| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well crap, oh well in my home games I'm going to rule that all spell-casting level prerequisites just don't exist, easier that way.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people 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.
EK purports to be a class that can hit things with weapons, but can't. For a huge portion of your career, you have less than 3/4 BAB, and unlike actual 3/4 BAB classes, you don't have a built-in way to boost to-hit. A magus can enhance his weapon, a bard has Inspire Courage (and more accessible buff spells), a cleric/oracle has better buff spells, inquisitor has Judgment and Bane, even the monk can boost his BAB while flurrying. The EK has none of that, while also having lower BAB.
If you can't hit things, the entire martial half of the PrC isn't actually a thing, which leaves you as a wizard with less spellcasting and no actual class features.
I speak from experience on this one: I played a traditional-entry EK from 1st to almost 14th.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank the maker!
| 2 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?
Here is an older comment by the PDT:
FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
I'm not sure if this hinders or helps your argument, but I wanted to bring it to attention.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not all that pleased with this ruling but really I have to wonder how much of this has to do with prestige classes and how much of it has to do with PFS.
There have been a few times where I've considered making a character to take a prestige class and then realized that the character would end up retired before they get to most of the fun features of the PrC. I'm willing to guess that there's fairly good odds that for people who regularly play their characters past the early teens the entry requirements for a lot PrCs look a lot less harsh.
| 6 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.
We're all pretty excited about the idea of creating new and fun ways for everyone to play around with new options, and it's definitely true that in many ways, the old version of the FAQ holds back any potential for such things becoming available for more characters in exchange for granting backdoor access to fewer characters.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not all that pleased with this ruling but really I have to wonder how much of this has to do with prestige classes and how much of it has to do with PFS.
There have been a few times where I've considered making a character to take a prestige class and then realized that the character would end up retired before they get to most of the fun features of the PrC. I'm willing to guess that there's fairly good odds that for people who regularly play their characters past the early teens the entry requirements for a lot PrCs look a lot less harsh.
I feel like I remember a post from someone at Paizo once indicating that their data shows most players' campaigns end pre-15, but don't quote me on that.
| 2 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?
Here is an older comment by the PDT:
I'm not sure if this hinders or helps your argument, but I wanted to bring it to attention.FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Did anyone experience any in-play evidence that this ruling created character that were too powerful?
I think the opposite is true, in that it revealed that entry prereqs for PrC's are (probably) too high across the board, and that interesting (read: flavorful) AND viable (read: non-terrible) characters can be built with PrC entry in the level 3 to 4 range.
I would hope this is accompanied by a wide spread errata that lowers entry requirements across the board for all PrC's.
Fair enough, Jiggy, but if that's the case and players know before hand and a player is really set on seeing what a PrC can do there's room for negotiation on the entry requirements in a home game. In PFS we're more or less left to hoping for loop holes to get to play the options we want to see.
While PFS characters aren't going to reach PrC capstone levels, they don't reach conventional capstone levels either, so I don't see it as much of an issue. Personally, I don't play PFS, and even so, don't think I've every played a character to any sort of capstone, prestige or otherwise.
Prestige Classes, as a basis of design, were somewhat obviously never supposed to be available before 6th level at a minimum, and some are quite a bit higher than that. This seems to (once again) be the case with this ruling.
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.
We're all pretty excited about the idea of creating new and fun ways for everyone to play around with new options, and it's definitely true that in many ways, the old version of the FAQ holds back any potential for such things becoming available for more characters in exchange for granting backdoor access to fewer characters.
...
I can't remember if it was in this thread but I agree, MT was a usable PrC prior to the early entry option and seemed too strong after.
It definitely helps that my visions align at least slightly with some of the PDT, so I'm quite hopeful for future releases and changes. I am, however, sad to see them go before then. Not that it matters much as I'm a home-game player
At Walter's suggestion in the PFS thread, I'd like to head off discussion on this topic from said thread and move it here:
If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no evidence has been provided that there are characters being created that are too powerful, no? I mean I'm sure people on the forums went "the sky is falling!" when an early-entry Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge whisked by, but I'm curious as to the Paizo staffs' take on that?
