Hmmm.
So I've got a character working on being a Rogue/Witch/Arcane Trickster.
Now, normally Witch wouldn't work for Arcane Trickster, because the prereqs are 2nd Level spells *and* Mage Hand on your spell list. But I've picked up Mage Hand as an SLA via the Minor Magic Rogue Talent.
From my reading of the FAQ, that should still be a legal build, shouldn't it? Because "the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly".
(This is a PFS version of a character I've already played in a home game, so I'm pretty familiar with her strengths and weaknesses. It's an admittedly strange build, and I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone else, but she's a lot of fun.)
This right here is exactly why no one should ever get confused about the idea that archetypes can/will/should/are replacing PrC's. They can't/won't/shouldn't/aren't.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to have to argue at this point that prestige classes are pretty much replaced with outside-core classes and archetypes, so I'll agree on that point made by someone earlier in the thread.
Mystic Theurge is either the Witch or Shaman, having a pleasant blend of both cleric and wizard spell lists, albeit with fewer slots for spells, in exchange for mostly-reusable hexes. Duelist is the Swashbuckler, end of story. Eldritch Knight is the magus with lower to-hit. Arcane Archer, likely replaced with a houseruled-to-functionality myrmidarch Magus. Arcane Trickster doesn't quite have an equivalent that I can put my finger on, but a ninja's abilities are perhaps a beginning with their ki abilities. Assassin is covered by the Slayer, Vivisectionist Alchemist, Investigator, etc. Dragon Disciple is the Draconic Bloodline Bloodrager. Pathfinder Chroniclers and Loremasters both get replaced either by Bards, Investigators, Lore Mystery Oracles, or Wizards/any other build invested in textbook skills. Shadow Dancers get to share a spot with the Arcane Trickster in not quite having an equivalent that's easily pointed out.
With the witch in particular, I often find myself flavoring them that their patron is often divine and is taking a more subtle route than is done with oracles, teaching them arcane magic to carry out their will. But that's just fluff.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strawman incoming, but I feel like the pro FAQ reversal argument seems to stem mostly from:
"The original FAQ never made sense to me so it should never have been there"
And the anti-new FAQ seems to be mostly
"Why destroy a bunch of character options/my characters after setting a precedent for their inclusion in the first place?"
I'm in the first camp, but I agree with this statement. Ideally one would adjust certain prestige classes to be more attractive without having to use SLAs for early entry. This would allow the most options since you'd have more Arcane Tricksters and Mmystic Theurges of varied races. However there's not much point to getting rid of these options just because it's not elegant - unless they're overpowered compared to single class casters. And it doesn't look like that's the case.
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.
I've played a level 13 druid in a large party. Barkskin was indeed one of my favourite spells but I wasn't exactly running out of 2nd level spell slots for it at that point - I had seven including one Pearl of Power. And my 3rd level slots would have been no big loss - there's not actually too much there that's exciting to a 13th level druid. Having a few more 2nd level spell slots would have been nice, but having Wind Walk and Heal available as 7th level spells was hugely useful. Extra 4th and 5th level spell slots may have been a bigger deal, depending on who else was in the party, but with a rotating set of characters we usually did pretty well filling out mid-level buffs as necessary.
Mystic Theurge is either the Witch or Shaman, having a pleasant blend of both cleric and wizard spell lists
YMMV on "pleasant." I would not necessarily choose something similar to the witch spell list when making a mystic theurge. For example, Protection from Evil is missing. So are Endure Elements, Silent Image, Magic Weapon, Magic Stone, and Sanctuary. And that's just picking out a few obvious first level spells.
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.
Yes, though I think the better fix to this one is to have Improved Familiars require effective wizard levels rather than arcane spellcaster levels.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a Golarion-specific fan, I'd also argue that prestige classes have another role - organization representatives. Red Mantis assassins, harrowers, and Hellknights feel both unique and prestigious, while Vikings and whirling dervishes work well as archetypes. For similar reasons, I never had a lot of interest in eldritch knights or arcane tricksters - the latter would have made a much more unique combination-class than hunter, in my opinion.
