|
I think the "why" was adequately addressed in the locked thread.
A small subset of players ruined grace periods for the rest of us.
Don't blame Mike or John. Blame those who abused their leniency in the past.
I think the biggest disconnect I have is that I just don't see how creating a bunch of Aasimar/Tieflings was really abusive. It was behavior that Mike explicitly expected to happen, he was just surprised at the scope. But I just don't see it as an issue that I have 5 (unplayed since they were no longer legal) banked Aasimars instead of one.
Granting for the sake of argument that was abuse, that just means that advance notice is a bad idea. It doesn't mean that either more liberal grandfathering (as suggested in a different thread) or more liberal rebuilds is automatically bad.
Its no huge deal. I have 3 characters affected. All are still viable if somewhat less powerful now. But I am mildly irked at the decision, especially since I really don't understand it.
Note: I am not blaming anybody. I know they put a lot if thought into it. I fully understand why they don't want to go into more detail as to their reasons. But I think they made the wrong decision and so I remain curious and mildly irked.
It wasn't that a bunch were made. It was the fact that some folks thought it was ok to get together and play Master of the Fallen Fortress 10 times in 8 hours and brag about how they were able to get the run down to 23 minutes.
I can't think of a single person with a valid opinion that would feel that isn't abusive.
Sounds a little abusive to me. My question is, did they have fun? Did it hurt anyone? Did it break the PFS campaign?
If they had fun, didn't hurt anyone and didn't break the PFS campaign, why are you calling badwrongfun on them?
Because its cheating. And it doesn't matter how fun it is, or whether you can directly tie hurt to someone through the action, or whether you can directly determine breakage of the campaign, cheating is wrong. Period.
|
It was already advised why the decision was made Here.
The explanation is due to past abuse of grace periods and does not nearly satisfy what is being asked here. First off, what is being proposed is not a grace period, it is an extension of the grandfathering. As was discussed at length in the locked thread, as long as the grandfathering is for any locked-in character, it is practically impossible to abuse the PrC qualification part of this. Heck, as an extra qualification, throw in that if you retrain anything between now and taking the PrC you disqualify yourself. For a character that qualifies, your stat allocation, feats, and classes are so far off what would be a reasonable approach for anything else as to be insanity unless it was being built directly for this purpose. It's not like they would just be able to spam a bunch of 1xp character like before - there's no reasonable way to accomplish this unless you already had dedicated effort in this direction.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I added information that the poster I quoted was either a) leaving out, or b) unaware of.
I don't see how the addition of those words turns my comment into one of condescension.
Its putting words into peoples mouth. Its saying that your opinion is so right and theirs is so wrong that they MUST want to say your opinion. Its calling their opinion so wrong its broken.
I've never seen that phrase used as anything but a backhanded insult.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I think the "why" was adequately addressed in the locked thread.
A small subset of players ruined grace periods for the rest of us.
Don't blame Mike or John. Blame those who abused their leniency in the past.
I think the biggest disconnect I have is that I just don't see how creating a bunch of Aasimar/Tieflings was really abusive. It was behavior that Mike explicitly expected to happen, he was just surprised at the scope. But I just don't see it as an issue that I have 5 (unplayed since they were no longer legal) banked Aasimars instead of one.
Granting for the sake of argument that was abuse, that just means that advance notice is a bad idea. It doesn't mean that either more liberal grandfathering (as suggested in a different thread) or more liberal rebuilds is automatically bad.
Its no huge deal. I have 3 characters affected. All are still viable if somewhat less powerful now. But I am mildly irked at the decision, especially since I really don't understand it.
Note: I am not blaming anybody. I know they put a lot if thought into it. I fully understand why they don't want to go into more detail as to their reasons. But I think they made the wrong decision and so I remain curious and mildly irked.
It wasn't that a bunch were made. It was the fact that some folks thought it was ok to get together and play Master of the Fallen Fortress 10 times in 8 hours and brag about how they were able to get the run down to 23 minutes.
I can't think of a single person with a valid opinion that would feel that isn't abusive.
Sounds a little abusive to me. My question is, did they have fun? Did it hurt anyone? Did it break the PFS campaign?
If they had fun, didn't hurt anyone and didn't break the PFS campaign, why are you calling badwrongfun on them?