And some other people have commented on this issue, so please, feel free to discuss it here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good ruling! Between this and the 10' reach change, you guys are on a roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple more thoughts:
* That's one more house rule I can scratch; and
* An entire chapter of the NPC Codex is no longer outdated.
Yay!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people give having lots of low level spell slots exactly the right amount of credit, which is to say not very much. That is especially the case when we are looking at low level buffs which can just as easily be provided by wands or scrolls. You are giving up access to the highest level, and most game defining abilities for the chance to cast a couple of extra resist energies. Its an awful trade off and you have to live through the valley of suck that is levels 4-13 which for many AP's are the vast majority of levels. Given that the majority of buffs are ones you quite probably have to cast in combat given their durations this makes the situation even worse as you still have the same number of actions as the single class caster and may well have less as it takes longer for Quicken to come on line for you.
There are quite a few spells, barkskin and freedom of movement to name a couple, that can give your party a strong gp advantage (and the former of which you want at a higher caster level than that scroll or wand) over amulet of natural armor and ring of freedom of movement and last for a long enough time that they'll probably stay up. I've rarely seen a high level persistent group of PCs that wasn't trying to get such spells up on as many characters as possible. I've seen the level 13 druid casting barkskin out of 3rd level slots fairly often, for instance, when the group had more characters and companions and such than the druid had 2nd level spells.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
I'd really like to see Prestige Classes in Pathfinder that have some multiple of 4 total levels in general. 10 level classes, especially those with 3/4 BAB are really unattractive in many ways. Especially with the way that nearly every base class and many archetypes have a strong power at level 11.
Prestige Classes were a great idea when they were created, and just because Wizards made a few that were ridiculously overpowered, Paizo has been trying to kill them off from Day 1. They're still a good idea, and in many cases make more thematic sense than a class archetype.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, it makes sense that someone with an SLA doesn't really understand how magic works on the level needed for item crafting, nor does it represent sufficient understanding for a PrC. On the other hand, many possible builds that are very interesting, logically consistent (as fantasy can be), and only viable with the old ruling are now impossible.
Typically speaking I lean towards "more options" when I'm in doubt, so I feel that I would not have made the same ruling.
More than anything I want to know "why?" Many of the consequences were explicitly called out in the original ruling and deemed acceptable, and I've heard of nothing overpowered being generated due to the ruling, so the decision to reverse the ruling is strange to me.
I suppose I can just toss all the PrC into the garbage bin again and move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are quite a few spells, barkskin and freedom of movement to name a couple, that can give your party a strong gp advantage (and the former of which you want at a higher caster level than that scroll or wand) over amulet of natural armor and ring of freedom of movement and last for a long enough time that they'll probably stay up. I've rarely seen a high level persistent group of PCs that wasn't trying to get such spells up on as many characters as possible. I've seen the level 13 druid casting barkskin out of 3rd level slots fairly often, for instance, when the group had more characters and companions and such than the druid had 2nd level spells.I think people give having lots of low level spell slots exactly the right amount of credit, which is to say not very much. That is especially the case when we are looking at low level buffs which can just as easily be provided by wands or scrolls. You are giving up access to the highest level, and most game defining abilities for the chance to cast a couple of extra resist energies. Its an awful trade off and you have to live through the valley of suck that is levels 4-13 which for many AP's are the vast majority of levels. Given that the majority of buffs are ones you quite probably have to cast in combat given their durations this makes the situation even worse as you still have the same number of actions as the single class caster and may well have less as it takes longer for Quicken to come on line for you.
So the question is, do you find that having extra low level spells for buffing is significantly more powerful than having higher level spells (at all), and class features, and having 3/4 BAB, and having the ability to cast unrestricted in armor, and having better saves, and being SAD?
