For every person who thinks a class sucks, there's at least one who will play it anyway. Rogues have been objectively shown to be inferior to slayers and investigators, yet I see people playing rogues way more than either alternative, and not just Core-only games or ones without ACG access.
I'm sure the drop in people playing the "worthless" PRCs will only drop by like 10% or so, and those pissed by the decision will inevitably find a new set of toys to play with.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I still deny that it will restrict the creativity of most players. Because what did they do. They read a guide and followed that guide to the letter. The revers is true. You have to learn to focus on spells that are useful regardless of level. And learn to use that to the fullest.
Are you less powerful in raw power. I admit yes. Are you less useful? Nope!
I see what you mean by "not restricting the creativity of most players".
That said, I am 100% sure that it will restrict the fun for many players. For example those posters here who lament the new ruling.
Too bad for them I guess :-/
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there where people on the other side of this that thought that the old FAQ was the elegant solution. An example is that an innately magical race made sense as being able to take things like arcane strike.Interesting point of view, and not one that I had considered till now. Thank you for broadening my horizons.
I still don't think it's worth the disparity of how easily some races can get into a prestige class over others but at least I understand where the other side of the argument is coming from now.
- Torger
And that is the typical paizo FAQ mentality. If you want to fix something don't do it with delicate tools but by aiming a shotgun in the problem's general direction.
Perhaps PrCs have been the target and arcane strike and similar the collateral damage.
I agree there have been a lot of FAQs that overdo things, but this isn't particularly the fault of the FAQ. You're merely seeing the same thing expressed in the FAQ that is in the game at large: low accuracy and a very wide spread when aiming for balanced material. If the FAQ has the same trouble, that's nothing to do with a 'FAQ mentality' per se. Particularly since there have been a number of good FAQs, as Tacticslion noted in an excellent post upthread.
Taking a shotgun to Crane Wing, or this, or whatever, isn't the fault of any unique FAQ mentality that I can see. It's just par for the course in a game where Steel Soul and Improved Stonecunning get printed in the same book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware some didn't like the old FAQ because it breaks their verisimilitude. Cool. Some wanted a greater difference between SLA and actual spells. Cool. Some just don't like things that look like loopholes. Cool. Not liking it because it's cheesy is, ... well cheesy.
"Cheesy" is often used to mean it breaks their verisimilitude and/or looks like a loophole.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An elegant solution to a crappy Mystic Theurge class would be to either (a) fix the Mystic Theurge class or (b) create a new class that blends the divine and arcane spells lists (like the Witch).
An inelegant solution would be to take an existing rule and say "if you squint hard and put common sense aside, then you can finesse the existing rules into allowing early entry".
I'm glad the inelegant solution is gone.
On the flipside of things, the issue originally came up NOT as deriving from specific build issues, but as a question of RAW: what does "cast spellS" mean? does it require literal plurality of spells, or is abstract/indefinite ability ala designating 1 spell known from ANY spell on the spell list count? ...or should the plural be ignored, and casting 1 specific spell fulfills it, even though you don't cast spellS "in general"? The first FAQ went in the latter direction, although that was not clearly mandated or implied by RAW.
The new FAQ doesn't just switch to the other "options" in terms of understanding that case of RAW in question, it is creating NEW RULES which go beyond just that simple RAW-grammatical issue... By focusing on specific applications, it also covers cases like Arcane Trickster: "Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher." which simply using the "other options" (more restrictive) of the original RAW issue, WOULD still qualify via SLAs, since it isn't invoking "casting spells (in general)" but hinges on casting 2 particular spells (mage hand is specified, the other one isn't, but you don't need to cast "2nd levels spells in general", just one other 2nd level spell).
So the new FAQ doesn't really seem an "elegant" FAQ, even by "FAQ as pending Errata" approach, I don't really see how/where they would convert this FAQ to Errata, as there isn't any passage in RAW that simply needs to be "fixed" or "clarified" to specify this result: this is an entirely new rule crafted solely for specific build scenarios. Since they insist on inviobility of page # references they are averse to adding/subtracting significant word count, so just adding in a new rule like this seems unlikely to see in actual Errata, so this ends up as "FAQ as Errata that will never actually be put in RAW".