I never cared for the original FAQ, which I felt was counterintuitive and didn't make sense. I also felt that Arcane Strike should have a caster level prerequisite rather than a "casts spells" prerequisite. That said, I can understand the desire to get into your "real" class faster.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see a FAQ like this, I come closer and closer to declaring Paizo unfit to issue rulings on their products.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really not sure how I feel about this FAQ. Letting SLA's count as prerequisites never made sense to me, but I really did like being able to make functional characters using the core prestige classes. I will miss getting Arcane Strike for so many classes, but, for the first time in a while, I'm interested in trying some of the races without SLA's. I know that the previous FAQ said that it might be rescinded, but it stayed up for so long that I've gotten used to figuring the SLA options into my designs. I am definitely conflicted about this situation.
I hope that simply canceling the previous FAQ is not the end of this matter. I think that this experiment has shown that it is possible to make improvements to elements like prestige classes without unbalancing the game. I just think that SLA's were a very awkward mechanism for making those changes. I'm really hoping that the devs will will use this experience to find more uniform and internally consistent ways to improve the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you think the FAQs can't get worse they prove you to be wrong.
Even before this one PF was a better game without any FAQs at all than with all of them but the garbage-FAQ pile keeps growing. Seems some fighters being able to use arcane strike was too overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Halleluja. The best FAQ in years! Back to the spirit of the game and away from the exploiting!!!! Even if I have to change one or two of my chars.... I am SOOOO HAPPY!
And I do love Archetypes and Prestigeclasses. Booth are great IMHO. The Idea of Archetype as special school or training method was always awesome, and the idea of Prestigeclass as member of a special calling always called to me!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the spirit of the game and away from the exploiting
Explain how the spirit of the game doesn't involve prestige classes being worth taking. Also, it was an FAQ posted by the devs, explicitly allowing players to do this. How was it an exploit?
| 2 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.
I want to expand on this a little bit, as I don't want to be misconstrued.
Letting SLA's count as prerequisites never made sense
This is true, and it's how I felt about the whole thing, too. The fact that this FAQ is made to add verisimilitude is actually really great. Like, seriously, it's awesome. The whole "SLAs count as spells of there level (but only the one that matters, not of every level, and definitely not 'as their level or lower')" was a clunky, exception-to-exception-riddled convoluted mess. Making it neater and cleaner is not a bad thing at all, and it's commendable.
The problem is that taking that away actively hampers a number of character ideas that aren't already supported by the system - there are methods in place, but ultimately they just aren't worth it to go through those hoops to far too many. This is a problem, and it's a painful one to bear - not because of this decision by itself, but because of repeated similar option-removing decisions adding up over time.
That is what is the source of my dissatisfaction here.
Some of you might not have followed my link-trees, so let me put this link as a presentation of an excellent FAQ answer: it's neat, it's precise, and the substance encourages and empowers players and GMs.
This, on the other hand, is a FAQ that restricts character ideas needlessly.
This one is not really bad - it acknowledges the RAW (and doesn't change it), but suggests a reasonable House Rule interpretation, even encouraging it.
This here is a solid and excellent FAQ, as it doesn't shut down character concepts, but does clarify how the rules functions and what they are meant to do.
This is a great FAQ as well - actively assisting characters and classes at being better at what they do.
This one is interesting in it's implication - it clarifies that "As written" is one answer, making it sound like the "As written" might not be the best answer, but it's the one they have right now. While disappointing (as I was hoping for a kind of stealth-errata-equivalent) it does give hope nonetheless.
This, this, and this are a similarly excellent set of FAQs.
This is a good one, even though I don't like it (as I believe the value of such items drops substantially below what the Core states they should be under such a paradigm).
The removal of specific examples from this FAQ instantly improved its quality. (And gives me hope, by the way - I hadn't heard anything at all about these changes.)
This one is a confusing but useful and FAQ, most confusion related to the complexity of the subject matter rather than the FAQ.
This FAQ is great - the one immediately below it sucks.
This one, on the other hand, is exceptionally useful for understanding the rules in general.
Awesome, straight-forward, sensible.
This is by no means a complete list.
