| 2 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.
This kinda reminds me of a recent patch for Heroes of the Storm where Blizzard took away a "must-have" talent for Tyrael that was the only thing keeping him viable in the game. Now he's strictly worse than all the other warriors in the game and no one(who wants to win anyways) plays him or wants to see him on their team. Blizzard stated a rework was in the works but apparently he's meant to be useless till then.
| 2 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.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.Some people, yes.
Others are fine with it.
Reddit seems just as split about it as this forum, and since reddit is the generally-more-even-keeled forum for pathfinder, I'd have to say that it's just divisive - a third like it, a third hate it, and a third doesn't care 'cause it doesn't affect 'em.
A third don't care as it doesn't affect them - a third like it, but doesn't really affect them - and a third hate it as it affects them because their characters are now illegal and don't function.
Congratulations on changing the rules to suit the whims of people who were unaffected by the previous rules!!!
In other news, Paizo Publishing has proposed a bill to Congress that would make it illegal for people to use electricity because the Amish don't like it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be willing to tell me, even if just via PM, how you feel Paizo has eroded trust in them over the past couple years?
Probably has to do with the poor publishing of the ACG, and that the Errata for it is still pending, so basically we don't have the actual version yet. Just a post-beta version. Coming out with FAQs that change how the rules work, like the double dipping FAQ. Or destroying something that wasn't broken with crane style.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be willing to tell me, even if just via PM, how you feel Paizo has eroded trust in them over the past couple years?
FAQs disguised as errata and "unwritten rules" chainging things ("Imaginary hands" and "Typed untyped stat bonuses" being the most prominent and obnoxious).
Questionable design decisions in the release of new material, partly due to the devs vehemently denying any caster-martial disparity despite it being an almost unanimous view held since, as near as I can tell, the game was in playtest phase (and an endemic part of the edition before that).
A general lack of transparency leading to rulings and reversions of rulings like this coming seemingly out of the blue.
Oftentimes refusing to listen to feedback provided in playtests, or outright banning discussion of things the developer in question did not want to hear.
I won't expound on my last personal one because I've been asked to "let it go".
Actually, a 1E/2E multiclassed character lags 2 or 3 levels behind behind a straight class caster, since they effectively halve their XP.1e XP progression is not linear so they don't. Generally multiclassed characters will lag about a level behind their single classed friends which is great right up until around level 8 when hard capped level limits start to bite.
Quick example, a character with 50k xp might be a single classed level 6 Cleric or level 6 Wizard but would be a Wizard5/Cleric5 multiclass.
In the long term the 1e multi-classes are still screwed because of level caps. A character with 3,000,000 XP might be a level 20+ cleric or magic-user (not wizard) but would still be a level 5 cleric/level 8 magic-user (and you had to be a half-elf to do it.)
Furthermore, even if you decided to remove those level caps, once the classes hit the linear xp levels (name level in each class), the single-class characters will pull ahead.
PF/3e mystic theurges are pretty much always going to look good compared to 1e multi-classing (except for the first couple levels).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly among the prc out there, arcane trickster and arcane archer do deserves the downgrade to being either alternate classes or new classes.
Eldritch Knight can be hit or miss, but far from being terrible and Arcanist (Blade Adept) at least make an effort of making, the prc viable by using caster levels instead of arcanist levels to determine the abilities of the intelligent blade.
Dragon Disciple, not much else to say about it, if that's what you are going for...congratulation, I guess.
The Magus is pretty much what the EK wanted to be, so that's that.
Myrmidarch functions as the Arcane Archer (diminshed casting kinda sucks, but whatever). So, their probably doesn't NEED to be an Arcane Archer equivalent.
And the DD is still pretty strong. Barb/Sorc/DD vs pure Barbarian vs Bloodrager is a fair divide - each build has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and the three are pretty balanced with one another.
Except that the magus doesn't fill the role of a sorcerer, bard, witch, or arcanist who wanted to go EK.
Except the myrmidarch doesn't fill the role of any of the above OR the ranger, paladin, monk, slayer, or ninja that wanted to go AA.