So SLA's don't generally qualify as meeting prerequisites for feats, but can they still progress feats? For example, consider a gnome wiz1/bard5/ftr4 with the gnome magic racial trait who picked up the Arcane Strike feat at level 1. He now has three caster levels: level 1 as a wizard (which he used to get the feat), level 5 as a bard, and level 10 for his SLA's. So now does his Arcane Strike grant +1, +2, or +3 to damage?Going to guess: No.
The FAQ wording is not really clear on this issue, although I would guess if they do clarify it more it will be "No".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be awfully nice if they were to change the Arcane Strike pre-requisites to be "Ability to cast arcane spells or a Spell-like-ability that duplicates a spell on the sorceror/wizard list". Probably just wishful thinking though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, Mark commented that the design team didn't make a thread/post because this one was made so fast. But the design team hasn't commented on this at all as far as I know. Which means we'll probably never get a reason behind why they changed this.
I agree there have been a lot of FAQs that overdo things, but this isn't particularly the fault of the FAQ...
Agreed, although as per my post above, there is also the tendency for (not just this FAQ entry) to function as rules cludges, i.e. new rules for corner cases rather than A) clarifying something derivable from RAW or B) something they will amend the RAW to in the future. Although that doesn't seem to be the complaint so much as the effect on specific builds. This way of things certainly isn't elegant, but I don't think it's WRONG either if it's the best they can do to balance desired function with RAW implications. Obviously "Desired Function", "Balance", etc, are subjective things, but Paizo has their official collective stance on their own game system.
I only wish these "new rules" FAQS would be written more rigorously/clearly to show HOW SPECIFICALLY they are superseding the RAW, so that there is a clear picture of what the "effective" RAW is in ANY arbitrary case it may come up... Since there will always be corner cases these "application-specific" FAQs don't address (NAMELY, the issue of "Do SLA "Caster Levels" give you a "Caster Level" for scaling things beyond the SLA itself, e.g. Arcane Strike?"), the "effective RAW" should be made clear so that you don't apply "old" RAW to those corner cases beyond the scope of the application-specific focus of current FAQs of this tendency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as Tacticslion noted in an excellent post upthread.
Thanks!
(I... I'd actually forgotten which thread I made that post in by now. Overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap.)
EDIT: On this topic, I'd really like to remind folks: I am not against the crew making FAQs, even if I don't like the results. I appreciate their dedication and attempts at transparency and honesty, even if those attempts don't always come through or do what they're supposed to. Paizo is, ultimately, a great company, but a company made by people. While I reserve the right to disagree - sometimes vocally - with those people, I appreciate them and respect them greatly.
Linking this to remind why making these decisions isn't anywhere near as easy as it looks or seems. At all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, Mark commented that the design team didn't make a thread/post because this one was made so fast. But the design team hasn't commented on this at all as far as I know. Which means we'll probably never get a reason behind why they changed this.
I'm going to give Mark the benefit of the doubt. If they really do have an actual balance concern or they are going to lower PrC entry barriers across the board it may take a little time to put that together into a post.
I would acknowledge though, the longer they wait to get out in front of this the harder it will be to catch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How did this improve the game?
Think deeply.
What is truly gained by this change?
Funny. I asked myself the same thing when they made their initial FAQ allowing it!
I'm sure the developers have a plan in mind moving forward. They're not taking the game backwards for no reason.
To pre-empt the argument that some races are already better suited to some classes and prestige classes than others based on ability modifiers and special abilities I say that's like comparing a speed bump to a mountain.
Actually, I was going to compare them to the classes. Some classes have an easier time getting into prestige classes than others. What's wrong with having a similar dynamic with the races, where some get into prestige classes more easily than another?
The Warrior npc class is playable, it just falls below what most people are willing to play. A better way is to say is that the FAQ made them more playable to a wider audience. For the first time, a lot of people actually thought about playing one that normally wouldn't. If nothing else, the old FAQ got people talking about them as something other than a super niche character.
That's definitely an interesting way to look at it. Stay positive! I'm sure good things are coming. Perhaps they made this decision because of the effect it would have on the upcoming Unchained?