If you find that the extra low level spells are unbalancing in a significant way compared to the alternative that I describe, could you be more detailed as to why? Could you also give particular consideration as to why this may be exaggerated for early entry users? Because I think your play experience in the this matter deviates from some of ours by a fairly large degree.
This is the kind of response I would like to see explaining why this change was made. Particularly if it was made for balance reasons, because (as I look at it now) I just don't see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could very well have been that this ruling was not due to anything being overpowered, from a PrC perspective - but that the edge case feat abuses (like many of the "Arcane xxx" feats) of this might have prompted reevaluation of the entire concept of spell based prerequisites - and for consistency, PrC's ended up being included. I'm still all for it even with that reasoning, as the lack of consistency between similar mechanics is quite the pet peeve of mine in any game system.
It made no sense to me that a gnome barbarian should be able to take Arcane Strike...
All this rabble about Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, and Arcane Trickster being donked, and meanwhile I'm confused as to how people think the EK is in any way NOT terrible compared to the Magus (or anything else, for that matter). I'm also a little perplexed as to how players use the Mystic Theurge for anything more than fluff.
I have no opinions on the Arcane Trickster, but I've looked it over several times, and never felt really inspired to make one.
You know what, it's probably from the early entry Evangelist class. That class generated a lot of interest on the "unforeseen power" of early entry and future PrC.
All this rabble about Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, and Arcane Trickster being donked, and meanwhile I'm confused as to how people think the EK is in any way NOT terrible compared to the Magus (or anything else, for that matter). I'm also a little perplexed as to how players use the Mystic Theurge for anything more than fluff.
I have no opinions on the Arcane Trickster, but I've looked it over several times, and never felt really inspired to make one.
My experience:
Without early-entry, MTs are weaker than straight full casters, but still playable and strong when compared to martials (queue martial vs caster disparity).With early-entry, MTs are strong contenders with full casters. I'm not sure if they are strictly better or strictly worse, but they are very close to as strong and possibly/sometimes stronger.
EDIT:
You know what, it's probably from the early entry Evangelist class. That class generated a lot of interest on the "unforeseen power" of early entry and future PrC.
I believe special precautions were taken to prevent Evangelist from being taken early in PFS, which I would think would be a major reason to address this FAQ. Not sure how strongly PFS pushes and pulls on the design team.
All this rabble about Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, and Arcane Trickster being donked, and meanwhile I'm confused as to how people think the EK is in any way NOT terrible compared to the Magus (or anything else, for that matter). I'm also a little perplexed as to how players use the Mystic Theurge for anything more than fluff.
I have no opinions on the Arcane Trickster, but I've looked it over several times, and never felt really inspired to make one.
My experience:
Without early-entry, MTs are weaker than straight full casters, but still playable and strong when compared to martials (queue martial vs caster disparity).With early-entry, MTs are strong contenders with full casters. I'm not sure if they are strictly better or strictly worse, but they are very close to as strong and possibly/sometimes stronger.
EDIT:
You know what, it's probably from the early entry Evangelist class. That class generated a lot of interest on the "unforeseen power" of early entry and future PrC.I believe special precautions were taken to prevent Evangelist from being taken early in PFS, which I would think would be a major reason to address this FAQ. Not sure how strongly PFS pushes and pulls on the design team.
That is part of what I was alluding to before. Crane wing errata was attributed to feedback from PFS. The backlash from the community was sizable both by the change and because of where it came from.
If this change was spurred by the recent evangelist discussion in the PFS forum, then reasoning regarding the change may be kept on the down-low to avoid a repeat reaction.
All this rabble about Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, and Arcane Trickster being donked, and meanwhile I'm confused as to how people think the EK is in any way NOT terrible compared to the Magus (or anything else, for that matter). I'm also a little perplexed as to how players use the Mystic Theurge for anything more than fluff.