I point those out to explain: I'm not against FAQs, I'm not even against FAQs that are (technically) nerfs, but rather those FAQs that kill character concepts are painful, especially when those character concepts are not over-powered.
This is the problem. If, on the other hand, a future FAQ came in and eliminated or altered (perhaps lowering requirements for) the PrC stuff or more readily available options open crafting things? My problems with this ruling would vanish - evaporate immediately in a puff of "SWEET!"
And that's what I want to get across - it's not that the FAQ is making things more sensible that's the problem. It's that it makes things harder for character concepts to be effective.
Of course a GM could house-rule stuff. That's fine - and, in fact house-ruling is awesome! The thing is, it's a place where the Core rules are lacking or have inherited a deep flaw.
Back to the spirit of the game and away from the exploitingExplain how the spirit of the game doesn't involve prestige classes being worth taking. Also, it was an FAQ posted by the devs, explicitly allowing players to do this. How was it an exploit?
This statement presupposes that all players feel something has to be mechanically significant to be 'worth taking'.
Simple answer. Why was a prestige class not worth taking without a loophole? The answer is not, it was no fun, or it did not work, it did work just fine, no you felt it was not equal to a tier one caster.
But please tell me where is the passage a prestigeclass has to make me more powerful. I can not find it.
I also honestly think that a fighter with one SLA should not be able to make wonderous items as if he were a fullcaster!
Why did the devs allow it in the first place? Well first of all they felt unhappy the way it worked right from day one! But sometimes you make a rule that is flawed and someone finds it and uses the flaw to his best effect. Either you hammer the flaw or you say well ok you may. And then you find out over the years that you opened a pandoras box. Yes it offers some interesting options. Now... I do not own many paizo products, but I have never seen one paizo char that used this loophole, maybe there are, but I am not sure. But what I see are many chars created by paizo that are wonderful fluffwise but from a powerlevel utterly stupid. So I think they prefer spirit to power. YOUR TURN!
But do not get me wrong. You can have your opinion.. but I am quite happy with mine.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't ask why the devs allowed it, or that your opinion was wrong.
Saying something is an exploit stop being an opinion when the people who create the game offer it as an option. It was (until this reversal) as valid and official an option as any other. Not an exploit.
With this FAQ in effect, who should take the new feats meant to make vital strike viable? I'm talking about Faerie's strike, winter's strike and grasping strike.
Hunters cast hunter spells not druid or ranger spells so they are out. druid spell SLA's don't work anymore and for every one who needs nature magic it's not worth the feat tax.
So only wildshape druids or rangers can take it. And really wildshape druids build for vital strike did not need the buff.
The PRCs are one thing. But this ruling mainly targets martials who were trying to remain viable vs the superstrong casters. Thanks for widening the disparity once more.
Please don't ever pretend not to hate martials, paizo.
EK is still viable. F1/wis5/EK10/wis4 = 9th level spells, 18 levels of casting, and 15 BAB. Switch that to F1/wis5/EK10/wis3/F1 for 17 levels of casting, and 16 BAB.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't ever pretend not to hate martials, paizo.
I have it on good authority that Erik Mona sits at his desk cackling softly to himself about his hatred of all things martial, gleefully twirling his mustache the entire time. Rumor has it that he plans to remove Power Attack from the game entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hunters cast hunter spells not druid or ranger spells so they are out.
There isn't a separate hunter spell list. Hunters cast druid AND ranger spells, and go with whichever list gives the spell at a lower spell level for when they get it.
Eh, I won't miss the "do early access or GTFO" posts.
Also, I think this thread is the first time I've seen 7th level spells described as useless.
With this FAQ in effect, who should take the new feats meant to make vital strike viable? I'm talking about Faerie's strike, winter's strike and grasping strike.
Hunters cast hunter spells not druid or ranger spells so they are out. druid spell SLA's don't work anymore and for every one who needs nature magic it's not worth the feat tax.
So only wildshape druids or rangers can take it. And really wildshape druids build for vital strike did not need the buff.The PRCs are one thing. But this ruling mainly targets martials who were trying to remain viable vs the superstrong casters. Thanks for widening the disparity once more.