It counter the conscience decision by the campaign leadership, to remove aasimars as an always available race from the PFS environment. And it creates a certain amount of salt from new players who never had this option, and those who didn't get the chance to save one or two characters (either because they didn't know about it, of could not find low level games in their area).
This pretty much showed the campaign leadership, that we can't be trusted with options like this.
|
|
Because its cheating. And it doesn't matter how fun it is, or whether you can directly tie hurt to someone through the...Abusive yes, but I got the impression that it was very distinctly not cheating, just a really poorly designed implementation, hence how they got away with it.
They got away with it, because it really would have been too much effort to go and invalidate all those reported sessions.
But if you think that taking what should be a 4-6 hour session and turning it into a series of ten 23 to 40 minute sessions isn't cheating... Dunno what to tell you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this were a home game and I came up with a character concept, received an 'ok' from the GM (but he explicitly warned me he reserved the right to reverse that decision) that my character progression was within the rules and acceptable...Fixed that for you.
1) a year and a half ago that caveat was put in place. After this long, is it really unreasonable to think the issue settled?
2) nobody is arguing with the reversal of the ruling. We don't like the "sucks to be you, you can't change the character even though the rules changed".To be explicit, I'm seeing that attitude from various posters and NOT from Mike or John. And its starting to seriously bug me. People who built characters intending to use the SLA rule did NOTHING wrong and ARE paying a cost for something that is TOTALLY not their fault. John even acknowledged that. Now, Mike and John believe that their solution was the least bad for the campaign and that is their decision to make.
But could we PLEASE stop blaming players who did NOTHING even the tiniest bit wrong or objectionable.
Edit : I just read Nefreets post above where he says he wasn't trying to be condescending. Taking him at his word, he seriously failed his communicate skill roll. It certainly seemed to me that he (and others) have been saying that it was at least partially the players fault for building these characters.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Because its cheating. And it doesn't matter how fun it is, or whether you can directly tie hurt to someone through the...Abusive yes, but I got the impression that it was very distinctly not cheating, just a really poorly designed implementation, hence how they got away with it.
Without checking at those tables, I find it quite questionable that the scenario/module was run properly. In my opinion the run as written dogma very much does include room descriptions, players making knowledge checks, doing RP with NPCs (not sure how much of it is really relevant here), and considering the weird - let's call it a trap - on the highest level...
Even actually making all your rolls takes a significant amount of time... yes that kobold with AC 26 can't really kill your group of leve 1 players... but the fight will still take up to 30 minutes of real time - not from Master of the Fallen Fortress, but some of the readers might recognize it.
It is a little bit like ordering takeout food or pizza only to have the delivery guy ring your door 5 minutes later.... they didn't have time to do this properly, I have serious doubts that what I am getting is really pizza. And the delivery guy might be a CIA agent in disguise ...
|
|
I played my first game as Fighter-1/Wizard-1/EK-1 two days before the ruling was reversed, with a character that I gave 9 boons to (including a certain retirement arc).
One can't help but wonder if your opinion would be different if you had just missed the deadline as opposed to just making it.
That isn't a slam at you. Human nature means that we all notice the injustice more when we are affected as opposed to when we are nearly affected.
On the other hand, I'm sincerely glad that you made the deadline. That would have sucked.
|
|
I would guess the Campaign Leadership is reading these discussions, but I have no idea how "set in stone" their decision is. I have no horse in this race. I never took advantage of the earlier interpretation and never intended to, so I'm content with the current ruling and would remain content with any subsequent rulings.
But what if...
Any character that has been played at least once at 2nd Level or higher prior to the FAQ change could still use a SLA to qualify for early entry into a PrC?
I believe this would prevent most, if not all, of the potential abuse. No 1st Level characters could take advantage of the free rebuild to qualify. No GM babies could be birthed to qualify. And everyone who created and played a character prior to the FAQ change with the intent of early entry into a PrC could still do so.
|
|
For those of you claiming that speed-running MotFF is cheating...
I have speed-played this scenario. It was a HOOT! My friends and I had a ton of fun doing so. Since you are calling me a cheater, I'm putting the burden on you:
Which rule did we break?
I'd really like to know.
I am planning on playing this module and running this module repeatedly in the very near future. I plan on speed-running it. And I plan on reporting it for credit.