I have no opinions on the Arcane Trickster, but I've looked it over several times, and never felt really inspired to make one.
My experience:
Without early-entry, MTs are weaker than straight full casters, but still playable and strong when compared to martials (queue martial vs caster disparity).With early-entry, MTs are strong contenders with full casters. I'm not sure if they are strictly better or strictly worse, but they are very close to as strong and possibly/sometimes stronger.
EDIT:
You know what, it's probably from the early entry Evangelist class. That class generated a lot of interest on the "unforeseen power" of early entry and future PrC.I believe special precautions were taken to prevent Evangelist from being taken early in PFS, which I would think would be a major reason to address this FAQ. Not sure how strongly PFS pushes and pulls on the design team.That is part of what I was alluding to before. Crane wing errata was attributed to feedback from PFS. The backlash from the community was sizable both by the change and because of where it came from.
If this change was spurred by the recent evangelist discussion in the PFS forum, then reasoning regarding the change may be kept on the down-low to avoid a repeat reaction.
I don't prowl the PFS forums so I'm not entirely sure what the Evangelist thread was. My understanding was that there is a special FAQ for PFS was in place that prevented Evangelist early access. Is that not the case?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I do think the SLA ruling was strange, I enjoyed the support for PrCs. I'm a little worried that the reversal will kill characters who weren't strong enough to properly contribute without early entry. Hopefully something's in the works to change this (Unchained, perhaps?).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I had an early entry PFS Mystic Theurge (from Clerical Trickery Domain) and it's easy enough to just switch the now-illegal 1/3/x build to 3/3/x. First he gets killed by alchemical explosions, then his two levels of Mystic Theurge turn into Cleric levels. The poor guy!
|
I had an early entry PFS Mystic Theurge (from Clerical Trickery Domain) and it's easy enough to just switch the now-illegal 1/3/x build to 3/3/x. First he gets killed by alchemical explosions, then his two levels of Mystic Theurge turn into Cleric levels. The poor guy!...
No need; he's been grandfathered in.
Well, one of my local GMs just got one of his grandfathered tiefling builds completely invalidated/boned and that guy freaking loves tieflings. I feel sorry for the man, he's a good GM, and I'd hate to have a pining GM at the head of a table I'm playing at.
How did a grandfathered build get invalidated?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No need; he's been grandfathered in.
You can keep your current levels but if you no longer qualify for more Mystic Theurge levels I'm not so sure you can continue in the class until you meet the requirements again. An example is the Wiz2/Cleric1 entry with a level of MT. You won't get 2nd level spells on cleric until 3 levels of which you have 2. You would have to take another cleric level even if you already have a MT level.
that character after taking a level in that prestige class gets to keep the character as is.
This would mean you can't take that MT level going forward ignoring the entry requirement only for your current levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this rabble about Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, and Arcane Trickster being donked, and meanwhile I'm confused as to how people think the EK is in any way NOT terrible compared to the Magus (or anything else, for that matter). I'm also a little perplexed as to how players use the Mystic Theurge for anything more than fluff.
I have no opinions on the Arcane Trickster, but I've looked it over several times, and never felt really inspired to make one.
My experience:
Without early-entry, MTs are weaker than straight full casters, but still playable and strong when compared to martials (queue martial vs caster disparity).With early-entry, MTs are strong contenders with full casters. I'm not sure if they are strictly better or strictly worse, but they are very close to as strong and possibly/sometimes stronger.
EDIT:
You know what, it's probably from the early entry Evangelist class. That class generated a lot of interest on the "unforeseen power" of early entry and future PrC.I believe special precautions were taken to prevent Evangelist from being taken early in PFS, which I would think would be a major reason to address this FAQ. Not sure how strongly PFS pushes and pulls on the design team.That is part of what I was alluding to before. Crane wing errata was attributed to feedback from PFS. The backlash from the community was sizable both by the change and because of where it came from.