Please don't ever pretend not to hate martials, paizo.
Druids, rangers, and hunters can take those strike feats easy enough. All other characters can take Nature Magic, and then take those feats.
Hunters cast hunter spells not druid or ranger spells so they are out.There isn't a separate hunter spell list. Hunters cast druid AND ranger spells, and go with whichever list gives the spell at a lower spell level for when they get it.
A hunter casts divine spells drawn from the druid and ranger spell lists. Only druid spells of 6th level and lower and ranger spells are considered to be part of the hunter spell list. If a spell appears on both the druid and ranger spell lists, the hunter uses the lower of the two spell levels listed for the spell. For instance, reduce animal is a 2nd-level druid spell and a 3rd-level ranger spell, making it a 2nd-level hunter spell.
They come from the druid and the ranger list but when cast by the hunter they are hunter spells. Not druid or ranger spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prestige Classes should be just that - a Prestige, as in "difficult to attain save for a special few".
That said, the problem has been that the PrC's aren't better than the standard/core/base classes (by and large). So attempts were made by players to find ways to make the PrC's better - one of which was the early entry exploit via the SLA.
This is to be commended as it shows dedication and devotion to the system!
I personally did not like the older FAQ because it didn't feel right to me - it FELT like an exploit. BUT, I also recognize that, until Archetypes came along, PrC's were an attempt to allow a form of multi-classing that simply wasn't viable based on Core mechanics. Now that we have an ever increasing number of Archetypes, and the new Hybrid classes, PrC's are less and less attractive or even workable. They're clunky compared to Hybrids.
PrC's should be revamped, having difficult pre-reqs, and grant the player a better character class than the core/base it is based upon because it is harder to qualify for. A lot to ask for, I know, as Paizo is not going to retract the original PrC's in order to rework them. Until then, the older FAQ should be allowed to stand, much as I disliked it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
EK is still viable. F1/wis5/EK10/wis4 = 9th level spells, 18 levels of casting, and 15 BAB. Switch that to F1/wis5/EK10/wis3/F1 for 17 levels of casting, and 16 BAB.
Don't look at it at level 20
Look at it from about 1-12. It is common knowledge that the vast majority of play occurs there (not only in PFS but in home games as well)
Lets take the EK
Lvl 1-5 (Wizard 1-5)
A wizard with some subpar ability score/feat allocation
Lvl 6 (Wizard 5,Fighter 1)
A subpar wizard 1 level behind, with some extra hp and a better fort save.
Bab=3(same as a lvl 6 wizard)
Max spell level=same as equal level wizard(less slots though, due to lower int and 1 level behind).
lvl 7(Wizard 5,Fighter 1,EK 1)
A subpar wizard 2 levels behind, who can almost hit as well as a bard who isn't singing
Bab=4 (3/4 bab classes are at 5)
Max spell level=1 level behind a full wizard (this doesn't change from here on).
lvl 8(Wizard 5,Fighter 1,EK 2)
Still at 2 levels behind, and without a second attack(which 3/4 classes get now)
Bab=5
lvl 9-12(Wizard 5,Fighter 1,EK 3-6)
Hey, look. The EK is now on par with a 3/4 class in terms of BAB. Of course their total attack bonus will still be terrible, because the EK lacks any form of class feature that boosts to-hit like practically every 3/4 class does (the only one I know of that doesn't is the rogue). The EK can of course use up some of it's rather anemic supply of spell slots to buff it's attack bonus, but most 3/4 classes can do something similar as well. They also lack a way of casting in armour without eating a swift action each round and a feat.
Bab=6-9
Note that EK is one of the better CRB prestige classes.
The mystic theruge and the arcane trickster are far worse.
The mystic theruge has a choice with regards to which classes to use. It basically comes down to this.
-Use 2 prepared full casters. Get 3rd level spells at lvl 8. MAD as hell.
-Use a prepared caster and a spontaneous caster. Get 3rd level spells at lvl 9(so you have flight at the same time as the wizard has overland flight). Either the spontaneous caster is an empyreal sorcerer, or MAD as hell.