Point being that archetypes and hybrids DO NOT fill the gap left empty when PrC's were abandoned.
There is the Arcane Duelist, Hexcrafter, and Eldritch Scion to fill those gaps.
And there is an Arcanist archetype that is based on a weapon.
So that is 20 build options reduced to 3. Granularity of options is a real thing that is being ignored. Also, PrC's give the option to "dabble and main" before you take them rather than be a blend ratio that Paizo decides for you. Ranger 5/Sorcerer 1/EK X has a completely different feel from Ranger 3/Sorcerer 4/ EK X. BOTH of those are radically different from Magus.
Then of course, with a PrC you can get in and get out when it is right for you, with archetypes and hybrids you are locked in.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably has to do with the poor publishing of the ACG, and that the Errata for it is still pending, so basically we don't have the actual version yet. Just a post-beta version.
Would you be willing to tell me, even if just via PM, how you feel Paizo has eroded trust in them over the past couple years?
Also this. I cannot get over how poorly edited the ACG was.
To the point that due to redundant phrases eating word count there "wasn't enough space" for an archetype ability THE WHOLE ARCHETYPE RELIED ON.
Like, wow.
Would you be willing to tell me, even if just via PM, how you feel Paizo has eroded trust in them over the past couple years?FAQs disguised as errata and "unwritten rules" chainging things ("Imaginary hands" and "Typed untyped stat bonuses" being the most prominent and obnoxious).
Questionable design decisions in the release of new material, partly due to the devs vehemently denying any caster-martial disparity despite it being an almost unanimous view held since, as near as I can tell, the game was in playtest phase (and an endemic part of the edition before that).
A general lack of transparency leading to rulings and reversions of rulings like this coming seemingly out of the blue.
Oftentimes refusing to listen to feedback provided in playtests, or outright banning discussion of things the developer in question did not want to hear.
I won't expound on my last personal one because I've been asked to "let it go".
Unfortunately, you don't have sufficiently high enough sorcerer levels to let it go. So I guess it'll stay here huh?
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be willing to tell me, even if just via PM, how you feel Paizo has eroded trust in them over the past couple years?
With the caveat that I actually like and respect the Paizo team, I'd be willing to touch on how I can see people coming to the same feelings and conclusions as Rynjin.
For me, an excellent example is the relatively recent mounted combat FAQ, where Stephen Radney-McFarland said in no uncertain terms that just because a member of the design team says something, doesn't mean it matters unless it's in a FAQ. Combine that with the fact that they've changed multiple FAQs, not just this one, and it's perfectly natural to come to the conclusion that you can't actually trust anything they say.
Obviously, it's more complex than that. Pathfinder is a living game with a design team composed of a changing cast of real people who all probably play the game a little bit differently. I've never including in PFS, met two people from different areas who played the game the exact same way, which is actually my main dissatisfaction with this ruling. Just like in the mounted combat ruling, there were two different camps who were interpreting the rules in different ways. A ruling for Camp B invalidated many of the character concepts in camp A, while a ruling for camp A would have allowed pretty much everyone to continue on as they were before; camp B wasn't using options that relied on camp A's interpretation and balance was not an issue.
I'm not a big fan of decisions like that. I don't like FAQs like this that come off as telling a big portion of the player base they're playing the game wrong. Do I believe the Paizo team is actually trying to convey that message? Of course not, but it's easy to see how someone might arrive at that conclusion when a ruling like this dismantles a lot of options for something as mutable and varying as "thematic consistency". To me, it makes perfect sense that creatures with an inherent connection to magic should be more adept at techniques that manipulate magic in unusual ways, like the Mystic Theurge. It also makes perfect sense to me that Rogue's who've learned a few back doors into the realm of the arcane (like the various Magic talents) would have a certain adroitness as parlaying that knowledge into techniques to improve their other talents (Arcane Strike), or combining their skillfulness with magic (Arcane Trickster). So, it would be pretty natural to see this ruling as telling me that my vision of the game world is not as "accurate" as somebody else's.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A third don't care as it doesn't affect them - a third like it, but doesn't really affect them - and a third hate it as it affects them because their characters are now illegal and don't function.
