, etc. builds that can do enough damage to one round bosses anyway, a build more vulnerable to these issues but more overkill when it works is not important.

2. On to the unarmed monk. First of all, unarmed monks are not close to unbalanced in terms of DPR. Their lock down capabilities are more impressive. Inevitable Fist is fair for delaying your flurry progression and giving you worse saves, and getting it earlier doesn't really negatively impact game balance, particularly because you won't be getting a strength or dex bonus and instead gaining a useless charisma bonus. Unless you're really suicidal and take a level of scryer wizard.
So while they do gain a lot from going evangelist, they also lose a lot from having to pick up that SLA. And getting Runic Form during eyes is no where near what I would call gamebreaking either. Frankly the ability is not that impressive as far as these boons go.

3. You seem to intensely overvalue stat increases. You are far more likely to make them fail by using the spell twice instead of standard action using your capstone, particularly with persistent spell at higher levels. Targetting their bad save and using persistent spell is just about always going to get your opponent of choice post 12 anyway, I don't think we should worry about balancing around end game save or suck casters, because frankly that battle is already lost.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I meant to say 9th level of evangelist, though I did misread the tattoo as one of the ones that could be activated as a swift action. Even so, that's only 1/9 of the ability. There's also the ability to go ethereal

It's also +4 perception, will saves and potentially even AC if you dipped monk or took snake style. And no other wisdom build gives you that and restoration as a spell-like ability (i.e. no costly component).

The Exchange 3/5

I think its cool at best that these options do something you previously couldn't do before. If my very high level abilities didn't do anything at all I would be quite disappointed. If I can even get some skills, saves, and AC for one fight out of an entire module that level as my standard action and not feel like I wasted my time with the entire class that's pretty good design though I wouldn't be shocked if I was underwhelmed by it.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Kurthnaga wrote:
GM Aram Zey wrote:

Well, Jiggy was proposing to do a "side by side comparison with a similar build" and claiming that any such comparison would show that the difference was not great. I've given him something to try to prove his point against.

200+ damage at +18 or more to hit on the first round, and from second round onwards even better to-hit and damage if the target from round 1 still lives. Also from round 2 onwards they are receiving spell support from a secondary caster.

If I had more time I'd probably do the monk as well, but I suspect that we'd also find that the evangelist monk would gain more from getting the 2nd tier ability from Irori at level 9 than any similar unarmed build could get at the same level. For reference, we're talking damage increase from 1d10 (avg 5.5) to 2d8 (avg 9), for a +3.5 damage to each punch as well as penetrating some DR. And I'm VERY certain even less unarmed warrior builds can hope match the utility gained at level 12 by the irori monk/evangelist.

But the best part? You say a +4 bonus to a caster's stat isn't a big deal. How about a +8? One of the tattoos the Iroran evangelist gets at level 9 can be used as a swift action for a +4 sacred bonus to WIS, which would stack with the untyped bonus he could give himself at level 10. Zen archers, Druids, Clerics, Shamans, wild-blooded celestial sorcerers... nope, all classes that need the boost badly.

1. You're assuming both that you hit with every attack, and that the target has 0 damage reduction. Also that you get to pounce against every opponent. Many opponents have defenses in place at higher tiers to prevent you from freely charging every first round, and that they don't have larger reach than you for things like Trip on an AOO, or just killing your AC in some cases. Don't forget spells. Under the perfect circumstances you can do massive damage, but author's have made it difficult to allow you to do that in the content from recent years. I can think of bosses that put a wrench in this plan...

It's hardly optimised for this specific purpose. I've left most of my wealth unassigned, have not factored in any spells and have not even used up all the feats on either the hunter or the animal companion. Also, alot of the time you have time to pre-buff before boss-battles in PFS. You have time to prebuff. This solves your DR problem. There's a feat that allows your natural attacks to count as cold iron AND silver, and hunters get access to communal feather step and communal spider climb to help circumvent obstacles. I also can't stress enough that they also get 2 grab attacks at very substantial bonuses. It's a bare-bones build with resources left to spend in defence and versatility, and I already sacrificed some damage for defence and versatility by choosing the grabbing lion instead of the extra attack from the deinonychus. So even if there is DR, you are likely to deal enough to still make it hurt, and even if that is not enough, you have a very good chance of having the target grappled whilst you still get to cast spells or swing a sword at them. Defence and versatility have not been neglected.

