RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"There are better ways to fix prestige classes" is a valid reason to not like SLA-based early entry. It is not, however, in any way relevant to a discussion of what to do with characters affected by the FAQ change.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this discussion ever becomes "the developers need to explain their decision in updating the FAQ," instead of "how does this change impact PFS and how should we as a community react to it," then I believe it belongs on a different message board.
I like reading interesting discussions about game balance and rules updates... But not on the PFS specific forums. When I want those threads I look in the appropriate forums. I think that tangential discussions about game mechanics on these boards are why we see people posting things like, "...and this is why I don't play PFS...bunch of rules lawyers."
And most of us I feel would agree Walter. So far I would like to think for the most part that we have stuck to how it's being implemented and is there anything that can/will be done to help implement these changes for characters who devoted resources to reaching these classes and getting a fuller use of their abilities, but who didn't get in before this drop just happened.
|
The Prestige class didn't change.If the Prestige Class hadn't changed, this thread wouldn't exist. But it did change. Specifically, the entry requirements changed. The text of the entry requirements didn't change, but what the entry requirements actually mechanically ARE changed. To suggest a meaningful difference between changing the words and changing the meaning is entirely unreasonable.
This is incorrect Jiggy.
The Prestige class certainly did not change at all.
The only change is how Spell-Like Abilities are dealt with in the game. The initial FAQ had a side effect on PrCs. That side effect no longer exists.
But the PrC did not change, at all.
|
The Prestige class didn't change.If the Prestige Class hadn't changed, this thread wouldn't exist. But it did change. Specifically, the entry requirements changed. The text of the entry requirements didn't change, but what the entry requirements actually mechanically ARE changed. To suggest a meaningful difference between changing the words and changing the meaning is entirely unreasonable.This is incorrect Jiggy.
The Prestige class certainly did not change at all.
The only change is how Spell-Like Abilities are dealt with in the game. The initial FAQ had a side effect on PrCs. That side effect no longer exists.
But the PrC did not change, at all.
I've gotta agree, Andrew.
I've endured abuse on this forum for splitting hairs thicker than that. Not to say Jiggy deserves to be called names.. just saying it's very nit picky. And yeah, that's coming from me.
|
|
What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?To use EK as an example, the requirements were (in addition to martial weapon prof):
To either have a number of levels in an arcane spellcasting class to reach 3rd-level spells on their class progression chart, or be able to cast a 3rd-level arcane SLA.
This is incorrect.
The requirements were to cast 3rd level spells.
For a short while, Spell-Like Abilities were able to meet this requirement. They no longer are.
The PrC never considered Spell-Like Abilities.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's somewhat of a technicality, don't you think? You can certainly narrowly look at the PrC rules and the SLA rules as two completely separate entities, but ultimately they were at one time very closely coupled because of the old FAQ. SLAs were at one time (and technically still are at the moment) a valid method of meeting the prerequisites of a PrC.
The fact of the matter is that with the FAQ, PrCs were more accessible. Now they are not. Period. Saying that this FAQ didn't change PrCs is disingenuous at best.
That being said, I don't think we need a grace period for this. I know that people would abuse it to get as many early entry PrC characters as possible while the opportunity was available.
What does need to change though is that the design team needs to be more aware of the ripple effects of their FAQs.
|
|
If we agree that the PrC didn't change, what does that mean?
It means nothing really other than something people can point to as a "rigid", "objective" reason to not allow a grace period or a rebuild.
As if people can't just come out and say they don't agree with a grace period/rebuild.
At this point it's all just opinions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's somewhat of a technicality, don't you think? You can certainly narrowly look at the PrC rules and the SLA rules as two completely separate entities, but ultimately they were at one time very closely coupled because of the old FAQ. SLAs were at one time (and technically still are at the moment) a valid method of meeting the prerequisites of a PrC.
The fact of the matter is that with the FAQ, PrCs were more accessible. Now they are not. Period. Saying that this FAQ didn't change PrCs is disingenuous at best.
That being said, I don't think we need a grace period for this. I know that people would abuse it to get as many early entry PrC characters as possible while the opportunity was available.