Congratulations on changing the rules to suit the whims of people who were unaffected by the previous rules!!!
In other news, Paizo Publishing has proposed a bill to Congress that would make it illegal for people to use electricity because the Amish don't like it.
Or - just go with me here a sec - OR... the ones who like the ruling hated the unintuitive and silly nature of the previous ruling, and, especially those who DM, were sick of trying to explain why SLAs worked for some things but not others, why SLAs allowed for access into things but Extraordinary Abilities didn't, how you were supposed to resolve issues of having a "Caster Level" in a class when you clearly didn't have any spellcasting beyond that single SLA, whether it's "on your spell list" or "on your list of spells known", etc. etc.
You assume that those who didn't like the original FAQ didn't use it, while on the contrary those who didn't like it may have had to deal with it on a regular basis, and were annoyed at the gnarly BS it caused.
Would you be willing to tell me, even if just via PM, how you feel Paizo has eroded trust in them over the past couple years?
With the caveat that I actually like and respect the Paizo team, I'd be willing to touch on how I can see people coming to the same feelings and conclusions as Rynjin.
For me, an excellent example is the relatively recent mounted combat FAQ, where Stephen Radney-McFarland said in no uncertain terms that just because a member of the design team says something, doesn't mean it matters unless it's in a FAQ. Combine that with the fact that they've changed multiple FAQs, not just this one, and it's perfectly natural to come to the conclusion that you can't actually trust anything they say.
Wait, was this in a FAQ? Because according to what Stephen said, if it's not a FAQ, then it doesn't matter, right? But, if what he says doesn't matter because it's not in a FAQ, then does that mean what designers say *does* matter because they said it? But then that would mean what they say doesn't matter because it's not a FAQ!!!
Paizo Paradox
It's disingenuous to say that people who weren't playing affected characters weren't affected by the FAQ (in either incarnation). It's a cooperative game and anything that any player at the table does affects everyone else to an extent (especially the GM.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A third don't care as it doesn't affect them - a third like it, but doesn't really affect them - and a third hate it as it affects them because their characters are now illegal and don't function.
Congratulations on changing the rules to suit the whims of people who were unaffected by the previous rules!!!
In other news, Paizo Publishing has proposed a bill to Congress that would make it illegal for people to use electricity because the Amish don't like it.
Or - just go with me here a sec - OR... the ones who like the ruling hated the unintuitive and silly nature of the previous ruling, and, especially those who DM, were sick of trying to explain why SLAs worked for some things but not others, why SLAs allowed for access into things but Extraordinary Abilities didn't, how you were supposed to resolve issues of having a "Caster Level" in a class when you clearly didn't have any spellcasting beyond that single SLA, whether it's "on your spell list" or "on your list of spells known", etc. etc.
You assume that those who didn't like the original FAQ didn't use it, while on the contrary those who didn't like it may have had to deal with it on a regular basis, and were annoyed at the gnarly BS it caused.
A Home game could houserule it. At PFS no crafting so the most you *had* to put up with is early entry prestige classes that weren't anything near the power level of some classes and folks getting access to some average feats like Arcane Strike.
Oh no?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people ask and ask and ask for Paizo's ruling on somethig and when Paizo gives an answer it suddenly becomes PAIZO HATES FUN THEY KICKED MY PUPPY THEY ARE BIG MEAN MEANY HEADS WHO HATE ME!!!!!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's disingenuous to say that people who weren't playing affected characters weren't affected by the FAQ (in either incarnation). It's a cooperative game and anything that any player at the table does affects everyone else to an extent (especially the GM.)
Unless you are using the previous ruling, you remain unaffected by it. Period.
Why does an SLA qualify and not an Extraordinary? Because an Extraordinary isn't magical.
What about Supernatural? Nope, doesn't mimic a spell.
With the previous ruling, using an SLA allowed you to craft magical items, take prestige classes, use magical feats (like Arcane Strike) etc. The only time a SLA wasn't a spell, seemed to be in the 'dispel/counter' option for readied actions. You can't ready an action to dispel/counter a spell like ability because they weren't spells, but likewise, you can't use a spell like ability to dispel/counter a spell either.
