...
Dragon Disciple - seems ok, but I have literally never seen one at a PFS table
...
I think that is mostly because the reason someone want to be a dragon disciple is to be able to turn into a dragon and chew up your enemies! You can't really do that at PFS levels. I've seen them in several home games.
|
I like the idea of using Spellcraft in place of caster level to qualify for crafting feats, but I could also get behind a master craftsman feat that simply allows you to use any craft and profession skill in place of spellcraft on all crafting feats, barring spell trigger and spell completion items. Forge Ring and Craft Ooze in particular should absolutely be options for Master Craftsman.
I disagree. You can't have Joe the Plumber fighters everywhere cranking all kinds of magic items. You need an MBA... err... spellcaster levels for that! ;)
But seriously: to expand your fighter's option in terms of magic item crafting, have him invest in a headband of intellect +6, which will grant him max ranks in 3 more skills (i.e. thus meeting prereqs for pretty much all crafting feats)
|
Oh, sweetie. I didn't say the votes counted. Or that there were other candidates.
But apparently someone decided that democracy was in vogue, and now I have to be the "rightfully elected" tyrant princess. It's such a chore.
I don't suppose you need a royal adviser? I'd like to submit my own name for the job. I specialize in diplomacy, fashion, and using enchantment magic to rob people of their free will and bend them to my desires. That last one is also pretty helpful for dealing with that whole pesky voting thing!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if the build is cheesy people are gonna whine and moan to keep it... if it wasn't cheesy, it will die a quiet death as no one will miss it that much (i.e. it was on par with other available options)if you don't think it's cheesy then you're probably not going to miss it... what?
Everything is "cheesy" to someone.
"Cheesy" is just a blanket term for "I don't like it".
The last part of this I agree with, but I wouldn't call that limiting the design space -- the new FAQ limits the design space; the old FAQ made it more complex, but extended it in some places where it really needed extension, and the new FAQ -- as desirable as it is for reducing weirdness that requires research to master -- killed most of that much needed extension without providing a replacement.{. . .}
That said, the reason I didn't like the original was (with a nod to BigNorseWolf), it limited the design space. When writing up feat requirements, it's necessary to know how people can meet them and having a random 3rd level SLA requires a lot more awareness across the system than having BAB+5 or the like. {. . .}Different design spaces. Not your space for designing a character. Their design space for new feats, races, and classes.
Every new SLA given to anyone, you have to consider if it opens access to feats or prestige classes. Everything with a spell casting requirement, you need to consider if there's an SLA out there that gives access to it.
Fair enough, but they still should have released something at the same time to alleviate the resulting crimping of customers' design space.
I don't suppose you need a royal adviser? I'd like to submit my own name for the job. I specialize in diplomacy, fashion, and using enchantment magic to rob people of their free will and bend them to my desires. That last one is also pretty helpful for dealing with that whole pesky voting thing!Oh, sweetie. I didn't say the votes counted. Or that there were other candidates.
But apparently someone decided that democracy was in vogue, and now I have to be the "rightfully elected" tyrant princess. It's such a chore.
Hmm... perhaps. Send a resume. Ideally, tattooed on the back of a handsome lad you've bent to your will. And do try not to out-dress me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, Wait, Wait a minute...
Shouldn't it me GM Princess Tyrant?
Princess GM Tyrant?
Or maybe Tyrant Princess GM?
We have to figure proper precedence of royalty, vocation, and power!
It sounds like someone is curious what the Core-only all-rogue prison camps look like at this time of year...
The answer, player serf, is that "GM Tyrant Princess" flows from the tongue more naturally. Which, given how often my subjects must repeat it daily, is essential.
if the build is cheesy people are gonna whine and moan to keep it... if it wasn't cheesy, it will die a quiet death as no one will miss it that much (i.e. it was on par with other available options)
That... doesn't follow in the slightest.
As an example, I have absolutely no regrets that Pun-Pun is missing in PF. It was a cool thought experiment, and fun while it lasted, but few people actually complained about its departure from PF's rules. Similarly, many people actively complain about the presence of quite a number of "Cheesy" rules that do exist in PF.
Unless you're using a very strange non-standard and generally unknown definition of "Cheese" as "the thing that people complain about if you take it away" in which case you're going to have people complaining if you take away: barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, or wizards; hence they are all Cheesy, despite the fact that you can more-or-less play the game (and create interesting and functional parties and similar story-based archetypes) without them.