If this change was spurred by the recent evangelist discussion in the PFS forum, then reasoning regarding the change may be kept on the down-low to avoid a repeat reaction.
I doubt you can chalk it up to that, I get the sense there's been a fair amount of sentiment against the early access inside Paizo from the beginning. I know James Jacobs has been asked about it several times in his big thread and has consistently said he doesn't like the original ruling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The original ruling was also called out as something that could change, and that Jason and Co would continue to look into it to see the long term ramifications of it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having written over 270 pages of guide on the mystic theurge, and more that were going to be posted shortly, I'm going to need time to digest this ruling. This just invalidated months of work very suddenly. I need to figure out if it's worth fixing the guide, or even leaving it online at all. I should probably be distraught over this, but mostly it just has me confused.
I'll have to think about it after tonight's game.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's the thing. The original ruling was ridiculous. It just was. I hated that certain races and class choices enjoyed such a huge advantage over any other.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want Mystic Theurges, Arcane Trickers, or Eldritch Knights to be useless again or anything like that--I just hated that they were almost all Aasimar, Tieflings, or Scrying Subschool Diviners or whatever.
The real problem is not, "ZOMG! My Aasimar should be able to be an Eldritch Knight as his 3rd level because of daylight." The real problem is that Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickers, Mystic Theurge, and others are crappy in general and not worth the pre-requisites they require.
Ultimately, they should not allow SLA tricks to give you entry into Mystic Theurge at 3rd level, they should just allow everyone entry into Mystic Thuerge at 3rd level (or insert whatever junky prestige class you're talking about here).
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No need; he's been grandfathered in.You can keep your current levels but if you no longer qualify for more Mystic Theurge levels I'm not so sure you can continue in the class until you meet the requirements again. An example is the Wiz2/Cleric1 entry with a level of MT. You won't get 2nd level spells on cleric until 3 levels of which you have 2. You would have to take another cleric level even if you already have a MT level.
that character after taking a level in that prestige class gets to keep the character as is.This would mean you can't take that MT level going forward ignoring the entry requirement only for your current levels.
It seems there is some confusion on this point. Please see my clarification.
|
|
Well, one of my local GMs just got one of his grandfathered tiefling builds completely invalidated/boned and that guy freaking loves tieflings. I feel sorry for the man, he's a good GM, and I'd hate to have a pining GM at the head of a table I'm playing at.How did a grandfathered build get invalidated?
His build used the Darkness SLA of tieflings to get early access to Mystic Theurge in PFS. New FAQ ruling means that his build is not legal RAW.
But I see that a grandfather clause has been added into this ruling for PFS.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's the thing. The original ruling was ridiculous. It just was. I hated that certain races and class choices enjoyed such a huge advantage over any other.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want Mystic Theurges, Arcane Trickers, or Eldritch Knights to be useless again or anything like that--I just hated that they were almost all Aasimar, Tieflings, or Scrying Subschool Diviners or whatever.
The real problem is not, "ZOMG! My Aasimar should be able to be an Eldritch Knight as his 3rd level because of daylight." The real problem is that Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickers, Mystic Theurge, and others are crappy in general and not worth the pre-requisites they require.
Ultimately, they should not allow SLA tricks to give you entry into Mystic Theurge at 3rd level, they should just allow everyone entry into Mystic Thuerge at 3rd level (or insert whatever junky prestige class you're talking about here).
Basically this. ^
At the end of the day I am sad about this ruling.
I agree that the entire FAQ was weird and didn't seem to entirely follow. So in that sense I'm happy about the ruling
But, honestly, a lot of the PrCs really, really suck as written. And this just made them horrid... again.
If I had to pick between a weird FAQ (like it was) and not having the ability to make PrCs that are actually functional, I'll take the weird ruling every time.