Option A removes fun, flavorful, but not super powerful abilities from the game.
Option B keeps the fun, flavorful but not super powerful abilities in the game.
Camp 1 is unaffected by either option. Camp 2 doesn't use Option B but likes Option A however their characters won't really be affected by either ruling. Camp 3 likes Option B and uses Option B because it's fun.
Let's go with Option A and make the people who play with the option, upset, the people who don't play with the option, mildly appreciative, and remove magical options from the none casters.
Paizo Publishing: "Martials, HA! Filthy peasants."
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people ask and ask and ask for Paizo's ruling on somethig and when Paizo gives an answer it suddenly becomes PAIZO HATES FUN THEY KICKED MY PUPPY THEY ARE BIG MEAN MEANY HEADS WHO HATE ME!!!!!!!
What a ridiculous obfuscation of people's concerns.
What a fine person you are.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people ask and ask and ask for Paizo's ruling on somethig and when Paizo gives an answer it suddenly becomes PAIZO HATES FUN THEY KICKED MY PUPPY THEY ARE BIG MEAN MEANY HEADS WHO HATE ME!!!!!!!
I don't think that anyone annoyed by this was asking for clarification on it. Mostly because it wasn't in question but specifically and explicitly allowed, by example, by the design team.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad for the reversal, in my opinion the original FAQ was nonsense.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people ask and ask and ask for Paizo's ruling on somethig and when Paizo gives an answer it suddenly becomes PAIZO HATES FUN THEY KICKED MY PUPPY THEY ARE BIG MEAN MEANY HEADS WHO HATE ME!!!!!!!
Who was asking Paizo for an answer on this? Since it was already decided in a FAQ a year ago that they worked were people still asking if they were sure they liked that idea?
You'll notice we had a different sort of complaints/discussion on the double dipping FAQ. since that one was very requested. And in my opinion most people were upset by how they said the rule, not by the ruling itself, and asking why they ruled the way they did over the other.
This specific question? Idk, but like the "hands" thing and charging people asked questions and when they were given an answer they didn't like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At first I was glad because the original ruling didn't make sense.
A few pages into reading this, and now I'm delighted simply because the resulting nerdrage is wonderous. (Oh, I consider myself a nerd, and I've gone apecrap with nerdrage over stuff most people consider ridiculous, too, but it's just hilarious to be on the outside looking in for once.)
In PFS it matters. If not, it doesn't make one lick of difference. If you're GM, you'll use your own house rules or interpretation anyway, and if you're a player, your GM will go with their own gut regardless. I for one as a GM didn't allow early entry via SLA, even when it was "official", I use pre-nerf Titan Mauler barbarian, and other ignorances of errata.
If you play PFS and this ruined your character, well I'm genuinely sorry to hear that...but then PFS changes what's official every season anyways, so that was subject to happen anyway. But usually it's less sudden and grandfathered in.
If you don't play PFS...well...thanks for the entertaining read, at least.
This specific question? Idk, but like the "hands" thing and charging people asked questions and when they were given an answer they didn't like it.
Most people's complaints with those are more in how they are answered, not the answer it's self. Saying you only have two "hands" and those are used give lots of questions for magus, duelists, etc... who now wonder if their hand is free or not. If they had just said, you can't TWF with a THW. Then a lot of people's issues are gone.
I'm not sure about the charging one, but again, it's probably complaining about new problems rather than what the ruling is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be willing to tell me, even if just via PM, how you feel Paizo has eroded trust in them over the past couple years?
With the caveat that I actually like and respect the Paizo team, I'd be willing to touch on how I can see people coming to the same feelings and conclusions as Rynjin.
For me, an excellent example is the relatively recent mounted combat FAQ, where Stephen Radney-McFarland said in no uncertain terms that just because a member of the design team says something, doesn't mean it matters unless it's in a FAQ. Combine that with the fact that they've changed multiple FAQs, not just this one, and it's perfectly natural to come to the conclusion that you can't actually trust anything they say.