So, no, I disagree with your conclusion in its entirety, based off of all interpretations I can infer from "Cheese" - if you wish to continue to press your point and make a persuasive or convincing argument, you could give your own definition of "Cheese" and I can see if there is any merit to what you say based on a now-mutual understanding of the term, but as it currently stands I see no way you can make the conclusion that you did as any logical consequence inherent to something being "Cheese" (aside from a non-standard definition that also includes the base classes).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, Wait, Wait a minute...
Shouldn't it me GM Princess Tyrant?
Princess GM Tyrant?
Or maybe Tyrant Princess GM?
We have to figure proper precedence of royalty, vocation, and power!
It sounds like someone is curious what the Core-only all-rogue prison camps look like at this time of year...
That sounds pretty great all things considered. Very safe with close to no danger. If you're not a rogue, you're already the biggest bad ass there!
GM Tyrant Princess doesnt sound bad at all!
if the build is cheesy people are gonna whine and moan to keep it... if it wasn't cheesy, it will die a quiet death as no one will miss it that much (i.e. it was on par with other available options)if you don't think it's cheesy then you're probably not going to miss it... what?Everything is "cheesy" to someone.
"Cheesy" is just a blanket term for "I don't like it".
Cheezy is more like the warcry of grognards who can't adapt.
Not enough people where unhappy? Tired of taking candy from babies? I can come up with a lot of guesses. ;)I am still curious of the intent behind this change.
I can't say I disagree.
There are a lot of players very annoyed. There is a whole thread devoted to SLA and early entry. And guides that go through the SLA and early entry in detail. Some people went to a lot of effort to do that.
If you look at MT for example-
1 The PC appeared in the core rules and was so weak it was useless.
2 The old FAQ showed up and made it playable [in some cases]
3 The new FAQ comes along and makes a lot of current characters impossible and wastes lots of work.
4 No reason is given.
Knowing that they were going to piss off a LOT of people with this, I'm surprised they did give a hint as to why. If they have a good reason it could go a long way to mollifying the displeasure over it. Without it, I'm left to guess. After some thought, my guess has changed to 'their puppy kicking foot is tired.' ;)
Over two hundred posts. Anyone change their opinion based on any of the arguments you've read? Anyone?
Don't worry, I'll ask again around the 500 mark.
Over two hundred posts. Anyone change their opinion based on any of the arguments you've read? Anyone?
Don't worry, I'll ask again around the 500 mark.
I've certainly had my opinion refined and nuanced, if not entirely changed or reversed. There have been good arguments and nuances ideals and ideas forwarded that are both interesting and enlightening in various small ways.
Over two hundred posts. Anyone change their opinion based on any of the arguments you've read? Anyone?
Don't worry, I'll ask again around the 500 mark.
I've gotten some people to see and understand my side of the debate, like Torger Miltenberger. I'd call that a success and well worth my posts. If you feel differently, that this thread holds nothing meaningful, then no one if forcing your participation.
|
|
if the build is cheesy people are gonna whine and moan to keep it... if it wasn't cheesy, it will die a quiet death as no one will miss it that much (i.e. it was on par with other available options)if you don't think it's cheesy then you're probably not going to miss it... what?Everything is "cheesy" to someone.
"Cheesy" is just a blanket term for "I don't like it".
for the record I'm absolutely neutral on this issue... I completely understand and agree with the FAQ ruling... on one hand it prevents grilled cheese eaters seeking to exploit "Ability to cast 4th level spells" type prereqs via SLA (having a 4th level equivalent SLA does *not* mean you can cast 4th level spells - intent was to call for the ability to have 4th levels spells per day) and on the other hand it specifically allows SLA to meet prereqs that call for a specific spell. I think the ruling is more than fair.
|
|
Over two hundred posts. Anyone change their opinion based on any of the arguments you've read? Anyone?
Don't worry, I'll ask again around the 500 mark.
Because PFS has a soft-cap at level 12, this affects PFS the most; besides if you have a home game you can always just ignore this particular FAQ entry.
My personal opinion hasn't changed. I understand why they did it, I never particularly cared for SLAs being used as pre-reqs, but I did like the idea of early entry for a lot of those PRCs. I used one myself, and luckily that character is grandfathered in. I had no intention of doing the arcane strike cheese as I didn't even know that had existed.
Will somebody please explain how arcane strike is "cheese"? Its not even that great of a feat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will somebody please explain how arcane strike is "cheese"? Its not even that great of a feat.
Cuz non-casters where getting it and only casters get nice things? It HAS to be a loophole is it makes a martial character better... :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tortured logic and appeals to emotion do seem to be the order of the day in these debates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll preface this by saying that I don't play PFS.