As for the stat increases, I'm just adding it to Walter's points about stat increases. The Iroran evangelsit kicks it up a notch. As I said, if you have time to prepare, and you often do in PFS, you're going in hard.

Grand Lodge

graywulfe wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
Quote:
You can't get all 20 because the Obediences to certain evil gods are forbidden because of the requirement to regularly engage in some severely evil actions.
Yes it was established earlier in the thread that Lamashtu is not a legal resource. I really hope not being able to use this one god changes anyone's opinion on Evangelist.
It hasn't changed mine at all. I've been convinced from the start that allowing early entry into PrCs via spell like abiiities from freak races was an extremely bad move on Paizo's part.
So by your own logic, you are okay with early entry into PRCs via spell-like abilities for an Elf who has taken the Envoy alternate racial trait, which provides spell-like abilities.

I want you to specify the logical chain between my statement and your conclusion.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Is that a balor you're ready to grapple?

No, the demon can have me. In fact, I'll go ahead and throw in the towel in general. I've expended hours in this conversation, as have you, and I feel like we've really gotten nowhere. We've had some good back and forth and I'll admit, evangelist doesn't seem as broken as I thought to begin with, but I still think we shouldn't allow early entry. And even if your opinions have changed, they haven't changed enough that we've made any headway in reaching a consensus.

All we've done is expose further flaws in the balance of the system in general. And I guess of everything is so messed up, what's the harm of early entry into yet another PRC? It's a discussion I don't care to continue. I feel like I have better things to do with my time at this point.

Perhaps you'll find a tetori willing to throw down with the balor, but not in Core Campaign, which is where I'll be spending my vacation from the nonsense I consider SLA early entry. I won't have to worry about evangelists, early entry or otherwise over there.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

Kurthnaga wrote:


1. You're assuming both that you hit with every attack, and that the target has 0 damage reduction. Also that you get to pounce against every opponent. Many opponents have defenses in place at higher tiers to prevent you from freely charging every first round, and that they don't have larger reach than you for things like Trip on an AOO, or just killing your AC in some cases. Don't forget spells. Under the perfect circumstances you can do massive damage, but author's have made it difficult to allow you to do that in the content from recent years. I can think of bosses that put a wrench in this plan...

I feel this is a vacous argument. At higher tiers, what's stopping a character from having anti-magic defenses?

I can think of one place where spell turning is a thing...

The Exchange 3/5

John Compton wrote:
Thoughts? Concerns?
Ragoz wrote:


I think for the most part the issues with early entry evangelist have been discussed.

...

Hopefully campaign leadership gets the chance to read, discuss, and judge if this change would be beneficial for the game.

As I said before and can tell others feel the same way it really doesn't feel like there is much left to discuss. For the most part everyone has made their point or voiced their opinion.

It be nice if campaign leadership could drop by to comment when they get the chance, maybe just to even see where the discussion is at if they aren't ready to affirm their rule or update to a new one.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Quote:
Is that a balor you're ready to grapple?

No, the demon can have me. In fact, I'll go ahead and throw in the towel in general. I've expended hours in this conversation, as have you, and I feel like we've really gotten nowhere. We've had some good back and forth and I'll admit, evangelist doesn't seem as broken as I thought to begin with, but I still think we shouldn't allow early entry. And even if your opinions have changed, they haven't changed enough that we've made any headway in reaching a consensus.

All we've done is expose further flaws in the balance of the system in general. And I guess of everything is so messed up, what's the harm of early entry into yet another PRC? It's a discussion I don't care to continue. I feel like I have better things to do with my time at this point.

Perhaps you'll find a tetori willing to throw down with the balor, but not in Core Campaign, which is where I'll be spending my vacation from the nonsense I consider SLA early entry. I won't have to worry about evangelists, early entry or otherwise over there.

