|
Such a view requires you to wilfully ignore the explicit statement from the PDT that this was something they were aware of and happy with and *might* revisit if it proved to be overpowering.I think what Howie23 was trying to say is similar to what I've heard some other say. That even though the SLA exception was legal, some feel it was clearly an exploitative way to use the rules to your benefit and that something that glaringly obvious would most likely be reversed or at least changed in the future. By taking advantage of said "loophole" you knowingly set yourself up for a future "screwing" and that demanding an accommodation is disingenuous.
Not making a value statement nor agreeing/disagreeing with that position, just relaying what I understand the position to be. Make you own decision if it has merit or not. YMMV
They allowed it to remain. But the secondary effect was one they had not considered and were not aware of until it actually happened and they were made aware of it. They allowed it to remain under scrutiny.
It is revisionist history to say that they knew about it before hand and were happy with it.
|
|
It wasn't completely endorsed or the design team wouldn't have written in a clause saying they were reserving the right to look at it again at a later date.
While its implicit in their job title that they gave the right to revisit any ruling they make, it made me entirely steer clear of it that they explicitly said they might.
Revisionist history paints this as completely legit with no ref flags and a sense of irritation and wonderment that they changed it.
It was in black and white, saying they might. No other ruling to my recollection ever did that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They also explicitly said if it was overpowered in that caveat. Their exact words (copied from the Internet Archive link I posted earlier in the thread): "If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."
I don't think the general consensus was that these characters were overpowered - people just thought it was cheesy, regardless of the balance. The fact that we weren't seeing surges of characters taking these PrCs and slaughtering tables (they in fact remained incredibly rare) gives credence to the change being very surprising, because the caveat had a stated trigger condition that hadn't triggered.
While this is absolutely correct according to traditional rules of logic and reasoning, I don't think the detractors acknowledge traditional rules of logic and reasoning as an acceptable victory condition in this specific difference of opinions. :)They also explicitly said if it was overpowered in that caveat. Their exact words (copied from the Internet Archive link I posted earlier in the thread): "If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."
I don't think the general consensus was that these characters were overpowered - people just thought it was cheesy, regardless of the balance. The fact that we weren't seeing surges of characters taking these PrCs and slaughtering tables (they in fact remained incredibly rare) gives credence to the change being very surprising, because the caveat had a stated trigger condition that hadn't triggered.
Some people don't assume their experience is everybody's experience.
|
|
I'm referring specifically to the rules laid out in a Logic and Reasoning course in higher education. Generally something like Philosophy 101. They are very explicit rules that govern logic and they are completely independent of individual experience.Some people don't assume their experience is everybody's experience.While this is absolutely correct according to traditional rules of logic and reasoning, I don't think the detractors acknowledge traditional rules of logic and reasoning as an acceptable victory condition in this specific difference of opinions. :)They also explicitly said if it was overpowered in that caveat. Their exact words (copied from the Internet Archive link I posted earlier in the thread): "If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."
I don't think the general consensus was that these characters were overpowered - people just thought it was cheesy, regardless of the balance. The fact that we weren't seeing surges of characters taking these PrCs and slaughtering tables (they in fact remained incredibly rare) gives credence to the change being very surprising, because the caveat had a stated trigger condition that hadn't triggered.
Except there is no "victory" to be had here. The situation is what it is, and those affected by it just need to make the best of it they can.
Using fancy words to impugn other folks ability to use logic also isn't really appropriate.
|
|
I honestly think this thread has run it's course... thrice now, really.
Those in one camp have stated their opinions repeatedly and don't seem likely to change.
Those in the opposing camp have stated their opinions and don't seem likely to change.
Twice the thread has been locked because of people getting insulting/out of line, and once again that is happening.
This horse is dead, must we keep beating it?
|
I honestly think this thread has run it's course... thrice now, really.
Those in one camp have stated their opinions repeatedly and don't seem likely to change.
Those in the opposing camp have stated their opinions and don't seem likely to change.
Twice the thread has been locked because of people getting insulting/out of line, and once again that is happening.
This horse is dead, must we keep beating it?
The only remaining hope for this thread is that seeing the level of peoples displeasure with the decision will alter the way its handled the next time something like this happens.
|
|
The only remaining hope for this thread is that seeing the level of peoples displeasure with the decision will alter the way its handled the next time something like this happens.I honestly think this thread has run it's course... thrice now, really.
Those in one camp have stated their opinions repeatedly and don't seem likely to change.
Those in the opposing camp have stated their opinions and don't seem likely to change.
Twice the thread has been locked because of people getting insulting/out of line, and once again that is happening.
This horse is dead, must we keep beating it?
Perhaps, but realize they are also seeing just as many people agreeing with their stance and thinking it was the right choice.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alas, it's the folks supporting Paizo's ruling that keep popping in here and either making uninformed comments or picking wordsmith fights with others.
If another thread is opened, there's at least a chance that people will actually read things before commenting. For a day, anyway.