What does need to change though is that the design team needs to be more aware of the ripple effects of their FAQs.
To reiterate no one is asking for a grace period. None at all, people are asking for extended grandfathering but not for a grace period.
|
|
To reiterate no one is asking for a grace period. None at all, people are asking for extended grandfathering but not for a grace period.
Could you please explain what the difference is? My understanding is that people are asking for more time to get into their PrC classes. How is that not a grace period?
But yeah otherwise my point still stands.
|
|
If we agree that the PrC didn't change, what does that mean?It means nothing really other than something people can point to as a "rigid", "objective" reason to not allow a grace period or a rebuild.
As if people can't just come out and say they don't agree with a grace period/rebuild.
At this point it's all just opinions.
Lets get this straight shall we?
Pedantic arguments that work in the favor of the arguer's case, are just proof that the argument is correct.
Pedantic arguments that work against the favor of the arguer's case, are just nitpicking straw men.
If you are going to argue semantics to make a case for your point, then you should be ready for those who want to pick the nits out of your pedantry.
However, in this case, I do not believe I'm trying to argue any specific point. I'm just correcting a mistaken concept so that the point-makers can try to make their points with full semantic back-up.
|
|
Extended grandfathering, so that those characters already locked down when the ruling came out could continue to use the old ruling, has been the most common suggestion.
We have this for characters with levels in the PrC yes? Sounds like we have what you need.
Granting people a period of time to qualify for that grandfathering or some arbitrary line where they can qualify is a grace period... right?
They are asking for characters level 2 and up who were already on the path to be allowed to progress as if early entry still existed. No new or level one characters allowed. Basically no one could rush a bunch of characters in to suddenly be good for the future and realistically very few people would suddenly jump on the chance to head for the PrC early if they weren't already headed that way.
|
|
They are asking for characters level 2 and up who were already on the path to be allowed to progress as if early entry still existed. No new or level one characters allowed. Basically no one could rush a bunch of characters in to suddenly be good for the future and realistically very few people would suddenly jump on the chance to head for the PrC early if they weren't already headed that way.
Oh ok. Thanks for explaining that.
There's like a super super small corner case where people could abuse that, where people who are just AT level 2 could start shooting for a PrC, but that's rather small. I still like the existing rule where there is no potential for that abuse. Just my opinion =\
|
|
Lets get this straight shall we?
Pedantic arguments that work in the favor of the arguer's case, are just proof that the argument is correct.
Pedantic arguments that work against the favor of the arguer's case, are just nitpicking straw men.
If you are going to argue semantics to make a case for your point, then you should be ready for those who want to pick the nits out of your pedantry.
However, in this case, I do not believe I'm trying to argue any specific point. I'm just correcting a mistaken concept so that the point-makers can try to make their points with full semantic back-up.
So, what's pedantic for the sake of being pedantic exactly? I think your distinction is incorrect. Being pedantic to ensure correctness in the argument, and provide clarity and value to a discussion is good. Being pedantic because... reasons just irritates people.
So again, where's the value in that distinction?
|
|
They are asking for characters level 2 and up who were already on the path to be allowed to progress as if early entry still existed. No new or level one characters allowed. Basically no one could rush a bunch of characters in to suddenly be good for the future and realistically very few people would suddenly jump on the chance to head for the PrC early if they weren't already headed that way.
So let me tell you what I'm going to do.
Someone write me a post without emotional reason or passion in it, that logically explains the problem. Don't say why its good or bad. Just logically explain the problem.
Then logically explain what the ramifications are to the characters affected. Please, no impassioned pleas or hyperbole about how your character is ruined. Just a logical explanation of the ramifications to that character. If played to completion, what are its long term prognosis and at what point is it difficult to have fun playing because of lack of early entry. why can this character just not wait for another 2 levels to get the prestige class? How would this tangibly hurt the character or make it unfun to play.
Then logically explain one or two solutions that would solve the problems addressed above.
If the post meets these prerequisites, I will personally email Mike and point him to the post. I will let you know the time and date that I pointed Mike to the post.
With the understanding that:
A) He most likely will still say no.