For everyone else... if you are interested in trying this, the ground rules that we use are:
1. Four or five players;
1. Pre-gens only;
2. All of the box-text must be read each time;
3. You must face every encounter, but the order you face them and how you deal with them are entirely up to you.
|
|
Like graypark, I don't have a horse in this race, though I preferred the old early entry ruling. Honestly, I would have liked to see it more universally applied (i.e. removing skill rank requirements in some fashion) so that the prestige classes would see more play.
That said, any change in ruling like this is going to cause both confusion and cheating. On the cheating side, you'll find some unethical players who backdate chronicles, but you'll also find players who play primarily in home games and didn't hear about the FAQ change and played as though it didn't happen. There are all sorts of things that happen here and it becomes a question of enforcement. If a Mystic Theurge sits at my table, do I suddenly need to audit that character thoroughly? If I don't, am I abetting an environment of cheating? If I do, am I harassing a player? How does this impact the community in the region?
I honestly think that most players will ethically and competently handle the change, which is why we're seeing such a backlash on this FAQ change. I also think that campaign management was right to have a firm ruling in place before the FAQ was published. That said, I think that denying rebuilds to affected characters encourages cheating.
|
|
I would guess the Campaign Leadership is reading these discussions, but I have no idea how "set in stone" their decision is. I have no horse in this race. I never took advantage of the earlier interpretation and never intended to, so I'm content with the current ruling and would remain content with any subsequent rulings.
But what if...
Any character that has been played at least once at 2nd Level or higher prior to the FAQ change could still use a SLA to qualify for early entry into a PrC?
I believe this would prevent most, if not all, of the potential abuse. No 1st Level characters could take advantage of the free rebuild to qualify. No GM babies could be birthed to qualify. And everyone who created and played a character prior to the FAQ change with the intent of early entry into a PrC could still do so.
Seems like a good idea to me! ;)
Edit: as I've said elsewhere, I have no pony in this show. I like the new rule, but I find disturbing the glee coming from some people that other players' characters are so badly hurt by this ruling. I also find disturbing the allegations of cheating, which is a pretty serious charge, IMO.
|
|
For those of you claiming that speed-running MotFF is cheating...
I have speed-played this scenario. It was a HOOT! My friends and I had a ton of fun doing so. Since you are calling me a cheater, I'm putting the burden on you:
Which rule did we break?
I'd really like to know.
It's likely related to scrub theory. "It's against the spirit of the rules." When people were doing speed runs for the explicit purpose of grandfathering Tieflings/Aasimars, you can certainly call it an exploit, but I don't think cheating is the proper term. Exploits occur within the construct of the rules, whereas cheating is willful violation of the rules.
In tabletop games, it's frequently conflated with the Stormwind Fallacy.
|
|
I agree!It was explicitly in the FAQ.Well, that's a pretty bad FAQ entry then and probably should have never existed in the first place.
I also agree. But the FAQ did exist. And it was reversed. And now the issue is not about the FAQ, but instead about how the reversal has been resolved and some of the bad feelings it has caused.
I think people have a fair grievance here. To some extent, I think they simply want to feel like their pleas are being heard, regardless of the outcome.
|
I played my first game as Fighter-1/Wizard-1/EK-1 two days before the ruling was reversed, with a character that I gave 9 boons to (including a certain retirement arc).One can't help but wonder if your opinion would be different if you had just missed the deadline as opposed to just making it.
That isn't a slam at you. Human nature means that we all notice the injustice more when we are affected as opposed to when we are nearly affected.
Trust me, I've already had that conversation with myself more than once. I'm analytical, and a mediator, and a Social Sciences undergrad, so I really *try* to look at different situations through different lenses (and also try to recognize when I fail to do so).
I probably would have resorted to one of these three options:
Option #1: seriously just toss the character in the garbage (there's a first time for everything, right?). I'm running Eyes again this month, have the GM stars to burn, and 25 other characters to focus on.
Option #2: use my Tier 1 GenCon boon to rebuild the character into something else (if the race boon isn't anything special).
Option #3: pile on GM credit and retrain the 2 levels thus far into something else (the most likely option).
In any of these cases, I'm not *usually* the type to vent my frustrations as others have (though I admit I've fallen victim to bouts of helplessness before), so I don't *think* I'd be calling foul (heavy use of asterisks intended). But, as you pointed out, we can't help but wonder.