Hmm well I had mixed feelings about this FAQ all along. On the one hand, I am a fan of EK and AT and would like to be able to enter them earlier, but not just for certain races.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's the thing. The original ruling was ridiculous. It just was. I hated that certain races and class choices enjoyed such a huge advantage over any other.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want Mystic Theurges, Arcane Trickers, or Eldritch Knights to be useless again or anything like that--I just hated that they were almost all Aasimar, Tieflings, or Scrying Subschool Diviners or whatever.
The real problem is not, "ZOMG! My Aasimar should be able to be an Eldritch Knight as his 3rd level because of daylight." The real problem is that Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickers, Mystic Theurge, and others are crappy in general and not worth the pre-requisites they require.
Ultimately, they should not allow SLA tricks to give you entry into Mystic Theurge at 3rd level, they should just allow everyone entry into Mystic Thuerge at 3rd level (or insert whatever junky prestige class you're talking about here).
There's a certain inconsistency to the logic there. If the PrCs are pretty suboptimal choices (and basically all the CRB ones pretty much are), than being able to access them based on race isn't any more of an "advantage" than being able to choose a racial archetype.
An advantage is having a leg up on other "competitors". Being able to not suck, isn't an advantage, it's just a growth in viable options.
Personally, I preferred the old ruling. I don't like that the CRB PrCs are so suboptimal given that they're fairly flavorful, and increasing their accessibility also increased their viability. With the existence of the Swashbuckler, Slayer, Bloodrager, Magus, etc., basically the only PrCs that aren't just eating up page space in the CRB are the Mystic Theurge and Pathfinder Chronicler; which is not to say those are really competitive options, just that they still have a certain amount of unique design space that can perform at a reasonable level. It's a bit of a shame, and while I can certainly see the go-forward benefits of flipping this ruling, I'm a bit concerned that it also undermines the possibility of those older materials ever making the return to viability.
I doubt you can chalk it up to that, I get the sense there's been a fair amount of sentiment against the early access inside Paizo from the beginning. I know James Jacobs has been asked about it several times in his big thread and has consistently said he doesn't like the original ruling.All this rabble about Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, and Arcane Trickster being donked, and meanwhile I'm confused as to how people think the EK is in any way NOT terrible compared to the Magus (or anything else, for that matter). I'm also a little perplexed as to how players use the Mystic Theurge for anything more than fluff.
I have no opinions on the Arcane Trickster, but I've looked it over several times, and never felt really inspired to make one.
My experience:
Without early-entry, MTs are weaker than straight full casters, but still playable and strong when compared to martials (queue martial vs caster disparity).With early-entry, MTs are strong contenders with full casters. I'm not sure if they are strictly better or strictly worse, but they are very close to as strong and possibly/sometimes stronger.
EDIT:
You know what, it's probably from the early entry Evangelist class. That class generated a lot of interest on the "unforeseen power" of early entry and future PrC.I believe special precautions were taken to prevent Evangelist from being taken early in PFS, which I would think would be a major reason to address this FAQ. Not sure how strongly PFS pushes and pulls on the design team.That is part of what I was alluding to before. Crane wing errata was attributed to feedback from PFS. The backlash from the community was sizable both by the change and because of where it came from.
If this change was spurred by the recent evangelist discussion in the PFS forum, then reasoning regarding the change may be kept on the down-low to avoid a repeat reaction.
No, doubt. PFS was just one possible "finger-pointee." James came to mind as well.
Just to be clear; I'm not pointing a finger. I just suspect this was driven by some force other than balance.
|
|
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.
This is the second time today, that someone came with a concept that does not / will not, work without special dispensation, arguing that there are so many other more powerful options.
Sorry but I really don't think that the "special snowflake" argument is workable in any way, shape of form. I sympathize, that creating unusual characters is fun, and characters that are capable of doing something that you would not expect based in their classes even more so.
However, if you allow something like this for one player, you have to allow it for everybody, not just in the case of changing FAQ, but also in the case of errata and new printings. There is really no clean way to differentiate those things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand this ruling. It might stink for people who were using it to get early access to prestige classes and some feats, but it's there in the title:
Spell-Like Ability.