-Use 2 spontaneous casters (basically, oracle and sorcerer). Get 3rd level spells at level 10!!! At least you only have 1 casting stat. Yay?
Even with cleric/wizard progression, the MT still is a 4th level caster at level 7, but with a few extra low level spell slots (you know, those things you frequently don't use up by this level and don't really need any more of). I don't think that I can emphasize enough how bad this is.
The arcane trickster loses 3 caster levels (or 2 if rogue/vivisectionist) is used, and the arcane trickster has basically NOTHING a caster cares about.Seriously, go look at it. All a caster gets is a slightly better reflex save,2 extra skill points,some class skills that it probably already has, and a whopping 4d6 extra damage extra damage on scorching ray when sneak attacking at level 12(no, wait, cl is 2-3 lower, so the AC gets 1 less ray at this point - they actually do equal damage to a straight caster at best). If the "cheesy" rogue/vivisectionist multiclass is used, the trickster can even get sneak attack a mind blowing 2 times a day without having to jump through the hoops of horror that are required to get ranged sneak attack (or just rely completely on getting surprise rounds).
I know that many players don't mind playing a clearly suboptimal build for flavor, but there is a difference between "flavorful and not that strong, but pulls its own weight" and "The only reason the PC isn't forced to leave the party is because doing that to other players is generally viewed as being a c***". Seriously, a non early entry MT sits somewhere between "close to useless" and "actively harms the party by sucking up treasure" for most of it's career. Most players do not enjoy being a waste of space, even if it is flavorful.
Always take Magical Lineage as a trait when making a Bladebound Arcanist or Wizard Eldritch Knight.
Always take Magical Lineage and Wayang Spell Hunter as traits when you are any sort of full caster that plans on using metamagic feats.
That's more like it to be honest.
Well, this kills my kineticist's damage output. Guess I won't be playing her again until the book comes out officially.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see a FAQ like this, I come closer and closer to declaring Paizo unfit to issue rulings on their products.
Declare all you want, it amounts to nothing more than whale farts.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple answer. Why was a prestige class not worth taking without a loophole? The answer is not, it was no fun, or it did not work, it did work just fine, no you felt it was not equal to a tier one caster.
That's a lot of assumptions. I would argue that without the loop hole, trying to play an Arcane Trickster or Mystic Theurge is flat out not fun, because you're a dead weight on the party who is getting dragged along and not contributing for most of your playing career, only really reaching usability well after most campaigns end. I'm not saying you need to be the leading blaster or buffer in the party, but you have to be able to contribute something, and neither the MT or the AT can do that for much of their adventuring career.
My only hope here is that this is in preparation for the release of Unchained and they're going to fix the CRB PrCs in that.
|
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see a FAQ like this, I come closer and closer to declaring Paizo unfit to issue rulings on their products.Declare all you want, it amounts to nothing more than whale farts.
I share Tels's sentiments here, and I think it shows that people who like this game aren't happy with the way it's being handled. Taking away something fun and unique like this so other players can say "Yeah, not that thing I never did and never wanted to do can't be done by anyone else who's enjoyment of it never impacted my own!" Do you honestly enjoy the fact that other people's concepts were destroyed so that something you didn't like was changed?
To those who approve of this FAQ, is it simply because it 'feels right?' Because for anyone who build characters around the old ruling, this is a stab in the back to their sense of stability towards building around what they would consider to be unique facets of the game.
It seems people who disliked the old FAQ were able to show their distaste for it enough to get it changed, so in the same fashion I'm going to show my displeasure over it being overturned to hope that rulings such as this won't happen again in the future. For a ruling of this size, I truly feel the community at large should be consulted, even if it's just "We're thinking of changing this, what do you think?"
This ruling doesn't help make Pathfinder better, it cuts off options that people enjoyed and built around, and that seems like a poor reason for an FAQ. We can't even pretend it's to keep the game backwards compatible since the original ruling was counter to 3.5's way of doing things.