Though over the years that I've been posting here I've been imagining myself in the shoes of Campaign Leadership when tough calls have to be made, and I've come to realize that sometimes crap just hits the fan and you have to move on.
You truly can't please everybody.
(not sure if that made sense or not, phone's about to die and I'm just posting my immediate reactions)
|
but in the end it did seem to cause a large amount of balance issues (as you can see by the number of players effected).
It's really a shame people think using character options is causing balance issues. More people playing human fighters wouldn't mean that was suddenly a game balance concern, why is this any different?
|
To me it sounds like something that was changed because they realised that in the core campaign this has much more room for abuse than it did initially.
Now that said, move on. At most some people have characters that are about level 2 or 3 who aren't as useful as originally intended. It's really not that big a deal.
How about at level 5?
I have 2 levels rogue, 1 level wizard, 1 level snakebite striker, 1 level arcane trickster. However, since I have no chronicle sheet from before the FAQ reversal as arcane trickster (as in, I only have 12 XP and not 13) I'm going to have to change the arcane trickster level into wizard.
I then have the following three options:
- continu another 6 scenarios as a subpar wizard and subpar rogue for the 6 extra XP to get enough XP to requalify as Arcane Trickster
- spend 7 PP to retrain a rogue level into wizard, continu for 3 scenarios to qualify for arcane trickster and lose access to the improved whip mastery feat until level 7 instead of having it at 5.
- retire the character
Due to all the hassle class retraining has, and not being interested in playing a subpar wizard/rogue in the current environment I'm choosing option 3.
I don't like to drop the effort that went into this character to make it fun for me, but the only reason I went for Arcane Trickster was the FAQ that allowed me to get 2 levels earlier entry and actually get some mileage out of the ranged legerdemain class ability.
Coupled with being a whip user which required me to retrain early on (5 PP at level 2 to gain proficiency and weapon focus to get whip mastery at level 3, using my rogue talent for weapon focus) I really looked forward to having improved whip mastery at level 5 so I could provide flanking bonus to allies instead of only benefitting from it myself.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
All:
Having waded through every post of the other thread, and every post on this one, I wanted to offer my thoughts, only in the context of a single Venture-Captain and how I see this issue. You certainly can make of this post what you will.
1. Mike and John have a responsibility to the entire campaign, to the full player and GM base. From time to time, a ruling might impact a great majority of the players or GMs, and from time to time, a minority of the same. It seems pretty clear to me that the impact of this decision affects a small minority of players (at least, that's the impression I get from reading these threads.)
2. The decision regarding whether or not SLA's should count for pre-requisites for PrCs wasn't one made by Mike or John - it was, as I recall, made by the development team, and as such, it affects all of Pathfinder, not just Pathfinder Society. Mike and John then need to figure out how the change in that item would affect Pathfinder Society.
3. During the Aasimar/Tiefling phase, people were given notice, were given 30 days (I think it was) to make sure their existing characters either had met the requirements to continue playing that character, or could get the requirements met during this short window. They even allowed new characters of those races to be created and played during that time, but that allowance came with a request that people not abuse it. Though I am sure they expected new Aasimar and Tieflings to be created, they also expected the players to abide by their request to not abuse it. Their request was ignored by a number of people, who openly bragged about such on these boards. Now, some say the current situation isn't the same, but, at the heart of the matter, it is. A small group of players demonstrated that requests to be reasonable would go unheeded and deliberately ignored ("they didn't SAY we couldn't make 10 new tiefling characters!") Why would they put the campaign in a position to head down that very same road again? (And, for the record: I don't consider what that segment of player base did as "cheating." They operated clearly within the letter of the ruling, but they certainly abused it - cheating and abuse may not be the same thing, but they both can have the same negative impact on the campaign.)
4. Now, they are confronted with having to decide how to handle the current issue. They have tried to strike a balance by letting those who have already earned credit as the PrC for which they gained early entry to continue to play those (I am paraphrasing here, but you can always read the actual language from John regarding how this works.) Some people here are talking about how they had "intended" or "planned" to take early entry into a PrC but hand't gotten their yet. That is not the fault of Mike or John. Given that the original FAQ ruling made it clear that the ruling could be revisited (and let's be honest, that really is true of any rule, whether such a disclaimer or caveat is made or not), people relied on the original FAQ ruling, and I suspect either didn't think the caveat would apply, or that it wouldn't matter.