In my home game, I had ignored the previous FAQ that allowed SLAs to count as spellcasting. That ruling had seemed very much against rules-as-intended in my opinion. So, by Rule Zero, I ignored it.
So, this ruling seems to restore the way things had intended to be in the first place, bringing back a bit of 3.5 sensibility to prestige class entry.
That said, the whole argument is pretty much moot in my experience.
I haven't had any players be interested in entering prestige classes since we switched from 3.5 to PFRPG back in 2010. In fact, I have never seen anyone play a character with levels in a prestige class since we switched.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll preface this by saying that I don't play PFS.
In my home game, I had ignored the previous FAQ that allowed SLAs to count as spellcasting. That ruling had seemed very much against rules-as-intended in my opinion. So, by Rule Zero, I ignored it.
So, this ruling seems to restore the way things had intended to be in the first place, bringing back a bit of 3.5 sensibility to prestige class entry.
That said, the whole argument is pretty much moot in my experience.
I haven't had any players be interested in entering prestige classes since we switched from 3.5 to PFRPG back in 2010. In fact, I have never seen anyone play a character with levels in a prestige class since we switched.
Shouldn't that tell you something?
|
Well, I could make a non-magical gnome fighter and overcome the suckiness of being small with a small damage boost. Now if I want to do the same thing, I have to optimize more and be a bloodrager if I want a gnome martial with arcane strike, that will be far more powerful than anything I would have used the SLA to take the feat with.
Shouldn't that tell you something?
Well, for that matter, I'm not seeing anyone multiclass much at all, prestige or non-prestige.
In my experience as a GM, the few times people have tried, the players have ended up not liking how their characters turned out, so I allowed them to re-build as a single-class character (usually with an archetype that gave the flavor they wanted.) Between the class capstone ability and the Favored Class bonus, the rules seem to very much disfavor multiclassing in general. And, I allow the 3.5 "Practiced Spellcaster" feat from Complete Arcane, which really boosts multiclassed casters.
Honestly, between archetypes and the new hybrid classes, there are scant few reasons to multiclass in Pathfinder.
Tortured logic and appeals to emotion do seem to be the order of the day in these debates.
I'd asked earlier in the thread for a definition of 'cheese' but none came forward so I have to 'guess' at what they mean by cheese. ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How could the previous FAQ be against RAI?
What makes one FAQ more in line with RAI, than another?
Why is it some people, no matter the FAQ, even if they agreed with the FAQ it reversed, mindlessly agree that it's the best decision, and those who disagree, should be ashamed?
The previous fAQ was explicit change to hoe the things worked originally.How could the previous FAQ be against RAI?
Technically by nature of the FAQ, that is not true.
FAQs clarify what the rules are supposed to have already meant as opposed to changing the rules as they already were.
That is the difference between Errata and FAQs.
Tortured logic and appeals to emotion do seem to be the order of the day in these debates.I'd asked earlier in the thread for a definition of 'cheese' but none came forward so I have to 'guess' at what they mean by cheese. ;)Many people mean many different things by it.
Some people seem to only mean overpowered. How you get there doesn't really matter.
Other people use it to mean it just doesn't smell right. An ability or combination of abilities that doesn't seem to work the way it was intended or that doesn't make sense to them. I'm pretty much in this category. As an example outside of the current kerfluffle, the idea of trying to do any kind of precise actions with weapons dangling by cords from your wrists seems cheesy to me - whether or not the result is overpowered. Give me a better way to accomplish the same thing and I'll be fine with it.
Others use it for similar things, but only if the result is actually overpowered.
The middle paragraph is basically the definition of an appeal to emotion.
The previous fAQ was explicit change to hoe the things worked originally.How could the previous FAQ be against RAI?
It didn't change how things worked but explained how they worked. It explained what the "work just like spells" part means in the SLA section. Scavion said it well. The unwritten rules where ALWAYS there, they just never bother to let us know about them...
thejeff: Note I asked them what THEY meant by cheese, not a generic definition so we could have a common ground to debate on. I know the various definitions but it's a big category.
It was a change, the question was originally answered negatively previously that FAQ. But I'm to lazy to look for a quote so nevermind.The previous fAQ was explicit change to hoe the things worked originally.How could the previous FAQ be against RAI?
It didn't change how things worked but explained how they worked. It explained what the "work just like spells" part means in the SLA section. Scavion said it well. The unwritten rules where ALWAYS there, they just never bother to let us know about them...