B) He may not respond at all, because he's already said no twice. He has already assured me last week that he's read every post in this thread (and probably still is reading).
If he does not respond within a week, assume that his previous responses still hold and he chooses not to repeat himself for the 3rd time. Understand that any lack of response directly from Mike at this point is not disrespect, but rather an unwillingness to continue arguing a point he's already made a decision on twice.
But if you want someone to hear a compiled, logical idea, then I will listen to it and push it up the chain.
But any hint of hyperbole or emotion, and I'll kick it back.
|
|
Lets get this straight shall we?
Pedantic arguments that work in the favor of the arguer's case, are just proof that the argument is correct.
Pedantic arguments that work against the favor of the arguer's case, are just nitpicking straw men.
If you are going to argue semantics to make a case for your point, then you should be ready for those who want to pick the nits out of your pedantry.
However, in this case, I do not believe I'm trying to argue any specific point. I'm just correcting a mistaken concept so that the point-makers can try to make their points with full semantic back-up.
So, what's pedantic for the sake of being pedantic exactly? I think your distinction is incorrect. Being pedantic to ensure correctness in the argument, and provide clarity and value to a discussion is good. Being pedantic because... reasons just irritates people.
So again, where's the value in that distinction?
The argument has apparently circled back around to mention of rebuilds.
So someone mentioned that nothing in the PrC changed, so by the exact wording of the current rebuild rules in the Guide to Organized Play, no rebuild should be allowed, because nothing in the actual class has changed.
Then it was brought up that this was just semantics and the end result is the same.
I just made a flippant observation (and it was aimed at myself as well), that pedantry is fine as long as the pedantry helps your argument.
What's the point?
The characters can still get into the prestige classes. That hasn't changed. It will just take two or three more levels than the player originally thought.
Is this good or bad? Frankly, at this point, I don't care anymore. This argument is exhausting because of wading through all the pedantry. But the bottom line, is the only damage, I can see, is not to the character, but to the player who might not enjoy the extra couple levels of being less effective than they would have been had they got into the PrC at the earlier level.
Is this a good enough reason to make Mike change his mind?
To date, it has not been.
They are asking for characters level 2 and up who were already on the path to be allowed to progress as if early entry still existed. No new or level one characters allowed. Basically no one could rush a bunch of characters in to suddenly be good for the future and realistically very few people would suddenly jump on the chance to head for the PrC early if they weren't already headed that way.So let me tell you what I'm going to do.
Someone write me a post without emotional reason or passion in it, that logically explains the problem. Don't say why its good or bad. Just logically explain the problem.
Then logically explain what the ramifications are to the characters affected. Please, no impassioned pleas or hyperbole about how your character is ruined. Just a logical explanation of the ramifications to that character. If played to completion, what are its long term prognosis and at what point is it difficult to have fun playing because of lack of early entry. why can this character just not wait for another 2 levels to get the prestige class? How would this tangibly hurt the character or make it unfun to play.
Then logically explain one or two solutions that would solve the problems addressed above.
If the post meets these prerequisites, I will personally email Mike and point him to the post. I will let you know the time and date that I pointed Mike to the post.
With the understanding that:
A) He most likely will still say no.
B) He may not respond at all, because he's already said no twice. He has already assured me last week that he's read every post in this thread (and probably still is reading).
If he does not respond within a week, assume that his previous responses still hold and he chooses not to repeat himself for the 3rd time. Understand that any lack of response directly from Mike at this point is not disrespect, but rather an unwillingness to continue arguing a point he's already made a decision on twice.
But if you want someone to hear...
Andrew I'll see what I can work up in the meantime however keep end mind that this kind of post from you may not come across great. I'm not in PFS its not really availble down here however you post comes across like your the only one Mike could possibly listen to, and maybe you are I don't know. But what I do know is that people might question you objectiveness after you already argued with a player about how effective and fun his own actually played through was. It sends the message that you know whats better for a player and his character than he does.
|
|
Any V-O could have made the same offer. It just happened to be me. Mike and I do not have a working relationship in which I can bend his ear any more than anyone or any other VO could.
My opinion on this is very clear. It has not changed since my earlier posts. So I could not objectively present your opinion to Mike in my own words.