5. Some have said they don't see a problem; others do. And, as I recall, I think there was a thread about allowing early entry into the Evangelist PrC and the potential problems with that. Maybe it's not a problem for Mystic Theurges or Arcane Tricksters, but I'm sure there are PrCs where early entry could create a balance issue or problem. (So far, almost all of the discussion I have seen centers around the Mystic Theurge.)
Now, all of that having been said:
1. People are upset, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. Whether or not you (or I) feel someone has a reason to be upset is a subjective opinion.
2. Being upset does not give anyone here license to impugn the character or motives of anyone else - let's stop making this stuff personal.
3. Those who have characters impacted by this change have a number of choices, and those have been articulated prior to this post. One of them, however, is worth noting: no longer playing Pathfinder and/or Pathfinder Society. I have seen a few people say they wouldn't play anymore. I think that's most unfortunate, and I think it's entirely unnecessary. There are things about PFS that people like, and things people don't like. I, myself, am not a fan of technology and wasn't thrilled to see its introduction into PFS. As a GM and as a Venture-Captain, I don't have the right or the authority to exclude it from tables. We still schedule tables with scenarios that have technology in it because there ARE players and GMs who like it - my dislike of it shouldn't prevent someone else from enjoying it. So, what do I do? I remind myself that PFS is bigger than the introduction of technology, it's bigger than a ruling in the FAQ or a campaign-specific ruling from Mike and/or John. PFS is bigger than the little things that each of us don't like. If this current matter is so significant that you feel you can no longer enjoy Pathfinder Society (or Pathfinder, in general), if you feel that this ruling will make the game no longer fun, then you have a choice to make. But let's be clear: it's YOUR choice. I don't want to see a single player or GM leave over this issue, I don't - but, at the end, if a player leaves, let's be clear that it is by his or her choice. It isn't Mike's fault, or John's, or the development team's, but the choice of the player who chooses to leave.
Such a circumstance would be unfortunate, I think, and if it can be avoided, I'd hope it would. At the end of the day, however, Mike and John are responsible for this campaign and must make the decisions they feel best for the campaign. That is what has happened here. Mike and John have explained their rationale, and while that may not satisfy some, it nevertheless is their rationale. Continuing to ask them to explain why is pointless: they have already done so.
Now, I might suggest this - there's a lot of heated emotion in this debate. Passionate debate is fine, as long as it doesn't become personal. So, as a thought: maybe if folks take a day or to, step away from this issue and take time to reflect, re-read the threads, etc., before posting, maybe that will help de-escalate the tone before it becomes like it did in the other thread.
I hope people will, in the end, decide to play, even if it means not playing the character that you had envisioned. It may not be the ideal choice for a given player, but it may be the best choice in the long run for Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
Explore. Report. Cooperate.
|
|
See to me the thing that is most complaining is the lack of notice on the change. Even with the note at the end of the old FAQ I expected that if they did "look into it again" we'd hear about it on the forums somewhere. Every other FAQ change/reversal I know of had a good discussion on the forum about why and why not to change it and then a decision was made. This one comes out of no where 1.5 years later and the note said "if it creates overpowered options" so apparently it's either taken them ~1 year to discuss this change or things that haven't been overpowered for 1.4 years suddenly were overpowered.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I might suggest this - there's a lot of heated emotion in this debate
I've snipped almost everything else. I've already stated in this thread why I think much of what you said is flat out wrong.
But I'd like to address the quote above. I am NOT seeing nerd rage, heated emotion, name calling. I'm seeing people stating their objections to the PFS ruling and offering reasonable alternatives. Quite respectfully and WITHOUT heated passion.
I'd bet a considerable sum that Mike expected far MORE anger to his ruling than he is actually getting.
I think that you are confusing reasonable debate and voicing of opinions for something else. With a couple of mild exceptions, we ARE being polite and calm.
We most certainly have a right to voice our disapproval of PFS decisions. If Mike is half as smart as I think he is he welcomes our voicing our opinion even when (probably particularly when) we disagree with him
|
|
Now, I might suggest this - there's a lot of heated emotion in this debateI've snipped almost everything else. I've already stated in this thread why I think much of what you said is flat out wrong.
But I'd like to address the quote above. I am NOT seeing nerd rage, heated emotion, name calling. I'm seeing people stating their objections to the PFS ruling and offering reasonable alternatives. Quite respectfully and WITHOUT heated passion.