Whenever there's a ruling or FAQ or anything else that I dislike, I'm going to state so to let Paizo know that to me they did something that I didn't appreciate, and to see if I am in the minority in the issue. This was a poor decision, and I really hope that we don't see anything like this happen again.
|
|
I share Tels's sentiments here, and I think it shows that people who like this game aren't happy with the way it's being handled.Every time I see a FAQ like this, I come closer and closer to declaring Paizo unfit to issue rulings on their products.Declare all you want, it amounts to nothing more than whale farts.
I am well aware of that.
Taking away something fun and unique like this so other players can say "Yeah, not that thing I never did and never wanted to do can't be done by anyone else who's enjoyment of it never impacted my own!" Do you honestly enjoy the fact that other people's concepts were destroyed so that something you didn't like was changed?
Since we are not in the PFS forums, are you referring to organized play or not? Because if not, this amounts to Paizo saying "this is how we intend the rules to function". The only thing destroying your concepts is the GM who refuses to allow you to play them. I personally would allow early entry with SLAs because I play very openly. Obviously, if you are speaking to PFS I can't allow you to bypass the stated rules. But I can run a campaign mode AP to give you the chance.
What does this mean for Arcane Strike? I suppose you need actual spellcasting now to qualify for it.
Prestige classes will always have the problem that you have to take a hit at lower levels to gain some competency at higher levels.
Unless your games spend most of their time at 12+, then you should avoid prestige classes.
As a GM, I really dislike low levels. So much so, that when I run one-shots, the starting level is 12 or higher. When I run normal campaigns, I make the PCs fight endless waves of enemies until they are no longer low level.
PFS has little relevance to me and how I view this FAQ or prestige classes.
When I think MT, I think of someone with 4th level spells in two classes at level 12.
When I think of EK, I see someone with 9 BAB and access to 5th level spells.
When I think of AT, I think of someone who didn't realize r1/w19 would have been a better rogue :P
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does this mean for Arcane Strike? I suppose you need actual spellcasting now to qualify for it.
Did you see American History X?
Do you remember the scene where Ed Norton told that dude to bite the curb?
That's what happened to Arcane Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does this mean for Arcane Strike? I suppose you need actual spellcasting now to qualify for it.Yes. Gnomes and Rogues are weeping.
Glorious Bard masterrace!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I share Tels's sentiments here, and I think it shows that people who like this game aren't happy with the way it's being handled.
Surely you mean SOME people aren't happy? Because if this thread and the others like it are any indication, some people seem to be.
Also, delivery matters. "Hey, I don't like this thing" is almost certain to be more effective than "I declare you unfit." Trust me, I speak from experience. :P
What does this mean for Arcane Strike? I suppose you need actual spellcasting now to qualify for it.Did you see American History X?
Do you remember the scene where Ed Norton told that dude to bite the curb?
That's what happened to Arcane Strike.
I think this counts as Godwin's Law, in a roundabout way.
I think this counts as Godwin's Law, in a roundabout way.What does this mean for Arcane Strike? I suppose you need actual spellcasting now to qualify for it.Did you see American History X?
Do you remember the scene where Ed Norton told that dude to bite the curb?
That's what happened to Arcane Strike.
Do neo-Nazis count as Nazis for Godwin's law?
You may be right...
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I share Tels's sentiments here, and I think it shows that people who like this game aren't happy with the way it's being handled.Surely you mean SOME people aren't happy? Because if this thread and the others like it are any indication, some people seem to be.
Also, delivery matters. "Hey, I don't like this thing" is almost certain to be more effective than "I declare you unfit." Trust me, I speak from experience. :P
Yes, I did mean some, although people doesn't have to mean 'all' people, which is just an interesting quirk of language.
Aside from the 3.5 exception I haven't been a fan of most FAQs that have come out, as they all seem either needlessly limiting, or just not good (NEW Crane Wing), and so I'd like to see some more communication about future errata.
If I'm truly in the minority, I can accept that. I won't be happy, but I can let something go. But rulings like this always feel like I'm being told I'm in the minority without seeing the majority that's prevailing here. Just an increase in communication for rulings like this would be deeply appreciated.
Also as a guide writer, can we get a moment of silence for the Mystic Theurge guide that just exploded thanks to this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is with the power level of Prestige Class features -- it makes absolutely no sense that a flavor ability that imitates a spell (such as daylight) serves to fulfill expertise requirements that would have been granted by actual magical training.