Obviously, it's more complex than that. Pathfinder is a living game with a design team composed of a changing cast of real people who all probably play the game a little bit differently. I've never including in PFS, met two people from different areas who played the game the exact same way, which is actually my main dissatisfaction with this ruling. Just like in the mounted combat ruling, there were two different camps who were interpreting the rules in different ways. A ruling for Camp B invalidated many of the character concepts in camp A, while a ruling for camp A would have allowed pretty much everyone to continue on as they were before; camp B wasn't using options that relied on camp A's interpretation and balance was not an issue.
I'm not a big fan of decisions like that. I don't like FAQs like this that come off as telling a big portion of the player base they're playing the game wrong. Do I believe the Paizo team is actually trying to convey that message? Of course not, but it's easy to see how someone might arrive at that conclusion when a ruling like this dismantles a lot of options for something as mutable and varying as "thematic consistency". To me, it makes perfect sense that creatures with an inherent connection to magic should be more...
BAM. Thread won.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This specific question? Idk
So, you're trolling then?
This specific question? IdkSo, you're trolling then?
Since others mentioned stuff unrelated to the early entry stuff so would I. Besides my avatar is clearly an iron cobra not a troll.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQs and official rules matter even if you're not playing PFS because they're the baseline from which house rules are negotiated. House rules are great but they can be intimidating for GMs who are not well versed in game design, and if not everyone at the table wants the same thing it's easy to default to not houseruling.
My point is, I do not think these half-wizard PrCs are meant to compete head-on against full wizard, as they undoubtedly lose luster there. But full wizards are so powerful that even somewhat depowered PrCs are still a net asset to a party lacking that capability. Games tend to go better when the characters are closer in tier, and my personal preference tends towards lower-optimization and lower-tier.
That's dandy for you. I'd like to play a Mystic Theurge, for flavour reasons, in an upcoming high-power campaign that is likely to include at least one other full caster in the party. I'm a little worried about being behind the rest of the party and I expect I'll talk with my GM about making early levels less painful. I should note that the character concept requires a warforged so early entry by racial SLA was never an option for me.
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.
Many low-level buffs are cast before combat once you reach high levels. That leaves you with relatively few things to do once you actually enter combat. 13th level druid I mentioned earlier? Specialized in buffs. Barkskin, Resist Energy, Death Ward, Freedom of Movement usually were in place before a major fight. Once we rolled initiative I started feeling less useful. I was, rationally, pulling my weight with the pre-buffing, but it's not fun when most of your turns consist of providing a flanking bonus.
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.I don't think you need to worry there, because if you look at the RAW, Improved Familiar rules don't scale on "arcane caster level", the table references "arcane spellcaster level"... Spellcasters' levels being measured in Class Levels of spellcasting classes, i.e. Wizard levels, which in this case the Fighter levels count as (like how Ranger Level -3 counts as Druid Levels for Companion ability).
... "spellcaster level" is AFAIK nowhere else used as a stand-in for the defined game term "caster level", so I see no reason to ignore the fact that "spellcaster levels" are something that is measured in class levels, and therefore understand the term "spellcaster level" as a measure of (certain) class levels in this case.
Sensible reading.
Anyway, I still wouldn't mind an "Ultimate Hybrids" book that turns most of the other prestige classes into base classes. REALLY want to see a divine Rage-Mage that's a mix of Oracle and Barbarian.
Have you found the Rage Prophet unsatisfying in play? A friend of mine enjoyed it and was quite effective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people ask and ask and ask for Paizo's ruling on somethig and when Paizo gives an answer it suddenly becomes PAIZO HATES FUN THEY KICKED MY PUPPY THEY ARE BIG MEAN MEANY HEADS WHO HATE ME!!!!!!!
It's almost like the fanbase is made up of different people who want different things.
Have you found the Rage Prophet unsatisfying in play? A friend of mine enjoyed it and was quite effective.
Eh, kinda. It's not awful, but it's a little underwhelming.
For instance, you get Greater Rage at Rage Prophet 10, which means you'll probably be around lv16 when you finally get it (since the earliest you can enter Rage Prophet is level 7).