I'd bet a considerable sum that Mike expected far MORE anger to his ruling than he is actually getting.
I think that you are confusing reasonable debate and voicing of opinions for something else. With a couple of mild exceptions, we ARE being polite and calm.
We most certainly have a right to voice our disapproval of PFS decisions. If Mike is half as smart as I think he is he welcomes our voicing our opinion even when (probably particularly when) we disagree with him
You are free to think I'm wrong, that's fine.
My point wasn't about THIS thread, it was about not letting it become like the OTHER thread. No one has said, and certainly not I, that people didn't have a right to voice their disapproval. I am confusing nothing.
EDIT: Ah, I think I see where you might have thought I was talking about this thread. I said "...in this debate...", to which I was referring to the overall topic, not this particular thread. My apologies for not being clear on that.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they put the campaign in a position to head down that very same road again?
The core of my argument is that they wouldn't be. The SLA for PrC thing had an effect on such a narrow range of characters that there is practically no room for abuse, the only ones that can effectively make use of it are those who were already intending to do so.
The initial outburst and calm to think thing already happened over the last couple of weeks. I was prompted to make this thread primarily due to seeing the posts of people like Inari for whom this had a significant negative impact, in many cases negating the use of 4-5 level characters - you're talking an investment of potentially hundreds of hours when you get into game time, planning, writing backstory, applied boons, that kind of thing. I don't personally have a horse in this race - I was about to start an MT character but hadn't yet. I just hate seeing the other people be so screwed by how this was implemented when there is another valid option that has been put on the table repeatedly which would fix it with little work and almost no downside.
|
|
I don't personally have a horse in this race - I was about to start an MT character but hadn't yet. I just hate seeing the other people be so screwed by how this was implemented when there is another valid option that has been put on the table repeatedly which would fix it with little work and almost no downside.
Seconded. This is why I immediately asked John about a potential addition to the grandfathering component of the ruling. I was disappointed when the negative response hinged in some part on the Aasimar/Tiefling grandfathering, which I feel has no actual relation to this issue.
Several proposals have been made since my first one that are very reasonable and strive to leave zero room for abuse. The fact that the Aasimar/Tiefling period was "abused" (Note: Personally, I feel that if the players had fun doing speed runs, more power to them. No one is actually making 17 Aasimar and Tieflings from their vast reserves.) should not have any bearing on this decision.
Respectfully, I would never punish a portion of my player base for the actions of an entirely different set of players with an entirely different set of goals, and I think it is a mistake to not revisit this issue. I'm aware Mike and the folks at Paizo have the final say, but I can still quite politely express my feeling that they are not coming to a reasonable conclusion and strive to alter their opinions.
|
|
I just hate seeing the other people be so screwed by how this was implemented when there is another valid option that has been put on the table repeatedly which would fix it with little work and almost no downside.
While I wholeheartedly support the option put forth in another thread to grandfather more and also feel that rebuilds would be a good option, I'd like to point out that almost nobody was THAT screwed (Nefreet just missed being the biggest victim I've heard of).
I DO have horses in this race. An Arcane Trickster wannabe and a Mystic Theurge wannabe. Both are quite viable characters even without the prestige classes. They'll have to move in different directions than intended but they're both recoverable. Heck, there won't even be any noticeable effect for a level or so as the difference between a Wizard 3/Cleric 1 heading for Mystic Theurge and Wizard 3/Cleric 1 NOT heading for Mystic Theurge is rather small :-) (I currently lack the prestige to retrain the cleric level, even if I decide to go that route).
So, the bottom line is a relatively small number of characters became somewhat less powerful and somewhat less cool (I liked my Divine Trickster concept). And Prestige classes (even with early entry) are such a so so or poor option that my Mystic Theurge will arguably end up MORE powerful if I decide to retrain the level of cleric into wizard. Less powerful than a wizard built from scratch would be but more powerful than the Mystic Theurge
And, while I'm sure there are exceptions, I imagine most players taking advantage of the SLA ruling in the first place were fairly experienced players with multiple characters. If I lose a character its really no huge deal, less of an issue than when a beginning player loses one.
I'm less affected by this than I am by a poorly written scenario that unfairly kills one of my characters (for some meaning of "unfair").
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re the aasimar tiefling thing: So what?