Wise words from a cooler head. I'm done here too. This whole exercise was largely pointless.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

Ragoz wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Thoughts? Concerns?
Ragoz wrote:


I think for the most part the issues with early entry evangelist have been discussed.

...

Hopefully campaign leadership gets the chance to read, discuss, and judge if this change would be beneficial for the game.

As I said before and can tell others feel the same way it really doesn't feel like there is much left to discuss. For the most part everyone has made their point or voiced their opinion.

It be nice if campaign leadership could drop by to comment when they get the chance, maybe just to even see where the discussion is at if they aren't ready to affirm their rule or update to a new one.

It's primarily in discussion with others at the office. There has not yet been a decision, though I have been following much of this thread.

The Exchange 3/5

Thanks! It's always nice to hear from the developers themselves even just to say hi.

Grand Lodge

Jayson MF Kip wrote:
Kurthnaga wrote:


1. You're assuming both that you hit with every attack, and that the target has 0 damage reduction. Also that you get to pounce against every opponent. Many opponents have defenses in place at higher tiers to prevent you from freely charging every first round, and that they don't have larger reach than you for things like Trip on an AOO, or just killing your AC in some cases. Don't forget spells. Under the perfect circumstances you can do massive damage, but author's have made it difficult to allow you to do that in the content from recent years. I can think of bosses that put a wrench in this plan...

I feel this is a vacous argument. At higher tiers, what's stopping a character from having anti-magic defenses?

I can think of one place where spell turning is a thing...

I won't attempt to extend the debate, but I will point out that one of Damage Reduction, suitably defensive terrain, or having high armor class is not something that should be unexpected in high tier play. It's not exactly uncommon.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Any balance issues aside in the relative power levels of different PrCs vs each other vs normal classes, I feel the bigger issue that has gone largely unaddressed in most discussions of this sort is the issue of limited selection and the perception of "best race/option".

I still feel that the Aasimar and Tieflings were removed from standard campaign access because of a perception of them being the "best" choice, resulting in an imbalance in the number of them being played. Having SLA count as early access to certain prestige classes ends up causing the same problem, one or two options becomes inherently "better" because they have a means to achieve something the rest cannot simply because of a design quirk and a questionable FAQ ruling. Further, it would serve to "punish" those who do not want to play the same selection as everyone else, as they are limited to access based on the (presumably) intended in game progression, and not the choice of a particular racial trait or school/domain choice.

The discussion is not and should not be simply a matter of, "is it an imbalance of power to allow this access early", it should also include the question, "do we want there to be a limited selection of options that grant a specific advantage (real or perceived) over every other option, and do want there to become a homogenized feel to certain PrCs because of it?". I would say no, we shouldn't.

Older versions of the World's Oldest RPG had specific limitations on classes based upon race and those limitations were abandoned in later version because they were a bad idea. Allowing a situation were characters not of a particular race or chosen class option are effectively held back because of not wanting to exploit a particular quirk in the system is just as flawed as the old racial cap issues.

Clearly, not every race is equally suited to every class option as racial stat modifiers and size based movement and weapon damage adjustments can give certain advantages or disadvantages depending on choices. However, none of those modifiers will allow one race to advance in a class faster than another, nor will choosing a less than optimal choice make you have to wait an extra level or more to gain a class ability. While yes, every PrC has certain access requirements, barring SLA bypassing, every race played can make the same in game choices to gain access at the same time. No one is gated or given "VIP" access, and no one should be, we maintain the rich diversity the game allows and we keep character advancement on a level playing field.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Well said, Fomsie.

It might be that SLA-counting-as-early-access makes prestige classes like Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge "too powerful" or it might make them "finally, powerful enough." Aside from that, the idea that a particular alternate racial trait, or domain power, or whatever, fulfills the pre-requisites forces people who want to play certain types of characters into making the same oddball choices. It distorts the game.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

I have a question:

Since aasimar are grandfathered (and some people apparently have quite a number of level 1 aasimar [retraining potential] with 1 chronicle, wouldn't this change benefit mostly those people ?

As someone without a grandfathered aasimar, letting old players have an even bigger advantage... feels a bit unfair (and doesn't make it easier for me to bring in more players).