If you are sad about this change, don't ask for a reversal -- ask for better PrCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also as a guide writer, can we get a moment of silence for the Mystic Theurge guide that just exploded thanks to this.
And your Guides are greatly appreciated N. Jolly!
Simple answer. Why was a prestige class not worth taking without a loophole? The answer is not, it was no fun, or it did not work, it did work just fine, no you felt it was not equal to a tier one caster.
That's a lot of assumptions. I would argue that without the loop hole, trying to play an Arcane Trickster or Mystic Theurge is flat out not fun, because you're a dead weight on the party who is getting dragged along and not contributing for most of your playing career, only really reaching usability well after most campaigns end. I'm not saying you need to be the leading blaster or buffer in the party, but you have to be able to contribute something, and neither the MT or the AT can do that for much of their adventuring career.
Sorry but that is not true. You just have to switch from save or suck to buff and summon and support. I know for each there is a counter, but there are loads of good low level spells 1-2 worth casting even in higher tier! Name a few? Enlarge person, bless, mage armor, create pit, summon monster 1+2 for flanking, grease, Silent Image just to name a few. Are there better spells? Indeed. But you can usually cast a lot of those useful low levels.
Tuesday night we had an encounter PFS with a foe immune to mind effecting and damage reduction 10 adamantine and AC 30. In the end the clever players pooled their efforts in our adamantine weapon wielding barbarian while the stupid ones said I can do nothing. (Summoner 8 and Sorcerer 8 specialising in mind control effects.) Not to unmention I have seen many players specialising in one trick ponys stand around doing nothing when their trick did not work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is with the power level of Prestige Class features -- it makes absolutely no sense that a flavor ability that imitates a spell (such as daylight) serves to fulfill expertise requirements that would have been granted by actual magical training.
If you are sad about this change, don't ask for a reversal -- ask for better PrCs.
What I'd like to ask for is for the FAQ reversal to be reversed until better PrCs are made. Obviously that won't happen, but I'd be nice to dream.
I'd also love to see Arcane Strike modified to work with Spell-like Abilities. That makes sense to me, at least. Even an inkling of magical talent can be channeled to grant minor imbuement of weapons.
|
|
The problem is with the power level of Prestige Class features -- it makes absolutely no sense that a flavor ability that imitates a spell (such as daylight) serves to fulfill expertise requirements that would have been granted by actual magical training.
If you are sad about this change, don't ask for a reversal -- ask for better PrCs.
We DEFINITELY need better PrCs, I will not argue that at all. But the problem is the other rulings with Arcane Strike and crafting too, which were just fine they way they were, and even thematically made sense. Certain classes had magical abilities, they can use them to power up attacks and make magical gear.
I'm fine with the PrC issue (mostly), but the feat prereqs is what annoys me most of all.
Also as a guide writer, can we get a moment of silence for the Mystic Theurge guide that just exploded thanks to this.
Yeah, that sucks. Sorry.
As observed elsewhere, perhaps this FAQ change is a prelude to revamping the core prestige class entry requirements.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
EK is still viable. F1/wis5/EK10/wis4 = 9th level spells, 18 levels of casting, and 15 BAB. Switch that to F1/wis5/EK10/wis3/F1 for 17 levels of casting, and 16 BAB.
Did your campaign start and end at 20th level? Because there are levels where you have less-than-3/4 BAB.
Also, even at 20th level, base classes who land at 15 BAB will have higher to-hit than the EK, because every 3/4 BAB class (except the rogue) has a built-in attack bonus.
I played a traditional-entry EK from scratch to almost 14th level, and it was rough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does this mean for Arcane Strike? I suppose you need actual spellcasting now to qualify for it.Yes. Gnomes and Rogues are weeping.
And half-elfs and elfs and aasimar and and and...
I wouldn´t mind that SLA empowered Arcane strike, but one cantrip being enough for Crafting, thats BS. Thats like I know how to use a plaster and I am an expert ingeneur, now let me do open heart surgery because the body is like a machine!