But I do have integrity. And as such, when I make an offer to present something as written, that's exactly what I'll do.
Whether it has any effect, or just makes Mike mad at me for making him read and "consider" again for a 3rd time, I don't know. But I'm willing to take that bullet if it helps alleviate concerns here.
Consider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"
|
Could you please explain what the difference is? My understanding is that people are asking for more time to get into their PrC classes. How is that not a grace period?
Grace period has specific connotations that don't apply here. Invoking the phrase grace period is meant to make people think this is the exact same thing as the Planetouched fiasco and that we're going to have people spending the next month running 10 scenarios a day trying to build up a pool of characters. The proposed idea has none of that. It applies to a limited pool of characters that already exist and are already completely locked in and unchangeable. Furthermore, it only applies to the subset of those characters that can possibly go in to one of the applicable PrCs. All you're doing is letting that subset of characters keep doing what they're already doing. You cannot effectively get into a PrC without significant planning in the first place, so you're not just going to get a bunch of random people jumping on the bandwagon - there will probably be a few, but they'd be gimping themselves so badly that they'd be better off not to do it.
You can argue semantics of the phrase grace period, but the fact is that this, whether or not you choose to call it a grace period, is so unlike any other use of the phrase grace period in PFS history that it is not a valid comparison, it drags in too much entirely unrelated baggage. That is in part why I use the phrase extended grandfathering - I feel it more accurately captures the intent without bringing in unrelated baggage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level 2 is the point that you can't rebuild under the rules your traits your stats your feats are locked in. If I picked stats for 2 casting classes and feats and traits to complement then I'm fairly set on that path.
|
|
You can change class level with the retraining rules and a 1 level "loss" is not that big of deal especially if you take a level in a good dip class like oracle or fighter. If the player takes conventional feats like toughness, power attack, etc that have long term utility, what's locked in about it?
How is trajectory of a build apparent at level 2?
Not sure how much but your spending prestige and your looking at stats a single classed build might not have considered.
|
|
You can change class level with the retraining rules and a 1 level "loss" is not that big of deal especially if you take a level in a good dip class like oracle or fighter. If the player takes conventional feats like toughness, power attack, etc that have long term utility, what's locked in about it?
How is trajectory of a build apparent at level 2?
Depends on what you're aiming for
|
|
Consider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"
I of course can't speak for everyone, but my stance is just that I want some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered. They have made a few posts, but none have addressed that aspect. It could just be one word, No, and I'll drop it at that (I won't be very happy about the matter, but that's true anyway, and at least I'll drop it).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone write me a post without emotional reason or passion in it, that logically explains the problem. Don't say why its good or bad. Just logically explain the problem.
Then logically explain what the ramifications are to the characters affected. Please, no impassioned pleas or hyperbole about how your character is ruined. Just a logical explanation of the ramifications to that character. If played to completion, what are its long term prognosis and at what point is it difficult to have fun playing because of lack of early entry. why can this character just not wait for another 2 levels to get the prestige class? How would this tangibly hurt the character or make it unfun to play.
Then logically explain one or two solutions that would solve the problems addressed above.
If he's reading the thread then there's not much point in sending him an email. But I am willing to try to summarize things. Note that I'm considering the below a sort of "open document" - if anyone wishes to add anything please contribute, I'm trying to be fair and thorough, but in the end I am only human :)
Problem Statement
Broad Issue: An FAQ has been changed by the core design team - specifically, a character in possession of SLAs no longer meets spellcasting qualifications unless they call for that specific spell, where before having an SLA that operated at a particular level counted as casting spells of that level.
Narrow Issue/Area of Focus: As PFS is constrained to RAW, this FAQ change has rendered certain existing characters to be operating against the rules. As a result, some action must be taken to reconcile these characters with the rules. The matter of discussion is what options are available, and which one of these provides the best overall result for both the campaign and the players.
Current Ramifications
PFS staff has elected to reconcile characters with the rules as follows:
- Characters that used SLAs to qualify for feats must retrain those feats, as well as any that used them as prerequisites, prior to their next PFS game.