So, now, what does it really mean to "cast arcane/divine spells"?
To have access to a list of arcane/divine spells that you then use slots to prepare said spells in or a list of spells known that are arcane/divine and a set of spell slots per day with which to cast them
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To have access to a list of arcane/divine spells that you then use slots to prepare said spells in or a list of spells known that are arcane/divine and a set of spell slots per day with which to cast themSo, now, what does it really mean to "cast arcane/divine spells"?
Not sure if that is fully true... There was alot of other rules issues tied into the original FAQ on that topic, which only incidentally brought about the SLAs-Qualifying-For-Stuff issue.
And as for FAQ complaints, I strongly disagreed with new Crane Wing, non-stacking ability modifiers, and my personal most enraging, the denial of the Wildblooded sorcerer bloodlines for Eldritch Heritage. So I know the feeling. :)
Er, what? Could you link me to the source for that? I think I have some characters that would be effected by it.
Since when does the collegiate wizard actually raise your class level for purposes of spells? I was fairly sure it was just caster level.
==Aelryinth
|
To have access to a list of arcane/divine spells that you then use slots to prepare said spells in or a list of spells known that are arcane/divine and a set of spell slots per day with which to cast themSo, now, what does it really mean to "cast arcane/divine spells"?
Is that really what the FAQ says? It notes that specific spells count, but non-specific do not count.
What if something requires you to be able to cast something "as a Divine spell"?
How do the rules note that these instances work differently?
Do you believe the way the FAQ is worded, and what it changes, adds, or creates less confusion, and how?
well if you need to cast a spell that is called out by name in the prereqs then a SLA would work. If it wants a 3rd level spell then it doesn't.
And as for FAQ complaints, I strongly disagreed with new Crane Wing, non-stacking ability modifiers, and my personal most enraging, the denial of the Wildblooded sorcerer bloodlines for Eldritch Heritage. So I know the feeling. :)Er, what? Could you link me to the source for that? I think I have some characters that would be effected by it.
Archetypes and Gaining Powers: If an archetype like wildblooded sorcerer grants new class features like bloodline powers, domain powers, or the like, if I don’t have that archetype, can I use feats like Eldritch Heritage or Believer’s Boon and choose the powers granted by the archetype.
No. These powers only exist for the archetypes that grant them. This is particularly important because in some cases, the archetype might trade out non-parallel features to gain those powers. For example, a fey sorcerer with the wildblooded archetype trades out both her bloodline arcana and her 1st-level power to gain a new 1st-level power, but a non-sorcerer using a feat to gain a 1st-level power never had the bloodline arcana to begin with.
Ultimate magic FAQ
Actually, I was going to compare them to the classes. Some classes have an easier time getting into prestige classes than others. What's wrong with having a similar dynamic with the races, where some get into prestige classes more easily than another?
What's "wrong with" it? Nothing, assuming that's how the table wants it to work. No such thing as badwrongfun and all that.
Why don't I like it? Race just isn't something I want players to have to think that hard about when selecting their class/prestige class of choice. With early access when making an eldritch knight it's hard to choose anything but asimar (or some other race with a 3rd level arcane SLA). They're just that much better at it.
You touch on a point that does sadden me though. I do wish that spontaneous classes had same level access to prestige classes and would love to see a fix for that. But not at the cost of racial disparity.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since when does the collegiate wizard actually raise your class level for purposes of spells? I was fairly sure it was just caster level.
==Aelryinth
Collegiate wizard? I'm not sure what that even is.
I'm referring to a spellcaster, any spellcaster (multi-classed or not), who is a member of a generic Spellcasting Guild, as outlined in Inner Sea Magic's organization subsystem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Race just isn't something I want players to have to think that hard about when selecting their class/prestige class of choice. With early access when making an eldritch knight it's hard to choose anything but asimar (or some other race with a 3rd level arcane SLA). They're just that much better at it.
You touch on a point that does sadden me though. I do wish that spontaneous classes had same level access to prestige classes and would love to see a fix for that. But not at the cost of racial disparity.
- Torger
I agree.
