| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This FAQ was revised today without a corresponding post from the PDT account.
John has made a point to draw attention to it in the PFS forum, but for those who don't frequent that area, you might be interested.
SLA FAQ allowing spellcasting prereq has been reversed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope this isn't the ruling Seifter has been teasing.
This makes me... somewhat upset. Sure, it has a lot of broken edge-cases, but the ruling made certain PrCs and options viable.
I kind of wish an errata changing some of the particular problem feats/PrCs came with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
THANK ARCEUS.
Darn...and I liked the idea of getting riving strike onto a fighter.
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know a lot viable of concepts are garbage again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know a lot viable of concepts are garbage again.
*shrug* Don't like it, keep using the old ruling.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a cruddy move.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, guess we're back to all of the multiclass caster PrCs being utter garbage again.
Did people really hate the Arcane Trickster that much?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, guess we're back to all of the multiclass caster PrCs being utter garbage again.
Did people really hate the Arcane Trickster that much?
And to think I was seriously considering making an Eldritch Knight.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can't in PFS.Good to know a lot viable of concepts are garbage again.*shrug* Don't like it, keep using the old ruling.
But for what it's worth, in PFS there are a LOT of resource options, so you might be able to manage your concept some other way. In a home game that perhaps allows fewer books, the previous FAQ could still be used.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a PC with an SLA still qualify for, say, Craft Wondrous Item? "Able to cast x-level spells" and "caster level x" are two different things. The FAQ only appears to address the former.
-Matt
Does a PC with an SLA still qualify for, say, Craft Wondrous Item?
-Matt
Does a PC with an SLA still qualify for, say, Craft Wondrous Item? "Able to cast x-level spells" and "caster level x" are two different things. The FAQ only appears to address the former.
-Matt
I think yes. Not 100% on that though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This FAQ was revised today without a corresponding post from the PDT account.
John has made a point to draw attention to it in the PFS forum, but for those who don't frequent that area, you might be interested.
SLA FAQ allowing spellcasting prereq has been reversed.
Hahaha that FAQ was extremely dumb. I am glad that it is now fixed.
EDIT: Poop, had to change up my homebrew summoner. She only had SLAs and was dependent on the old FAQ to qualify for things like magic item creation and other internal mechanics. Sneaky Paizo.
Holy cow, that was a pretty hidden FAQ about crafting feats. I'll have to figure out what to do with my Rogue with Craft Wondrous...
-Matt
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
>:I
My feelings on a related set of FAQs, as well as this specific one and one other. All but the last of those discussed are negative reactions.
The short version: I don't like the FAQs that reduce PC viability, nifty options or combinations, or otherwise reduce the interesting and unexpected coolness that can come from a complex system; otherwise, you're just playing a complex system just for the sake of complexity, which is boring, and I'd rather have a rules-lite system than a complex one in that case.
I love Paizo and I love Pathfinder. Not a fan of these FAQs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I likewise didn't like this ruling when it first occurred, sneaking in early access didn't feel right.
That said the PrCs could use some help, as I would want to see them used.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The MT is just dead. Resource options don't let you enter it early so you basically can't enter MT in 3 or 5 levels. I'd expect many people to need to rebuild. I know of 4 people with characters who will need full rebuilds or the character just dies.But for what it's worth, in PFS there are a LOT of resource options, so you might be able to manage your concept some other way. In a home game that perhaps allows fewer books, the previous FAQ could still be used.Can't in PFS.Good to know a lot viable of concepts are garbage again.*shrug* Don't like it, keep using the old ruling.
I was meaning more along the lines of if you had a particular concept that you were going to actualize through a PrC, you might still be able to actualize it reasonably well through some other class. For instance, most concepts involving EK could probably be reasonably fitted into magus, bloodrager, archaeologist, or oracle.
MT concepts are admittedly a little tougher, but a cleric with the right domains might still pull it off.
Anyway, for existing characters, there's a limited grandfathering system. Hope that helps.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really galls me because I wanted something unique and now I can't have it. My early entry bloatmage who spams summon monster via academy graduate just got invalidated because I never got to play him enough times in PFS. I could easily make a summoner (no archetype) who does the same thing only stronger or a character for a home game but the build doesn't work from levels 3-6 without early entry. I'm not willing to GM 12 extra times just to play my character who is weaker than the summoner rebuilt PFS legal version would be. So now I get to either not play the character, or play a stronger version that is less unique.
Well crap.....
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, it's great that we got to use Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge and all the rest for a full a year and a half before tossing them right back in the garbage without so much as an explanation.
This is starting to feel like some MMO where things are nerfed/buffed every few months. At the very least, we could have seen some serious community discussion on the possibility of reversing this ruling first, if those Mystic Theurges were tearing it up in the dungeons. First it works, then it doesn't. I'm not a fan of the back and forth when the SLA qualification had finally been generally accepted.
I'm loathe to do it, but I guess ignoring this change this will be joining crane wing in my list of home game houserules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh... I thought the previous way of doing it was pretty ridiculous anyways. Its a shame that it limits how some concepts can be created, but I understand the reasoning behind it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, it's great that we got to use Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge and all the rest for a full a year and a half before tossing them right back in the garbage without so much as an explanation.
This is starting to feel like some MMO where things are nerfed/buffed every few months. At the very least, we could have seen some serious community discussion on the possibility of reversing this ruling first, if those Mystic Theurges were tearing it up in the dungeons. First it works, then it doesn't. I'm not a fan of the back and forth when the SLA qualification had finally been generally accepted.
I'm loathe to do it, but I guess ignoring this change this will be joining crane wing in my list of home game houserules.
Really, if you are going to house-rule it, then don't make it messy with SLA stuff. Class Mashup PrC - Must be character level 3 to enter. All other PrC's - Must be character level 4 to enter.