- Characters that used SLAs to qualify for prestige classes will be permitted to continue taking those classes as though the rule had not changed, IFF they have at least 1 chronicle sheet earned from playing a game with that character with the PrC prior to the date of the FAQ change.
Areas of Dispute
There are two primary areas of dispute. One is that the rule change is in some way not optimal. As this post is addressed at PFS, and hence not the people responsible for changing the actual rule, that will not be further addressed here. Anyone wishing to discuss this is welcome to do so in the Pathfinder General Discussion forum, rather than the PFS forum.
The second is that there is potentially a better way to handle reconciling characters with the rules than what is currently implemented, specifically in regard for characters that were being built in anticipation of joining a prestige class, but had either not yet gotten high enough to take it, or had reached the necessary level and taken it on paper, but had not yet had a chance to play the character at a table.
Potential justifications to change the decision
- The change as stands has the potential to radically change the concept of certain characters who were planning on making use of the existing rule
- While the characters in question are still playable, the new path is so different from their original form that they may ruin character concepts.
- While the characters in question are still playable, their power level has been decreased to such a degree that it is the perception of many playing the affected characters that it would be a waste to continue using them. Most of the PrCs in question were balanced in such a way as to be weak early and then recover later, and the original SLA ruling meant it was possible to get far enough in the class to hit the point where they recover and are perceived as being effective again. The limit in level range of general play in PFS means that shifting the payoff of the class to a later level will likely result in never reaching the point at which the player is satisfied with the character.
- Proposals have been made that would make it quite difficult to abuse the system.
- Permitting characters already headed for the PrCs in question to continue would not have an unbalancing effect, as in general the ones involved were balanced against the 3.5 CRB era rules, which had a notably lower power level than both Pathfinder and later phases of 3.5.
Potential justifications to not change the decision
- It is easier to let the existing decision stand than to work out the precise details of how to change it.
- Prevents even the slightest possibility of abuse, keeping in mind that past decisions with wiggle room for abuse have been abused as hard as possible.
- Characters affected by the decision, while not able to follow the player's intended path, are still entirely playable by the rules, and are playable using the original design path of the classes in question.
- PFS is entirely playable with characters that aren't perfectly optimized, so just because the character is weaker doesn't mean it can't be used.
Proposed Alternatives
Extended Grandfathering
Under this proposal, a limited subset of additional characters would be permitted to make use of the PrCs using the previous version of the rules. The qualifications would generally be something like:
- The character must already have played at least one scenario at 2+, and hence be "locked in".
- Optional: No retraining between the date of the decision change and the date of taking the first level of the PrC.
- Optional: The character must already be locked in to multiclassing as of the date of the change, as it is multiclassed characters that are most negatively affected.
Pros of this approach:
- Not much more complicated to administer than the existing implementation.
- Reduces the amount of disruption to existing characters.
- Difficult to abuse, as needing to qualify for the PrCs will make it somewhat self selecting - only characters that have the necessary SLAs, classes, traits, and feats to start down this path will be able to do it.
Cons of this approach:
- Overhead of making changes.
- If there isn't an end date, people might need to keep the rule in mind for some time. If there is, you get into the whole grace period rush issue.
- While narrow, there is more potential for abuse than the status quo, as there are likely people who will shoehorn things in just to thumb their noses at management, even if it makes their character weaker in the end.
Permit Free Retraining
Under this proposal, characters negatively affected by the change are permitted to retrain aspects of the character such as multiclass levels and PrC/multiclass specific feats and traits.
Pros of this approach:
- Must be adjudicated prior to the next time the character is played, so less risk of "dangling" characters
- While it is disruptive to existing characters, it is so in a way that produces far less discontent in the players
Cons of this approach:
- High overhead for making the change - it is more difficult to define rules for who is permitted to make use of retraining, since unlike a PrC, retraining is potentially applicable to almost everybody
- Along with the above, it has the potential to suffer from high levels of abuse
- Complicated rules lead to complicated GM adjudication
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"I of course can't speak for everyone, but my stance is just that I want some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered. They have made a few posts, but none have addressed that aspect. It could just be one word, No, and I'll drop it at that (I won't be very happy about the matter, but that's true anyway, and at least I'll drop it).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So let me tell you what I'm going to do.