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

Well said, Fomsie.

It might be that SLA-counting-as-early-access makes prestige classes like Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge "too powerful" or it might make them "finally, powerful enough." Aside from that, the idea that a particular alternate racial trait, or domain power, or whatever, fulfills the pre-requisites forces people who want to play certain types of characters into making the same oddball choices. It distorts the game.

Does it distort the game any more than the fact that out of the literally dozens upon dozens of weapons in the game, only a handful actually get used because the difference in weapon quality "forces people who want to play certain types of characters into making the same choices"? How about with feats? Spells?

Seriously, take any of those categories (weapons, feats, spells), and go through and count up how many there are - heck, even limit it to just hardbacks - and then see just what percentage actually see regular use.

So since nobody's talking about that, why are we talking about the exact same phenomenon for a small subset of class choices?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I have a question:

Since aasimar are grandfathered (and some people apparently have quite a number of level 1 aasimar [retraining potential] with 1 chronicle, wouldn't this change benefit mostly those people ?

As someone without a grandfathered aasimar, letting old players have an even bigger advantage... feels a bit unfair (and doesn't make it easier for me to bring in more players).

There are race-agnostic early-entry options for every affected Prestige Class, so you needn't worry.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Jiggy wrote:
Does it distort the game any more than the fact that out of the literally dozens upon dozens of weapons in the game, only a handful actually get used because the difference in weapon quality "forces people who want to play certain types of characters into making the same choices"? How about with feats? Spells?

I think so, yes.

Back in 2001, Dragon magazine ran a series of designer's notes for 3rd Edition, explaining the rationales behind prestige classes. Generally speaking, the entry requirements are intended to establish an experience level cut-off and define what sorts of characters should find the class attractive. So a martial prestige class might have "+5 BAB" as an entry requirement, while a class appealing to divine casters might require "casts 3rd-level spells." Almost as an affectation, specific character levels were avoided as an entry requirement.

So, let's suppose that, for some book published next year, a monk archetype that really concentrates on flurry of blows were to get written, and that the way the developers chose to express that ability was to say that, for purposes of a monk's flurry-of-blows, his effective BAB is double his class level.

With that archetype, a 3rd-level monk would have a BAB of 6 for flurry-of-blows. Let's say that, furthermore, the developers allowed this to fulfill the BAB requirements for feats or prestige class entry.

That seems to be a much closer analogy to treating SLAs as spellcasting prerequisites. That situation would distort the game, with players who wanted to play, say, fighters or rangers or slayers, choosing instead to play this particular archetype of monk, just to qualify for something else with a high BAB requirement.

The simple fact that the game has hundreds of feats, some of which are better than others, or better known that others, doesn't strike me as the same kind of distortion.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:
That situation would distort the game, with players who wanted to play, say, fighters or rangers or slayers, choosing instead to play this particular archetype of monk, just to qualify for something else with a high BAB requirement.

Alright, let's explore your hypothetical here. We'll call this monk archetype the Mortikan Monk, and say that it lets you count has having double BAB for prereqs. For the purpose of staying focused on the issue you're raising, we'll assume that one way or another the actual power level of the Mortikan and what it enables is perfectly fine.

So the stated issue is that with a BAB-based-entry prestige class (Arcane Archer or Duelist, for example) people who might have otherwise started with Fighter6 or Ranger6 or Slayer6 will instead want to start with Mortikan3.

But why is this a problem? (Again, assuming power balance isn't an issue.) If someone wanted to build a magical bowman, what does it matter if their character sheet says "Fighter6/Wiz1/AA4", "Archaeologist8/AA3", "Mortikan3/AA8", "Fighter1/Cleric10", or even "Bloodrager11"? Why is exactly one of these setups for the same concept somehow objectionable?

Or if they want a dashing swordsman with a rapier, a big-feathered hat and a penchant for duels, what difference does it make if they're a Fighter6/Duelist5, or a Slayer6/Duelist5, or a Swashbuckler11, or a Ranger6/Duelist5, or a Rogue8/Duelist3, or a Mortikan3/Duelist8? Of all the different ways to realize the concept, what's different about one of them that makes it so much less acceptable than the others?