A limited number of people stockpiled an entire angelic/demonic legion. So what? That means that that one person shows up always playing a tiefling. They could accomplish the same thing just by playing slow. The problem wasn't a few people playing the planetouched, it was that EVERYONE was playing the planetouched.
whether such a disclaimer or caveat is made or not), people relied on the original FAQ ruling, and I suspect either didn't think the caveat would apply, or that it wouldn't matter.....
...or that the procedure written out allowing rebuilds when the rules changes would be followed. This was not building a character around a corner case interpretation strait out of asmodeuous' playbook. This was something where the devs said -Yes, this is the rule, and yes it really means this-. It is a rules change, they're supposed to come with rebuilds.
Those who have characters impacted by this change have a number of choices, and those have been articulated prior to this post. One of them, however, is worth noting: no longer playing Pathfinder and/or Pathfinder Society
Really? If people took this advice as often as you give it PFS would be half the size it is.
Some people here are talking about how they had "intended" or "planned" to take early entry into a PrC but hand't gotten their yet. That is not the fault of Mike or John.
I don't like the implication there. I don't think anyone multiclasses wizard and cleric without intending to take mystic theurge, nor do they level out their int and wisdom, take practiced caster, or a dozen other things you start doing from day 1.
And its not peoples fault that they DMd for others instead of playing more to lock the character in.
|
|
With respect, BNW, I didn't tell people to not play. OTHERS have suggested that they may not play again - they brought that option into the conversation, BNW, not I. In fact, I clearly said I hope they didn't make that choice - I'd rather them stay.
And, lastly, it isn't that this thread has risen to that level - I was trying to caution against it doing so (a point I edit in my post earlier.)
Just to be clear, from my other post:
I have seen a few people say they wouldn't play anymore. I think that's most unfortunate, and I think it's entirely unnecessary.
"PFS is bigger than the little things that each of us don't like. If this current matter is so significant that you feel you can no longer enjoy Pathfinder Society (or Pathfinder, in general), if you feel that this ruling will make the game no longer fun, then you have a choice to make. But let's be clear: it's YOUR choice. I don't want to see a single player or GM leave over this issue, I don't - but, at the end, if a player leaves, let's be clear that it is by his or her choice. It isn't Mike's fault, or John's, or the development team's, but the choice of the player who chooses to leave."
I'm fine if you disagree with me, but please do not put words in my mouth, or claim I said something that I did not say.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I follow the dialogues on this topic, the more perplexed I feel.
I mean, if the reply given to a proposed alternative is "But people abused the aasimar situation", then one would assume that the speaker is meaning to imply that the proposed alternative would allow similar abuse. That is, declining an idea because of past abuse suggests that the goal is to prevent a repeat of that abuse.
Except I don't see people actually saying that. Granted I've at times only skimmed some of the posts, but I haven't seen people explaining how a given solution would enable abuse. Meanwhile, the proponents of these alternatives have been asserting that their ideas would not be so abusable.
Yet still, the mantra against these alternatives remains, "But aasimar abuse".
So what does that reply actually mean?
If the proposed solutions actually do enable abuse in some manner that posters have overlooked, why not just say so? That would immediately clear things up, and I imagine the affected posters would be far more satisfied.
If the proposed solutions don't enable abuse, then why is past abuse being brought up at all? Are people just not really reading the ideas and assuming they'll be abusable? Does "last time there was abuse" mean something other than "we don't want to enable similar abuse this time"?
What is the actual message that's intended to be communicated by bringing up past abuse in response to proposed solutions?
I just don't understand what I'm reading here.
|
|
In another thread, which I can't find now, someone commented and gave examples of other past abuses.
It's not just about Tieflings/Aasimars. They're simply the most recent example that everyone's familiar with.
Still doesn't answer how those abuses relate to possible abuses here. Or why they bring that one up to shoot down any discussion this time.
Unless it really is just: "You've collectively been bad before, so we're not going to even try this time."
If a group shows a propensity for abuse, isn't the next logical step to rein in that abuse?
|
Just a quick story on those who are winding up with "Sub-optimal or Unusable characters" due to the new ruling:
A somewhat-similar incident happened with me and my often-mentioned Cad/Daredevil support character. I had his Bluff jacked up to make his ability to feint in combat really difficult to defend against.