Someone write me a post without emotional reason or passion in it, that logically explains the problem. Don't say why its good or bad. Just logically explain the problem.
The problem is multi-faceted, so let's walk through it:
For a PC who is already past 1st-level rebuilds but sitting outside of the grandfathering cutoff (i.e., hasn't taken their first level in a prestige class yet), there exist the following options.
1) Abandon the character. I think we can all agree that this should be something that policy doesn't push people toward.
2) Use the retraining rules in Ultimate Campaign to adjust the character. This has some issues:
..2b) The affected prestige classes, most notably Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge, enable fairly specific character concepts. There is really no other way to play the same sort of arcane/divine blend like you can with the Mystic Theurge, so what would a wizard/cleric retrain into that can realize the same concept? I'm not aware of anything that fits the bill.
For the Eldritch Knight, there are definitely other "martial/caster hybrid" classes available, but it's not that simple. For one thing, the affected character can't retrain stats, so they have to retrain to something that is workable with their existing stats. For a fighter/wizard, this would be the magus, and for a fighter/sorc, this would be a bard. Although this might seem fine at a glance, the magus and the bard deliver substantially different play experiences than the EK.
The bard's difference is the most obvious: there are a lot of performance-themed class features that would clash with almost any concept that didn't already include bard levels in the first place. Additionally, the character suffers the loss of having "inherited magic" (i.e., bloodline) that is often central to sorcerer-using concepts.
For the magus, the big difference is in how the class actually plays: the class abilities and spell list of the magus lend themselves to a melee-focused, damage-oriented play experience; a fighter/wizard EK typically utilizes the far broader wizard spell list as a means of character diversification: the PC can choose (fight to fight or even round by round) whether to make weapon attacks or to cast situational spells (with a wide variety to choose from). The main reason someone would choose an EK over a magus in the first place is usually because they want a play experience other than the melee-nova experience the magus provides.
So even in the best-case scenario (f/w to magus), the concept is damaged, and in the worst-case scenario (mystic theurge), there is simply no workable retraining option. On top of this, such characters could be spending 7-10PP for the retraining, which could even be more than they even have. So the UC retraining option is lacking, even in the easiest situations.
3) Continue on the path to traditional-entry into the relevant PrC. It is of the utmost importance when examining the problem with this option to remember that the vast majority of the PFS experience does not extend beyond Eyes of the Ten. Characters who go on into the teens and even to 20 are phenomenally outnumbered by characters who will never pass the 11-13 range. So we have to think about the 11-level "PFS career" that is the reality for most players.
I would do an in-depth analysis of the Mystic Theurge, but since (as I mentioned earlier) it doesn't have a contemporary to which to compare, that's rather hard to do. So I'll just move on to the Eldritch Knight. Since we're leaving emotion out of this, I'm going to step aside from my personal experience for a moment and talk about objective mathematics.
As I mentioned earlier, there are multiple caster/martial hybrid classes (magus, bard, inquisitor, warpriest) which can serve as a baseline for comparison. Let's start with spellcasting. That actually holds pretty closely to the baseline, with the EK being a single level ahead in spell progression by the end of his career. (He pulls ahead later on, but remember, we're talking about the PFS career here, and by 11th level he only just barely has an advantage.) So that part isn't a problem (and it's worth pointing out that that part also isn't affected by the FAQ reversal; early entry didn't really change the overall spell progression that much).
Now let's look at the "fighty" side. All of the above-mentioned caster/martial hybrids have 3/4 BAB. However, the traditional-entry EK actually mathematically falls short of this. Starting at 4th level (fighter1/wizard3, for example), the would-be EK is actually at half-BAB, the same as just a straight wizard.
Let me repeat that: the would-be EK has the same BAB progression as just a wizard (just getting BAB at odd levels instead of even levels).
Now, the EK class itself has full BAB, so it will eventually catch up. However, this does not happen until 9th level: two levels before most people's PFS career is over.