Compare the Dragon Disciple, which at least supplements the loss of increased Rage by giving you permanent +4 Str and +2 Con and a good Will save by level 12 (which means you're actually STRONGER when you rage than a normal Barbarian), along with giving you the same levels of spellcasting that a Rage Prophet does.
You just kinda lose a lot of steam with the Rage Prophet that would've been better served as a full Barbarian or full Oracle. Or even just an Oracle 1 / Barbarian 11, since you'd have ragecycling AND Greater Rage.
Or, better yet, an Oracle 1 / Bloodrager 11, so you have ragecycling, Greater Rage, AND plenty of spellcasting.
---
I wouldn't mind seeing a 3/4 BAB, 6/9 divine rage-mage that more perfectly mingles the Oracles' spellcasting and the Barbarian's rage.
Or, and Archetype that replaces the Bloodrager's Bloodline with an Oracles' curses and Revelations, while making the Bloodrager a Divine caster.
Have you found the Rage Prophet unsatisfying in play? A friend of mine enjoyed it and was quite effective.Eh, kinda. It's not awful, but it's a little underwhelming.
For instance, you get Greater Rage at Rage Prophet 10, which means you'll probably be around lv16 when you finally get it (since the earliest you can enter Rage Prophet is level 7).
Compare the Dragon Disciple, which at least supplements the loss of increased Rage by giving you permanent +4 Str and +2 Con and a good Will save by level 12 (which means you're actually STRONGER when you rage than a normal Barbarian), along with giving you the same levels of spellcasting that a Rage Prophet does.
You just kinda lose a lot of steam with the Rage Prophet that would've been better served as a full Barbarian or full Oracle. Or even just an Oracle 1 / Barbarian 11, since you'd have ragecycling AND Greater Rage.
Or, better yet, an Oracle 1 / Bloodrager 11, so you have ragecycling, Greater Rage, AND plenty of spellcasting.
---
I wouldn't mind seeing a 3/4 BAB, 6/9 divine rage-mage that more perfectly mingles the Oracles' spellcasting and the Barbarian's rage.
Or, and Archetype that replaces the Bloodrager's Bloodline with an Oracles' curses and Revelations, while making the Bloodrager a Divine caster.
The problem with a Divine Bloodrager is that the spells themselves are divine and come from another source. Basically flavoring a guy as channeling a god only when he's pissed off.
Such a character would only be appropriate for Gods like Gorum or Demon Lords. I mean, a Divinerager of Shelyn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you found the Rage Prophet unsatisfying in play? A friend of mine enjoyed it and was quite effective.Eh, kinda. It's not awful, but it's a little underwhelming.
For instance, you get Greater Rage at Rage Prophet 10, which means you'll probably be around lv16 when you finally get it (since the earliest you can enter Rage Prophet is level 7).
Compare the Dragon Disciple, which at least supplements the loss of increased Rage by giving you permanent +4 Str and +2 Con and a good Will save by level 12 (which means you're actually STRONGER when you rage than a normal Barbarian), along with giving you the same levels of spellcasting that a Rage Prophet does.
You just kinda lose a lot of steam with the Rage Prophet that would've been better served as a full Barbarian or full Oracle. Or even just an Oracle 1 / Barbarian 11, since you'd have ragecycling AND Greater Rage.
Or, better yet, an Oracle 1 / Bloodrager 11, so you have ragecycling, Greater Rage, AND plenty of spellcasting.
---
I wouldn't mind seeing a 3/4 BAB, 6/9 divine rage-mage that more perfectly mingles the Oracles' spellcasting and the Barbarian's rage.
Or, and Archetype that replaces the Bloodrager's Bloodline with an Oracles' curses and Revelations, while making the Bloodrager a Divine caster.
The problem with a Divine Bloodrager is that the spells themselves are divine and come from another source. Basically flavoring a guy as channeling a god only when he's pissed off.
Such a character would only be appropriate for Gods like Gorum or Demon Lords. I mean, a Divinerager of Shelyn?