What exactly is being "distorted"? Is there some sort of ideal distribution of classes that we want the playerbase to be using? Is it somehow offensive to use class levels traditionally associated with Asia in order to realize a concept associated with a western trope? As long as the final product (A) is not unbalanced and (B) successfully realizes the intended concept, then who cares which class names are written on the sheet? What is the actual problem?

The Exchange 3/5

Not all races have the same favored class bonus, not all races have the same racial traits, not all races have the same racial spells, and not all races have the same racial SLAs. If a race favors a certain character option it seems perfectly normal. Kitsunes are famous for their sorcerers, dhampir are excellent necromancers, and Aasimar have SLAs. I want my race to feel like it matters in my character design and there is nothing wrong with the races having differences.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with allowing this option just because some people don't have an aasimar. I've always wanted a dhampir and even right now I'm looking for an Oread because I think its racial spells fix some of the spell list my Blight Druid would have. Sometimes you just have to deal with it or go out and get the boon.

The Exchange 3/5

Just a bump for interest.

5/5 5/55/55/5

One thing about early entry is that it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences that might come out for minor gods in the future.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
One thing about early entry is that it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences that might come out for minor gods in the future.

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is not a thread where we're discussing whether early entry will still be a rule or not. It is the rule, and putting/keeping stuff in Additional Resources to have PFS deviate from that rule has zero impact on how that rule affects the design of future classes.

The Exchange 3/5

With there being relatively few ways to enter this prestige class early and it creating a consistency that is clearly needed in the PFS game rules I think it be nice if the change was implemented.

Grand Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would laugh so hard if this was the thread that got "consistancy" in the form of "early entry to all prestige classes no longer allowed"

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Why? What would be wrong with that?


Jiggy wrote:
Why? What would be wrong with that?

He lives at the corner of Grognard St and Badwrongfun Ln.

People there can have a warped sense of humor at times.

The Exchange 3/5

Any updates to the discussion on Paizo's end? Still interested in hopefully seeing this happen.

Silver Crusade 2/5 * Venture-Agent, Florida—Longwood

Ragoz wrote:
Any updates to the discussion on Paizo's end? Still interested in hopefully seeing this happen.

lol

Everytime you bump this I think "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"

The Exchange 3/5

I mean sometimes things just need a reminder. I know people are busy and sometimes threads need a bump.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
One thing about early entry is that it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences that might come out for minor gods in the future.
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is not a thread where we're discussing whether early entry will still be a rule or not. It is the rule, and putting/keeping stuff in Additional Resources to have PFS deviate from that rule has zero impact on how that rule affects the design of future classes.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand. BNW mentioned that "it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences". The evangelist prc is largely about the deific obediences. BNW is pointing out that if you allow early access, future deific obediences will need to be designed with early access in mind, even if one accepts (which not all of us do) that there is no problem with early access for some of the current deific obediences.

Not all prestige classes are equal in strength. I think that should be a good argument for each prestige class being assessed on an individual basis for early access.

Grand Lodge

GM Aram Zey wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
One thing about early entry is that it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences that might come out for minor gods in the future.
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is not a thread where we're discussing whether early entry will still be a rule or not. It is the rule, and putting/keeping stuff in Additional Resources to have PFS deviate from that rule has zero impact on how that rule affects the design of future classes.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand. BNW mentioned that "it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences". The evangelist prc is largely about the deific obediences. BNW is pointing out that if you allow early access, future deific obediences will need to be designed with early access in mind, even if one accepts (which not all of us do) that there is no problem with early access for some of the current deific obediences.

Not all prestige classes are equal in strength. I think that should be a good argument for each prestige class being assessed on an individual basis for early access.

Increasing burden of knowledge in relation to the difference between PFS versus the home game PF experience is a bad thing.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
One thing about early entry is that it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences that might come out for minor gods in the future.
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is not a thread where we're discussing whether early entry will still be a rule or not. It is the rule, and putting/keeping stuff in Additional Resources to have PFS deviate from that rule has zero impact on how that rule affects the design of future classes.