And that's just looking at BAB. Every single class that we can use as a baseline for comparison has a built-in ability to boost its attacks: the bard has Inspire Courage, the magus can boost his weapon's enhancement bonus, the inquisitor has judgment and bane, and the warpriest can Quicken his buff spells with a class ability. When you factor in the lack of any class-granted boosts, the EK is behind the baseline for his entire PFS career. But even if you were to choose to ignore the involvement of class features in helping a class fulfill its intended role, there's still the BAB-only math which (objectively) shows that the EK spends the bulk of his PFS career as the worst at what he does.
To sum up the problem, the affected player must either abandon their character, retrain into something that damages concept (possibly beyond recognition), or spend most/all of their PFS career as the single weakest execution of their concept in the entire game.
Then logically explain what the ramifications are to the characters affected. Please, no impassioned pleas or hyperbole about how your character is ruined. Just a logical explanation of the ramifications to that character. If played to completion, what are its long term prognosis and at what point is it difficult to have fun playing because of lack of early entry. why can this character just not wait for another 2 levels to get the prestige class? How would this tangibly hurt the character or make it unfun to play.
See above; the ramifications are the problem. Abandoning the character is unfun. Abandoning the concept via retraining is unfun. Being the (objectively, mathematically, provably) least-effective version of your intended role is unfun. (You've said yourself that it's not fun when you're at the table and someone else is just straight-up better at the same thing, so I know you won't argue here.)
Then logically explain one or two solutions that would solve the problems addressed above.
Allow any character that has a player (not GM) chronicle at 4XP or higher (as of the date of the FAQ reversal), and which has not performed any retraining since acquiring that chronicle, to utilize the old FAQ. Here's how that plays out:
1) No MotFF speed-runs, because it only affects existing characters.2) No floods of GM credit babies or 1st-level blobs, which is okay because those people can use that credit for entirely different characters at no penalty/cost.
3) The people who could make use of this option are almost exclusively the people it's designed for: the only fighter/wizards out there are the ones we're trying to help become EKs; same with wizard/clerics. Probably the only type of character that theoretically could take advantage of this plan without being the intended target would be a 2nd or 3rd-level wizard who just happens to have at least a 14 or so WIS. In theory, such a character could take their 3rd wizard level (if they don't have it already) then dip a level of cleric with the Trickery domain in order to get into Mystic Theurge, but doing do costs them their shot at 6th-level spells in their PFS career, and also hurts any CL-boosting investments they make; in short, powergamers won't do it. Only people who actually want the concept.
All in all, it doesn't really get any less abusable than this.
If the post meets these prerequisites, I will personally email Mike and point him to the post. I will let you know the time and date that I pointed Mike to the post.
:)
|
|
Second PostConsider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"I of course can't speak for everyone, but my stance is just that I want some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered. They have made a few posts, but none have addressed that aspect. It could just be one word, No, and I'll drop it at that (I won't be very happy about the matter, but that's true anyway, and at least I'll drop it).
There are many posts in the >450 posts between then and now that get into the fact that they did not address this particular proposal. I'm not saying they never considered it, just that they haven't commented on it.
There are many posts in the >450 posts between then and now that get into the fact that they did not address this particular proposal. I'm not saying they never considered it, just that they haven't commented on it.Second PostConsider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"I of course can't speak for everyone, but my stance is just that I want some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered. They have made a few posts, but none have addressed that aspect. It could just be one word, No, and I'll drop it at that (I won't be very happy about the matter, but that's true anyway, and at least I'll drop it).
Unsurprisingly not dropped. (Not that you have to, you just said you would.)
|
|
Unsurprisingly not dropped. (Not that you have to, you just said you would.)There are many posts in the >450 posts between then and now that get into the fact that they did not address this particular proposal. I'm not saying they never considered it, just that they haven't commented on it.Second PostConsider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"I of course can't speak for everyone, but my stance is just that I want some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered. They have made a few posts, but none have addressed that aspect. It could just be one word, No, and I'll drop it at that (I won't be very happy about the matter, but that's true anyway, and at least I'll drop it).