The amount of planning and knowledge of the system needed to be most effective in some PCs is not desirable either.
If it was up to me, I would make the entry requirements for the Mystic Theurge PC-
Character Level 5
Knowledge Arcana 3 Ranks
Knowledge Religion 3 Ranks
Ability to cast 1st level divine spells
Ability to cast 1st level arcane spells
If it was up to me, I would make the entry requirements for the Mystic Theurge PC-
Character Level 5
Knowledge Arcana 3 Ranks
Knowledge Religion 3 Ranks
Ability to cast 1st level divine spells
Ability to cast 1st level arcane spells
Stealing and modifying for my home game.
Thanks muchly
- Torger
*edit* for one thing I would change the knowledge religion requirement to religion or nature to take druids and their ilk into consideration.
Only if the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly. For instance, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat. However, the barghest's dimension door would not meet requirements such as "Ability to cast 4th level spells" or "Ability to cast arcane spells".
Where is this new FAQ posted? I don't see it in the FAQs.Still waiting on an answer for this one.
The FAQ reversing the ruling? here
Where is this new FAQ posted? I don't see it in the FAQs.
Core Rules FAQ, under Spells & Magic. (and related one under Feats for Crafting issue)
Only product FAQ listed as being modified "Yesterday".
Where is this new FAQ posted? I don't see it in the FAQs.Still waiting on an answer for this one.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't I like it? Race just isn't something I want players to have to think that hard about when selecting their class/prestige class of choice.
Pathfinder's not a very good system for that, even leaving aside the SLA issue. How many wizard players are going to pick a race with an intelligence penalty? Or clerics with a wisdom penalty? And so on...
So long as the choice of race comes with attached mechanics it's hard to avoid race being a factor in class choice.
I wonder where folks would rate the traditional entry Mystic Theurge compared to Fighter and Rogue on the martial/caster disparity continuum.
|
It is just a +x to damage, where is the cool new thing in there?Yeah no more arcane strike with SLA.Yeah martials can't have nice tings.
Should you ever again find some feat/ability/whatever that is nice for martials please don't mention it here on the boards or use it in PFS. If you do it will be nerfed.Edit: Sorry, I noticed the above was off-topic.
What has not changed but strengthened is the caster martial disparity.It was kind of cool, just because it made gnome martials viable.
Otherwise, yeah, it's not so exciting.
It also opened Riving Strike which is pretty damn cool. What's really annoying is If you want a gnome martial with arcane strike, you're now forced to play a bloodrager, which is more powerful than any option would would have been using the SLA to get the feat for.
Why don't I like it? Race just isn't something I want players to have to think that hard about when selecting their class/prestige class of choice.Pathfinder's not a very good system for that, even leaving aside the SLA issue. How many wizard players are going to pick a race with an intelligence penalty? Or clerics with a wisdom penalty? And so on...
So long as the choice of race comes with attached mechanics it's hard to avoid race being a factor in class choice.
Took longer than I thought but I called it
P.S. To pre-empt the argument that some races are already better suited to some classes and prestige classes than others based on ability modifiers and special abilities I say that's like comparing a speed bump to a mountain.
I've seen gnome barbarians and I've seen half-orc (back when they had an INT penalty) wizards and they contributed just fine. Granted they had to fully max their primary stat and that's kind of a pity but IMO the difference between a +3 modifier and a +5 modifier is greatly exaggerated.
Races with sub optimal main ability modifiers have to work a bit to keep up and that's all. They might even make it up in another department (a surprisingly party face like gnome barbarian for example)
Races that don't meet early entry SLA requirements will be 100% entirely out classed by races that do and have no chance to make it up in any department. The Asimar Eldritch Knight is just all around that much better.
I stand by my stance.
- Torger
|
|
Where is this new FAQ posted? I don't see it in the FAQs.Core Rules FAQ, under Spells & Magic. (and related one under Feats for Crafting issue)
Only product FAQ listed as being modified "Yesterday".
Well dammit they need to follow their own system and use the date like every other one is listed as.
I think there where people on the other side of this that thought that the old FAQ was the elegant solution. An example is that an innately magical race made sense as being able to take things like arcane strike.Interesting point of view, and not one that I had considered till now. Thank you for broadening my horizons.