It could potentially put PFS in a weird position of having to ban otherwise perfectly balanced obediences, gods, etc as new ones come out, or retroactively ban the prestige class.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Kurthnaga wrote:
GM Aram Zey wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
One thing about early entry is that it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences that might come out for minor gods in the future.
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is not a thread where we're discussing whether early entry will still be a rule or not. It is the rule, and putting/keeping stuff in Additional Resources to have PFS deviate from that rule has zero impact on how that rule affects the design of future classes.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand. BNW mentioned that "it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences". The evangelist prc is largely about the deific obediences. BNW is pointing out that if you allow early access, future deific obediences will need to be designed with early access in mind, even if one accepts (which not all of us do) that there is no problem with early access for some of the current deific obediences.

Not all prestige classes are equal in strength. I think that should be a good argument for each prestige class being assessed on an individual basis for early access.

Increasing burden of knowledge in relation to the difference between PFS versus the home game PF experience is a bad thing.

It's negligible since you need to check the additional resources page when using non-core material anyway.

Grand Lodge

GM Aram Zey wrote:
Kurthnaga wrote:
GM Aram Zey wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
One thing about early entry is that it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences that might come out for minor gods in the future.
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is not a thread where we're discussing whether early entry will still be a rule or not. It is the rule, and putting/keeping stuff in Additional Resources to have PFS deviate from that rule has zero impact on how that rule affects the design of future classes.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand. BNW mentioned that "it would hamper designs going forward about deific obediences". The evangelist prc is largely about the deific obediences. BNW is pointing out that if you allow early access, future deific obediences will need to be designed with early access in mind, even if one accepts (which not all of us do) that there is no problem with early access for some of the current deific obediences.

Not all prestige classes are equal in strength. I think that should be a good argument for each prestige class being assessed on an individual basis for early access.

Increasing burden of knowledge in relation to the difference between PFS versus the home game PF experience is a bad thing.
It's negligible since you need to check the additional resources page when using non-core material anyway.

But it is an exception to the existing errata. It is especially bad when you inform those in your FLGS of the rules. Not everyone looks over the AR for themselves, and even fewer do so more than once. I think it is often that stores have rules experts or knowledgeable folks to consult. And when PFS rules divert from normal PF in anomalous ways such as this, it is easy to miss for the layman and possible to miss for the expert, and that is a bad thing.

The Exchange 3/5

Guess this can be closed then since the class doesn't need a specific spell. (Though additional resources might want to be updated considering the Evangelist exception doesn't make any sense now. Everyone wins.)

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

This resolution is preferable to the AR deviation. I'm content. :)

Grand Lodge 2/5

Jiggy wrote:
This resolution is preferable to the AR deviation. I'm content. :)

I sometimes wonder whether you started this whole thread just to remove early access altogether. You certainly achieved it.

Status quo was fine till you rocked the boat.

Sovereign Court 2/5

I dunno, I always thought it was a weird FAQ to be honest.

Sovereign Court 5/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Acedio wrote:
I dunno, I always thought it was a weird FAQ to be honest.

Yeah, I agree. I was very surprised by the original faq. Not so surprised by this one though.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

GM Aram Zey wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
This resolution is preferable to the AR deviation. I'm content. :)

I sometimes wonder whether you started this whole thread just to remove early access altogether. You certainly achieved it.

Status quo was fine till you rocked the boat.

I think, that blaming Jiggy is a bit unreasonable here, it was a pathfinder rules team decision.

The old ruling had a number of problems, especially considering that we already had people with and without early access in the campaign.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Aram Zey wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
This resolution is preferable to the AR deviation. I'm content. :)

I sometimes wonder whether you started this whole thread just to remove early access altogether. You certainly achieved it.

Status quo was fine till you rocked the boat.

1) I didn't even start this thread. I just participated, just like you did.

2) Of the two of us, you were arguing overpoweredness while I was arguing acceptability. If "blame" for getting it all taken away was going to go to either me or you, it'd be you.

201 to 250 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Rethinking Evangelist PRC Early Entry All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.