Clean and easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very happy about this ruling.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really like this ruling. It's the perfect balance of sense and utility. Never sat well with me that having an innate ability to produce a specific effect meant you somehow knew how to universally manipulate the arcane and/or divine energies.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, it's great that we got to use Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge and all the rest for a full a year and a half before tossing them right back in the garbage without so much as an explanation.
This is starting to feel like some MMO where things are nerfed/buffed every few months. At the very least, we could have seen some serious community discussion on the possibility of reversing this ruling first, if those Mystic Theurges were tearing it up in the dungeons. First it works, then it doesn't. I'm not a fan of the back and forth when the SLA qualification had finally been generally accepted.
I'm loathe to do it, but I guess ignoring this change this will be joining crane wing in my list of home game houserules.
Really, if you are going to house-rule it, then don't make it messy with SLA stuff. Class Mashup PrC - Must be character level 3 to enter. All other PrC's - Must be character level 4 to enter.
Clean and easy.
Agreed with this. If certain PrCs have early-entry that are often fulfilled by race, that feels lame. If they are instead making it easier to enter (AT requires 2d6 sneak attack, spells of 1st level or higher, 4 skill ranks; EK requiring 1st level spells rather than 2nd), I'm happy.
I feel like MT is in a tough place because early entry made it a very strong choice, only slightly weaker than full casting. Which is quite strong as is. But without any early entry, MT falls apart as weak.
Was attempting to be humorous. Really, I'm looking for some reasoning behind what led to this decision from the PDT. Mark has been the usual poster to mention that if there is no official post by the PDT.Indeed, the regular PDT post accompanying this FAQ was notably absent.
Unfortunately, absence spawns speculation. I speculate that the explanation for this would involve pointing a finger rather than a discussion about balance.
I therefore presume that the explanation was not offered to keep the heat off of whomever that finger would have been pointed at.
It was mainly because I thought it would be a good idea if PFS folks saw the solution to what to do at the same post as the announcement, and then this thread was already up soon after. I can confer with the PDT and get another thread up if you guys like, but it seems redundant with this one.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really like this ruling. It's the perfect balance of sense and utility. Never sat well with me that having an innate ability to produce a specific effect meant you somehow knew how to universally manipulate the arcane and/or divine energies.
Now, see, this is a post that expresses favor toward the new FAQ, and even a dislike of the old one, without attacking anybody or trying to establish some kind of superiority. Thanks, CraziFuzzy. :)
It was mainly because I thought it would be a good idea if PFS folks saw the solution to what to do at the same post as the announcement, and then this thread was already up soon after. I can confer with the PDT and get another thread up if you guys like, but it seems redundant with this one.Was attempting to be humorous. Really, I'm looking for some reasoning behind what led to this decision from the PDT. Mark has been the usual poster to mention that if there is no official post by the PDT.Indeed, the regular PDT post accompanying this FAQ was notably absent.
Unfortunately, absence spawns speculation. I speculate that the explanation for this would involve pointing a finger rather than a discussion about balance.
I therefore presume that the explanation was not offered to keep the heat off of whomever that finger would have been pointed at.
I just thought it was weird because usually the PDT account will make the FAQ post in the last thread to discuss a topic. And usually that post is followed up with a "why this is the way it is" type of post.
I think it would be good to know about "why this is the way it is."
I have no preference if you make that information available here or in a different thread.
Thanks for the reply.
Anyone saying this is a nerf to PrCs... That's just cause prestige classes are bad.
Pathfinder has long replaced them with archetypes and feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone saying this is a nerf to PrCs... That's just cause prestige classes are bad.
Pathfinder has long replaced them with archetypes and feats.
I don't think PrCs are innately bad. I think the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are both things that could be covered by archetypes, but there are many other PrCs out there that feel strong as stand-alone entry options.
What I like about PrCs is that they don't limit your entry options. You can play a Sorc or Wizard or Arcanist Eldritch Knight, entering with Paladin, Fighter, etc.
What is bad is that most of these prestige classes are weak. That can be changed without totally dropping the system, in my opinion.
Also: Thanks for the reply, Mark. Personally, I was a big supporter of the effects of the last FAQ, but I'm happy to see it go if that means those effects will be brought back in different and hopefully appealing ways. I would love to read commentary on what got us here and any overall design changes going forward after a year or so with this experiment.
One FAQ that was inaccurate gets fixed.
A new one that's inaccurate gets published.
Damnit.
One FAQ that was inaccurate gets fixed.
A new one that's inaccurate gets published.
Damnit.
huh? What sort of 'inaccuracy' is there?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, though, I don't understand why I'm seeing eldritch knight being put up as a problem child alongside mystic theurge and arcane trickster. The only issue I can really see with EK (the capstone) isn't a problem that early entry will fix; otherwise it looks like a more caster-focused version of the magus, and has similar stats to one pretty much all the way through. Early entry looks like an attempt to get almost-full-BAB and almost-full-CL, which may not be overly powerful, but certainly bends the PrC in the wrong way from its intentions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt this ruling was the result of consideration of overpowered combinations, as honestly, there aren't that many involving PrC's... It is far more likely that this ruling is the result of "this just makes more sense and it was never really intended to work the previous way, but since the wording was vague/poor, we let it slide."
That's really what FAQ's are for, isn't it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, see, this is a post that expresses favor toward the new FAQ, and even a dislike of the old one, without attacking anybody or trying to establish some kind of superiority. Thanks, CraziFuzzy. :)I actually really like this ruling. It's the perfect balance of sense and utility. Never sat well with me that having an innate ability to produce a specific effect meant you somehow knew how to universally manipulate the arcane and/or divine energies.
Great.. now I feel like I've broken some sort of unwritten forum rule...