What part about "they haven't addressed the extended grandfathering proposal" and "some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered" are you not getting? Sorry if this is rude, but you're coming off as obstinate and combative for the sake of being obstinate and combative at this point.
What part about "they haven't addressed the extended grandfathering proposal" and "some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered" are you not getting? Sorry if this is rude, but you're coming off as obstinate and combative for the sake of being obstinate and combative at this point.Unsurprisingly not dropped. (Not that you have to, you just said you would.)There are many posts in the >450 posts between then and now that get into the fact that they did not address this particular proposal. I'm not saying they never considered it, just that they haven't commented on it.Second PostConsider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"I of course can't speak for everyone, but my stance is just that I want some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered. They have made a few posts, but none have addressed that aspect. It could just be one word, No, and I'll drop it at that (I won't be very happy about the matter, but that's true anyway, and at least I'll drop it).
Did you not mention that in your first post?
|
Considering that both Mike and John have posted several times on the threads all of which have a total of +1000 posts on this subject I expect they are still following this but will probably not post as they have made their decision and are sticking with it.
If they do comment it will be to repeat what what they said or they will create a link linking back to the decision. I mean it's been almost a month since the FAQ change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"I of course can't speak for everyone, but my stance is just that I want some kind of acknowledgement that the extended grandfathering proposal has been considered. They have made a few posts, but none have addressed that aspect. It could just be one word, No, and I'll drop it at that (I won't be very happy about the matter, but that's true anyway, and at least I'll drop it).
Since the other thread about this was locked because it had drifted outside its original purpose, here's a new thread about it.
We know that grandfathering in general was disallowed due to the abuse of the extremely generous terms last time. However, we have had a number of people come in to that thread and mention they had an almost-ready Mystic Theurge under the old ruling that got screwed over by the timing. In that context, I have a very direct and targeted request for clarification from PFS Management or any relevant Paizo Employees. Why was no middle ground offered for grandfathering? Simply requiring that the characters already be locked from rebuilding at the date of the rule change would effectively eliminate any potential for abuse, while avoiding the current situation of causing direct harm to a subset of your players due to the decision. Just because a poorly implemented grandfathering in the past went as poorly as anyone could predict does not mean it cannot be implemented in a reasonable manner, and there is an extremely obvious middle ground available here that both prevents exploitation and satisfies those players who were already deeply invested in your previous published rule. Why not just allow these players to continue?
John and I discussed grandfathering at length. As John and I both advised in the first thread, this is the decision that the PFS team has made and is what we are going with.
|
|
Did you not mention that in your first post?
Most of the first page of this thread is people arguing whether or not they actually addressed it with those posts, and a good chunk of people (myself included) feel that no, they didn't, the statements they made seem to just be copy paste of what they said earlier, giving no evidence of consideration of this specific proposal (and it would only have taken a couple more words to acknowledge the proposal as part of the refusal). Given that everything I've said about dropping it was in reference to addressing this proposal, and I do not feel that this proposal was addressed... well, I think you can see where I'm going with this :)
That said, I will follow through with what Andrew said - if Mike doesn't say anything else within a week, I'll consider it dropped.
|
|
The characters can still get into the prestige classes. That hasn't changed. It will just take two or three more levels than the player originally thought.
Since we're currently being pedantic that isn't actually true.
I have a Tengu rogue/brawler/cleric who was going for Arcane Trickster. He was planning on satisfying the arcane casting requirement via long nose which qualifies as Alter Self (note that while the entry requirements specify Arcane caster the class itself just gives you spell levels). He used a trait to get Mage Hand.
I refer to it as a divine trickster.
Given his Int and Cha are both 10 or less there really is no remotely viable way for him to get into Arcane Trickster.
Note : I'm not saying the character is now useless. Just saying that Arcane Trickster is no longer an option
|
|
Generally demanding that someone give you a response to an issue that is, well, generally accepted to be solved under some ultimatum is a really great way to get them to not say anything at all.
I should really learn to quit posting when simultaneously sleep deprived and annoyed. I'd actually gone to bed before it clicked what I had just said and I got back out of bed just to go back and delete it. I am going to quit posting for the night to avoid sticking my foot in my mouth again >.<