I still don't think it's worth the disparity of how easily some races can get into a prestige class over others but at least I understand where the other side of the argument is coming from now.
- Torger
Thank you for saying so. Part of the issue has been that there are people that are only seeing it as one side making sense and the other side that that only wants it because it allows some sneaky loophole that's against common sense. I'm glad that at least I've gotten one person to see the other side of it, even if they don't agree with me.
Torger Miltenberger: For those with traits, any race could take feats like arcane strike. As far as prestige classes, I saw a lot of class ability being used as well as racial.Heh, nice inter-thread shot across the bow. I approve.
It wasn't meant to be. I was just pointing out that with traits, any race can get a benefit with the old ruling. I know you don't use traits so I just wanted to point that out. Lots of people used the FAQ for things other than early entry into prestige classes.
I wonder where folks would rate the traditional entry Mystic Theurge compared to Fighter and Rogue on the martial/caster disparity continuum.Slow Entry MT is still better than rogue. Hell, an Adept is better than a rogue.
There have been interesting arguments made to that point, yes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well dammit they need to follow their own system and use the date like every other one is listed as.Where is this new FAQ posted? I don't see it in the FAQs.Core Rules FAQ, under Spells & Magic. (and related one under Feats for Crafting issue)
Only product FAQ listed as being modified "Yesterday".
The system auto-updates. If it was posted today it says today, if it was posted yesterday it says yesterday, and eventually it runs out of special categories and just says the actual date.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I still deny that it will restrict the creativity of most players. Because what did they do. They read a guide and followed that guide to the letter. The revers is true. You have to learn to focus on spells that are useful regardless of level. And learn to use that to the fullest.
Are you less powerful in raw power. I admit yes. Are you less useful? Nope!
You are painting with broad strokes, my good man.
Are there some people who start by saying "I want to make a strong Mystic Theurge", and then they go straight to the guide? Sure.
But are there plenty more people who have a concept, an idea, an image, and then want to do what they can to make that work? Yes! If you start with the fluff instead of the crunch, then you are almost necessarily going to be making some suboptimal choices. If the only way to flesh out that concept is then to enter a class that is merely adequate even when it's optimized, and terribly weak when you are constrained by your character concept, it kills the concept. Just kills it dead. Because no one wants to bring a deadweight character to the table.
I don't really agree with your assertion that "learn to focus on spells that are useful regardless of level" is truly encouraging creativity. Yes, you can spam Glitterdust, etc., from now until forever and you are probably going to be providing some benefit. But is that really your definition of creativity? Because my idea of a creative character is doing something novel that few characters will excel at, and finding ways to work the mechanics to flesh out that concept. It's just frustrating when those options are presented, and then stripped away for completely opaque reasons.
Just as examples, I once saw a stunning image of the northern lights, and wanted to base a character on the aurora. It just so happened that the cantrips I needed (Dancing Lights, Prestidigitation, Haunted Fey Aspect) were on the sorcerer list, while the trick I needed to make the fluff into an effective character (Awesome Display) was an oracle ability. So Mystic Theurge was a way to take that vision and make it a playable character. And it even made tons of sense as an aasimar, due to the heaven/heavens connection. Or, when I wanted a character to get Sneak Attack with the spell Flame Blade, and Nature Fang -> Arcane Trickster turned out to be the way to do that. Now, I have to either sacrifice aspects of the original inspiration, or else risk becoming useless during combat.
If it had been overpowered, I would understand. But it wasn't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still curious of the intent behind this change.
Not enough people where unhappy? Tired of taking candy from babies? I can come up with a lot of guesses. ;)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still curious of the intent behind this change.
Intuitive ruling.
I seriously thought this was the way it was supposed to work prior to reading the FAQ. It never made sense to me that having an SLA (which doesn't even really count as a spell to begin with since you don't need any of the components) would put you on the same level as someone with X-level spellcasting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still not seeing those op builds some say exist. I am curious. As ravingdork or any single level wizard ever proved, it aint about broken options.
Guy above with the parapahrasing and the /dropmic, +10 broken build points, hilarious :)