You sure it was an FAQ and NOT some random unofficial dev quote? I know I don't recall one.
|
|
The previous fAQ was explicit change to hoe the things worked originally.How could the previous FAQ be against RAI?
Technically by nature of the FAQ, that is not true.
FAQs clarify what the rules are supposed to have already meant as opposed to changing the rules as they already were.
That is the difference between Errata and FAQs.
That is just a grammatical definition that is irrelevant to the facts. The fact is that paizo employees had already answered the question "can I use SLA for x?", "No" was the answer.
That FAQ was a change.
I would say is not the only FAQ that have changed things, THF+armor spikes introduced elements not in the rules and changed how things worked before that.
If they reverse that FAQ, then I would be ecstatic.
This one is annoying, and I would still like to know intent, but if the other was reversed, I would literally jump for joy.
Full on coked-out David Lee Roth high jump kick, for joy.
The previous fAQ was explicit change to hoe the things worked originally.How could the previous FAQ be against RAI?
Technically by nature of the FAQ, that is not true.
FAQs clarify what the rules are supposed to have already meant as opposed to changing the rules as they already were.
That is the difference between Errata and FAQs.
That is just a grammatical definition that is irrelevant to the facts. The fact is that paizo employees had already answered the question "can I use SLA for x?", "No" was the answer.
That FAQ was a change.
I would say is not the only FAQ that have changed things, THF+armor spikes introduced elements not in the rules and changed how things worked before that.
If they reverse that FAQ, then I would be ecstatic.
This one is annoying, and I would still like to know intent, but if the other was reversed, I would literally jump for joy.
Full on coked-out David Lee Roth high jump kick, for joy.
I'd love to see the 'hands of effort' die too, but I know I could never be that lucky.
Will somebody please explain how arcane strike is "cheese"? Its not even that great of a feat.
Swift action for more damage isn't a great feat for martials? Some of them have stuff they do with swift actions occasionally but don't they mostly just go unused?
Damage potential is the single easiest metric of character power especially amongst martials.
Arcane strike being available to pure martials changes their power level ceiling.
Anytime the ceiling gets raised someone isn't going to like it.
Personally the reason I don't like it isn't necessarily because it raises the ceiling on martial damage output but because it does so by requiring that they have innate magical power. I've always liked the fighter who definitively is not, in any way, a spellcaster. This makes that concept one step further away from optimal.
Some will certainly disagree, but I'm betting that one of those two things is what the people who don't like it are against.
- Torger
The middle paragraph is basically the definition of an appeal to emotion.Many people mean many different things by it.
Some people seem to only mean overpowered. How you get there doesn't really matter.
Other people use it to mean it just doesn't smell right. An ability or combination of abilities that doesn't seem to work the way it was intended or that doesn't make sense to them. I'm pretty much in this category. As an example outside of the current kerfluffle, the idea of trying to do any kind of precise actions with weapons dangling by cords from your wrists seems cheesy to me - whether or not the result is overpowered. Give me a better way to accomplish the same thing and I'll be fine with it.
Others use it for similar things, but only if the result is actually overpowered.
You say emotion the way politicians say liberal, like it's a dirty word.
Some of us want the mechanics of our game to feel right.
When you have a larger number of people saying "this doesn't feel right" there's usually a reason.
Some articulate that reason better than others but "something about this feels off" is a valid reason to consider that something about it might be off.
- Torger
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... So if your argument hinges upon how something feels to you rather than a more objective metric, you are saying that your feelings are more important than the feelings of another party.
Since we know this is objectively untrue, the argument is meaningless.
So, did Princess Trollestia invade this thread?
Think someone is trying to be the new TOZ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... So if your argument hinges upon how something feels to you rather than a more objective metric, you are saying that your feelings are more important than the feelings of another party.
Since we know this is objectively untrue, the argument is meaningless.
Certainly no one has ever bought a product based on how they feel about it.
Therefore Paizo should certainly ignore how their customer base feels about their rulings.
Wait a tick hasn't a component of some arguments against this ruling been how many customers it will piss off... or if you prefer how they'll feel about it. Wonder why they consider their emotions to be more important to paizo than ours... no matter.
Hard to say at this point which side feels stronger but there are definitely some strong emotions on both sides.
- Torger
P.S. do you need a hug?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... So if your argument hinges upon how something feels to you rather than a more objective metric, you are saying that your feelings are more important than the feelings of another party.
Since we know this is objectively untrue, the argument is meaningless.
Intuitive thinking is not a substitute for analysis...but it can usually provide an excellent guide to quickly determining the spaces where analysis is necessary.