I dunno man, people can get pretty angry on What Not To Wear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kinda reminds me of a recent patch for Heroes of the Storm where Blizzard took away a "must-have" talent for Tyrael that was the only thing keeping him viable in the game. Now he's strictly worse than all the other warriors in the game and no one(who wants to win anyways) plays him or wants to see him on their team. Blizzard stated a rework was in the works but apparently he's meant to be useless till then.
This post (emphasis mine) shows exactly what kind of players it is that are now complaining about this ruling: those who what to win the game. Except that this just isn't that kind of game.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
This post (emphasis mine) shows exactly what kind of players it is that are now complaining about this ruling: those who what to win the game. Except that this just isn't that kind of game.
Yeah... no. If you wanted to "win" at Pathfinder, you weren't going MT, EK, or anything positively affected by the previous "SLA count as spells" ruling. All of those options were still sub-optimal even with the early access, but early access made them usable.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kinda reminds me of a recent patch for Heroes of the Storm where Blizzard took away a "must-have" talent for Tyrael that was the only thing keeping him viable in the game. Now he's strictly worse than all the other warriors in the game and no one(who wants to win anyways) plays him or wants to see him on their team. Blizzard stated a rework was in the works but apparently he's meant to be useless till then.This post (emphasis mine) shows exactly what kind of players it is that are now complaining about this ruling: those who what to win the game. Except that this just isn't that kind of game.
What does winning mean? To me it means If I play a sub-optimal choice like a gnome fighter, it's a nice to not hurt the party's combat effectiveness too badly based on my role-playing choice. So being able to take a feat like Arcane Strike and Riving Strike, to partially offset the reduced damage being a gnome fighter offers.
It was an elegant solution, and it made sense for an innately magical race to be able to channel some of that magic into a weapon and smack someone with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kinda reminds me of a recent patch for Heroes of the Storm where Blizzard took away a "must-have" talent for Tyrael that was the only thing keeping him viable in the game. Now he's strictly worse than all the other warriors in the game and no one(who wants to win anyways) plays him or wants to see him on their team. Blizzard stated a rework was in the works but apparently he's meant to be useless till then.This post (emphasis mine) shows exactly what kind of players it is that are now complaining about this ruling: those who what to win the game. Except that this just isn't that kind of game.
Haha, roll up a commoner for your next game, see how people react to that. See how much fun it is for you and them. Then tell us. Make sure you get to experience it at a pretty high level at some point.
The reason you probably wouldn't and I wouldn't is that I wouldn't have fun, and my team wouldn't either.
Team:
Oh no we have a puzzle, and the three of us need to figure how to get us and Jimmy through it.
Oh no a fight, we have to make sure Jimmy doesn't die as he stands there.
and for the player
Oh no, I have no class features to help in any non-combat challenge, and I have few skill points to do much with those.
Oh no, I have low health, no armor, can't hit, or do anything besides cower in a corner during a fight.
If that sounds fun for you go ahead. But I like my characters to be useful and flavorful, and only getting one from a choice (flavor) isn't appealing to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody here is going to agree at where the bars should be set for "sub-optimal", "useless" or the like, which makes this a pretty useless (ho ho) direction of argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This statement presupposes that all players feel something has to be mechanically significant to be 'worth taking'.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?
It does seem logically consistent to assume that game mechanics should be worthwhile mechanically. If they are not worthwhile mechanically, then they are not worthwhile mechanically.
A is A
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kinda reminds me of a recent patch for Heroes of the Storm where Blizzard took away a "must-have" talent for Tyrael that was the only thing keeping him viable in the game. Now he's strictly worse than all the other warriors in the game and no one(who wants to win anyways) plays him or wants to see him on their team. Blizzard stated a rework was in the works but apparently he's meant to be useless till then.This post (emphasis mine) shows exactly what kind of players it is that are now complaining about this ruling: those who what to win the game. Except that this just isn't that kind of game.
Unfortunately not all GMs play magical story time. Not all characters are anywhere near the same level of effectiveness and verily, some are really bad. If the GM is running a module, don't expect him to play softball so your club wielding rogue with all his skills in professions feels useful.