Why does an ability that mimics a spell count as a spell for prereqs, but an Alchemists' extracts (which function much more like a spell) not count as a spell for the same prereqs?
While I can sympathize with players who got shafted by this decision, from a DMing standpoint, I appreciate it. It makes things much easier; something isn't a "spell" unless it's a proper spell - it's magic given form by a spellcaster's will. Other things may mimic and even duplicate a spell's effects, but they're not "spells" in the truest sense.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The original FAQ was janky but well-loved as it introduced a raft of new character archetypes that are difficult to achieve in the base pathfinder system (MT and AT especially). Having constructed, played and DMed for arcane tricksters and/or mystic theurges both pre and post-early entry I can say confidently that both builds without early entry struggle to contribute meaningfully. Extra early slots, which can be easily replaced with wands and pearls of power, are not worth the loss of high level slots. Arcane tricksters are just awful, and barely mediocre even with early entry. I don't see how reversing this rule helps anyone and it certainly harms a whole bunch of people.
I hazard a guess that MS's experiences with MT are from groups that do not have other full casters in them? Late entry MT does fine when there are no other casters slinging actually useful spells around. Otherwise I have difficulty reconciling our disparate experiences as I would assume MS tend to play in mid to high-optimisation games like I do.
I agree with MLP that really, prestige class prereqs (especially for the core prestige classes) need a drastic overhaul to make them relevant again. However, paizo has a history of refusing to patch problematic issues in core (which is fair enough for a variety of reasons) so I highly doubt this will ever happen.
I'm just hoping the quiet surrounding this change comes from some new unearthed arc- *ahem* I mean, pathfinder unchained options for prestige classes that once again open up possibilities for inclusion. I'm concerned the quiet is actually a result of pressure from influential PFS members similar to crane wing - and awful reason to introduce a sweeping FAQ like this.
TL;DR I think this is a terrible ruling reversal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm wondering how those people will interpret this FAQ: A year ago, the FAQ said that SLAs count for spell prerequisites, meaning that that was 'always' what the rules have said. But now, the FAQ says that SLAs don't count for spell prerequisites, meaning that that is 'always' what the rules have said. Anyone who really believes the FAQs match the rules in the books is going to have to practice some serious doublethink. We have always been at war with East Spell-Prerequisasia!
Kind of an unnecessarily unpleasant post here overall but this part in particular is flat out wrong if I'm not mistaken. The design team explicitly stated that they were trying this FAQ as an experiment to see if it opened up some new possibilities without breaking anything. They asked for feedback from those who implemented the ruling. They most definitely never claimed it was "always what the rules have said". It was a change and was presented as such (IIRC).
You know, I'm kind of confused upon reflection as to why this FAQ excluded SLAs from granting a caster level or arcane spellcasting for the purposes of feat prerequisites. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone complaining about the fact that Gnomes or Tieflings or what have you were able to take Arcane Strike without levels in an arcane casting class.
I understand if Paizo thinks it preferable to not introduce the "extra noise" into qualification for prestige classes, but would there have been a way to alter this ruling so as not to exclude Arcane Strike, or crafting feats, or any of the other options non-spellcasters were previously able to enjoy due to their innate racial magic?
Not bringing up martial-caster disparity explicitly here, since pseudo-casting classes like the Alchemist were able to enjoy the previous ruling without any desire to prestige class, but I do think it's odd than the Gnome Rogue should now be unable to add Arcane Strike to his whirling daggers. He is an innately magical being, why should he not be able to channel that through his weapons without a level in an arcane spellcasting class? Etc. etc.
EDIT: Does this also mean that the newly-released familiar-toting Fighter archetype will be unable to take Improved Familiar as he lacks caster levels or any way of adding them through SLAs? That's disappointing and odd.