A request for clarification from management wrt the SLA FAQ change


Pathfinder Society

551 to 581 of 581 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 5/5

andreww wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

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

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.

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.

5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
andreww wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

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

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.

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.

I didn't say they knew about it beforehand. As far as revisionist history goes that would be people claiming those using this entirely endorsed ruling were some sort of dirty minmaxing exploiters who deserve everything they got which has been a strong theme of this and the previous thread.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

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.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Andrew, please let it go.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I'm not the one bringing it back up.

Dark Archive

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.

Sczarni 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman aka Coraith

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bacon.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Huffstutler wrote:
Bacon.

<Bacon Inquisition>CRISPY OR FLOPPY? CRISPY OR FLOPPY?</Bacon Inquisition>

:)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bacon is bacon. Yum!

1/5

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

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. :)

2/5

Tamec wrote:
Atragon wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
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).
We considered it. We decided not to go with that option. Thanks for all the feedback.
Would it be possible to announce future changes like this with a blog post, like the assimar/tiefling grandfathering post, so that it is easy to find the official announcement?
If you are asking them to post the ruling in a forum post, they did post about the SLAs here. If you are asking for advanced warning that will not happen due to their stated reasons here, due to abuse.

No, a blog post, similar to the post introducing the core campaign. I find it easier to find official announcements when they aren't buried in a mass of other forum threads.


trik wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

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. :)

Some people don't assume their experience is everybody's experience.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/5

Alkenstar Bacon. In Alkenstar. With an airship.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Erimond Thorne wrote:
Alkenstar Bacon. In Alkenstar. With an airship.

With Primal Magic... mmmm Primal Bacon.

1/5

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
trik wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

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. :)
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.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:
Bacon.

<Bacon Inquisition>CRISPY OR FLOPPY? CRISPY OR FLOPPY?</Bacon Inquisition>

:)

Crispy, obviously.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

trik wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
trik wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

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. :)
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.

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.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/5

Folnor wrote:
Erimond Thorne wrote:
Alkenstar Bacon. In Alkenstar. With an airship.
With Primal Magic... mmmm Primal Bacon.

Primal Magic bacon with guns and explosions.

And alternate reality shredder golems phasing into existence while we all teleport to random squares. Then Thorfin phases into the ground.

Dark Archive

Primal magic event with animated bacon object.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

*notices which people were and were not participating when the thread was spiraling toward its first lock*
*notices which people were and were not participating when the thread was reopened and had a civil discussion that ended amicably*
*notices which people are and are not participating in the new surge of crapflinging*
*ponders*

Liberty's Edge

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?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Fomsie wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fomsie wrote:

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.

Perhaps, but realize they are also seeing just as many people agreeing with their stance and thinking it was the right choice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Acedio wrote:
Can we close this? People are just going to keep coming in with their 2 cents and start this BS all over again.

And another will simply open up. Because quite frankly the folks who keep this subject alive won't be happy until Paizo gives them the reversal it's not going to give.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Because quite frankly the folks who keep this subject alive won't be happy until Paizo gives them the reversal it's not going to give.

I think you've misidentified who's doing what.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

Did somebody say Bacon?

MMmmmm... Nice, Crispy bacon that crumbles in the mouth and melts on the tongue.

*Blink*

Was there something else being discussed?

4/5

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.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thaX wrote:
Did somebody say Bacon?

Bacon!

Quote:
MMmmmm... Nice, Crispy bacon

Yeah!

Quote:
that crumbles in the mouth

Mmmm, delicious...

Quote:
and melts on the tongue.

Wait, what? I'm not sure crispy bacon is supposed to do that. Where's the stomach pump?

Dark Archive

This is a good day. Got to ride a mine cart off the rails, like this thread!

Dark Archive

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:
Bacon.

<Bacon Inquisition>CRISPY OR FLOPPY? CRISPY OR FLOPPY?</Bacon Inquisition>

:)

Crispy, obviously.

You have chosen... wisely. You shall be spared the wrath of inquisition.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

8 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is done and locked.

551 to 581 of 581 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / A request for clarification from management wrt the SLA FAQ change All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society