Of course it's typical for people to divert attention from the real problem. Very classy. Especially the part where you implied I only care about winning in Pathfinder. And guess what? There are goals in Pathfinder with which to strive for in Character. My Knight wants to save kingdoms and kill dragons. Doing so he has completed his goal. Accomplishing that goal gives me a sense of accomplishment like any other game I play to completion and/or "win."
The real issue is that Prestige Classes are invalidated again.
Your post clearly emphasizes the tendency of people to create "Them and Us" parties. But I'm not going to worry about it because it's petty.
I'm not sure how anyone couldn't see how it isn't a pretty poor idea to re-invalidate Prestige classes with an FAQ when you are planning to fix them later down the road. Do it at the same time so people aren't stuck with lackluster options in the meantime.
"We're gonna fix this thing but for now it's gonna be broken for an indeterminate amount of time despite things working perfectly fine beforehand."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the above about type of players, winning, flavour etc.
Its about PROFESSIONALISM. The one where you release a book that costs a lot of money for which youve had a "playtest" with sloppy written rules (archetypes), when they were told in the threads setup for that what the problems were.
Then they ignore the honestly embarassing work quality (regarding some edit/writing of rules, other parts are splendid) and refuse to answer their blunders.
Then spend time changing a rule. Then, instead of spending resources into fixing their badly written expensive rules (archetypes out there that dont even work) they fumble with what in theory they already spent time THINKING about and revert.
NO PAIZO, NO. Priorities.
Edit: /EndRant
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: /EndRant
Just out of curiosity, do you think posts like yours help the designers make a better game and encourage them to interact with the community, or do you think they have the opposite effect?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many people who aren't on the forums do you think were even affected by the rulings here?A non-zero number of people that play with the people who ARE on the forums.
(My wife is not on the forums and gets to hear ALL about it. :)
Quit bugging her about how the forumites are mean to you! Shame on you!
:)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quit bugging her about how the forumites are mean to you! Shame on you!
:)
I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me.
I'm fairly new to PFS, why were SLA's allowed to count as spells in the first FAQ. From what I see they are specifically described as "not spells."
Most likely because it also says they "work just like spells". So a little explanation about how much like spells these non-spell where was nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real issue is that Prestige Classes are invalidated again.
Since the game is about having fun, the classes could only be invalid if you could not have fun. I would say that being a sidekick or obviously very inferior to the other PCs, would qualify as "not fun", but honestly the current versions of the PrCs are not even close to sidekick status. They might not be AS good as straight classes (its no secret they were never intended to be AS good) but they are seem capable of participating in CR appropriate challenges.
Perhaps you could explain why you can't have fun playing an EK, Trickster, or MT? Why can't they handle encounters intended for their level?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, do you think posts like yours help the designers make a better game and encourage them to interact with the community, or do you think they have the opposite effect?
Edit: /EndRant
Thats a fair point and I was more abrasive than I should have.
I buy the products and get disappointed when I see parts that arent their usual fantastic standard. It looks like it is more an issue with editting than designing perhaps.
However my statement, if id would reword it more maturily would retain its message. More important things to rule-fiddle than a year old rule that may or may not need tweaking but was at least functional. The examples of which litter the forums.
I get upset when i open the book i paid for and I have to open the browser instead because the part Im interested in is unusable. At this, I stumble at what to expect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me.Quit bugging her about how the forumites are mean to you! Shame on you!
:)
What ever helps you sleep at night
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, do you think posts like yours help the designers make a better game and encourage them to interact with the community, or do you think they have the opposite effect?
Edit: /EndRant
It's something that needs to be said regardless. Criticism makes a product better. Saying everything is fine when it isn't causes a product to depreciate.
It's especially egregious when an issue is pointed out in the playtest, discussed intensely and still makes it into the final product. Or worse when a feature A is pointed out to be blatantly worse than feature B, feature B is stealth errata'd to be worse than feature A.
And the editing was really bad with the ACG. Heck, the binding on my particular issue is kinda messed up too.
If they want to make sweeping changes to the system frequently, a digital medium would be so much, much more efficient in that regard. And I know a lot of folks have been clamoring for that since day 1.