One day, while poking around other options for this character, I stumbled upon "Pageant of the Peacock". I fell in love immediately, and took the bardic masterpiece at my next level-up.
That character went about 9 or 10 sessions smashing through all the intelligence checks like the clever sot that I had made him out to be. He traded away Bardic Knowledge due to his Daredevil archetype, so I sunk a single rank into each Knowledge skill and was forever set to start "Asking questions" about monsters for days!!!
Then, they banned it; they banned "Pageant of the Peacock." I was sad at first :(
Sure, I was allowed to take the 2nd level spell back in place of the pageant, but that wasn't going to get my skill ranks reallocated into skills more practical for the character's build. I was 11 skill ranks in the red unless I would spend buku prestige and gold on retraining to fix them up.
So what did I do? Well, I just decided to roll with it. I still had 5 levels until I was to hit Level 12. And if the misallocated skill ranks became problematic, I would just retrain them slowly, and if I could afford it. I later found them just fine where they were. Sure, I only had a +6 in each Knowledge except History (+9 due to skill focus prereq for Eldritch Heritage), but sometimes it pulled through!
The point I'm ultimately getting at is this: Sure, the character you WANTED can't quite be achieved. But there are other ways; other options. Heck, you could leaf through all kinds of Player Companions and Splat-books and find a completely new path for this supposedly-borked character that could have gone completely overlooked! You just have to want to stick to it. If you're going to chuck a character because it's not just so, then you could be missing out on a grand opportunity to REALLY flex your creative muscles.
We're all clever gamers. Who knows: you could be a single retrained feat away from creating a very powerful character. Step outside that box, pick up the books, and do a little research. You'd probably be very surprised at what you could find.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Peacock is different for two reasons:
1) Even in a campaign as skill heavy as PFS skill ranks are pretty far down on the list in terms of character power. Its not the same ballpark as casting stat and caster level.
2) There was a bit of ambiguity in exactly how the ability worked: whether you were bluffing your way through seeming to know things or whether you actually knew them. Pageant didn't get banned till after the author clarified it was the latter.
3) Its a much, much easier fix.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If a given option is not abusable, then declining said option does not rein in any abuse.For my own sake, Jiggy, can you spell out for me what this option is? I'm not certain (between the two threads) what this other option is.
I'll leave it to the authors of said options to repeat their explanations, rather than risk mangling it myself. :)
|
|
If a given option is not abusable, then declining said option does not rein in any abuse.For my own sake, Jiggy, can you spell out for me what this option is? I'm not certain (between the two threads) what this other option is.
A few options I"ve seen:
1) Let dm credit count as playing
2) Grandfather characters level 2 and higher. At worst the rush to theurgehood would be done by casters who didn't dump int/wis. there wouldn't be enough people to count as a rush. If your level 1 character was going to be theurge you can protoplasm your way out of it.
3) Let any multi classed caster grandfather in. Taking wizard and cleric levels is better than a signed statement that you're going Theurge.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they had fun, didn't hurt anyone and didn't break the PFS campaign, why are you calling badwrongfun on them?
Because it did damage the PFS campaign in the areas where it happened. That GM now gets mechanical benefits (in the form of GM star bonus on re-rolls) usually reserved for people who have run 20 scenarios and helped build a strong gaming community, instead of just churning out numbers for them and their friends. Those players now get to play the over-powered races (that were removed for a reason) while new players can't, allowing them to uber-optimize even more to "beat" other players. Because even though John said he thought it *might* happen, he also said he *hoped* it wouldn't happen.
It's not badwrongfun, it's totally against the spirit of an organized play campaign.
|
|
Although if you can parse the slightly wall-of-text-ish OP of this thread, there's a suggestion in there somewhere. I think there were others elsewhere as well.
I will paraphrase myself in less verbose terms :)
Permit use of SLA for PrC qualification iff:
- The character was locked in as of the time of the FAQ change (had at least one XP post level 2 earned by an actual game)
- The character utilizes no retraining between the time of the FAQ change and earning their first level in the PrC
If grandfathering were permitted with those qualifications, the only characters would qualify are those narrow set who are the correct race to have an SLA, the correct stats to work in the PrC, and the correct feats, levels, traits, and boons already locked in to start pursuing the PrC. That long set of necessary conditions defines the pool of those to whom this would apply so narrowly as to nearly completely eliminate everyone except those who were already pursuing the option.