|
@theJeff I should have used his second post - more explicit in thinking about the level 2/3's. secondpost
@BNW - there's been at least 4 different prestige classes with this option possible - I don't know all the possible prestige classes in Pathfinder to argue how many paths are possible... but a planestouched lvl 2 fighter with 11 int could be repurposed into an eldritch knight... can even get high level spells with magic gear later. one such example
|
@theJeff I should have used his second post - more explicit in thinking about the level 2/3's. secondpost
@BNW - there's been at least 4 different prestige classes with this option possible - I don't know all the possible prestige classes in Pathfinder to argue how many paths are possible... but a planestouched lvl 2 fighter with 11 int could be repurposed into an eldritch knight... can even get high level spells with magic gear later. one such example
1) So thats 10% of fighters :)
2) Magus is a better ek than the ek.
|
I've read every single post in both threads. So far my primary concern hasn't been addressed. My primary concern is that decision making is being done in such a way that it does not promote the most fun for the greatest amount of players playing a game. Yes, Pathfinder is a game that people play for fun. It's not even competitive, it's cooperative. Either everyone at the table wins or everyone loses.
That said, it's amazing that people are so quick to take the stance of "Serves you right for following a FAQ entry that's been ok'ed for over a year but mentions the possibility it may change someday. Maybe you won't exploit explicitly called out legal selections in the future!" This is EXACTLY what you are saying to the people that are higher than level 2 and were working towards a PrC.
I simply can't see this from any angle that makes it fair to those people. I don't think asking for the official Paizo GMs to adjudicate the campaign in a manor that is fair to all of the players is wrong. I would literally walk away from a table if I had a GM do this to me. Telling people to go ahead and walk away from the proverbial "PFS table" over this isn't the right answer. In my opinion, that's a more passive aggressive and baiting answer than some of the responses that have been called out for being inappropriate.
No one has told anyone to walk away from the table. No one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW - there's been at least 4 different prestige classes with this option possible - I don't know all the possible prestige classes in Pathfinder to argue how many paths are possible... but a planestouched lvl 2 fighter with 11 int could be repurposed into an eldritch knight... can even get high level spells with magic gear later. one such example
And my answer to this is going to be... so what? So a few people torture themselves playing a horribly poorly performing character just to thumb their nose at the ruling. Most people won't put themselves through that, and the people that do aren't gaining anything of note. Yes, there are a few limited ways it can be slightly abused, but they almost universally screw yourself over worse than not doing it.
It's not worth it to cater the entire game to the lowest common denominator. Some people are going to cheat, some people are going to abuse. I'm not saying we should make it easy (that was the problem with the planetouched grace period), but I am saying screwing over a bunch of other people who were doing fully rules compliant things and then got the rug pulled out from under their feet because someone could maybe-sorta-kinda-sometimes-iffy abuse it is not a good tradeoff.
|
Has anyone considered that the reason for the decision has to do with the fact that characters who are on the path toward the PrC are still viable to continue the path, they just have to wait a few levels?
In other words, the character is still a viable character based on the way the PrC was originally written.
So the characters are not ruined or destroyed, just delayed.
And that is not a bad thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew, the general consensus among the people impacted are that, as written, those PrCs are not really viable. A delay does "ruin or destroy" them, because of the difference in what you get out of it.
To be fair, the "general consensus" only really exists here in the forums where the loudest voices are in actuality a very small minority of the community. I do not wish to dismiss their comments that the PrCs are bad, they are entitled to their opinion, just to say that they are plenty viable in context of the entire game, not just the part that crunches numbers. There is more to gaming than "winning" and there are enough players who have played the PrCs in their original form, enjoyed them, and were effective characters to make the notion that they are unplayable (as many seem to suggest) to be nothing more than a personal opinion and well short of the "fact" that many indicate.
|
|
People think it's a bad decision. They have every right to voice that. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't talk about things they disagree with?
I hope that is not the intention or people's understanding. There is nothing wrong with discussing the rules and making suggestions you think would be better. However, this thread like the others seems to have moved from that to some level of demand for a response from Mike/John. Their track record has been, for quite some time, that they listen to the comments provided by the community and consider them when making decisions. They discussed this issue at length and decided on the course of action. It also appears they were continuing to follow the various threads on this topic for some time, but it appears they have not read anything that convinced them to change the initial ruling. The seemingly incessant demand for them to comment further is unnecessary and might border on the insulting. Dunno. Surely you/we can continue to discuss the merits of alternative rules without the demand that Mike/John acknowledge every new suggestion, can't we?
|
|
Did Mike chime in on this thread?
He did not specifically post in this thread, but since it is at least the third thread concerning this topic, and he did comment in at least one other one, I don't think its fair to say that since he (or John) have not commented, means they are not listening. They do have the greater job of administering to the campaign after all and new content, books, rules, other threads, need to be addressed in addition to this one.
|
|
To be fair, the "general consensus" only really exists here in the forums where the loudest voices are in actuality a very small minority of the community. I do not wish to dismiss their comments that the PrCs are bad, they are entitled to their opinion, just to say that they are plenty viable in context of the entire game, not just the part that crunches numbers. There is more to gaming than "winning" and there are enough players who have played the PrCs in their original form, enjoyed them, and were effective characters to make the notion that they are unplayable (as many seem to suggest) to be nothing more than a personal opinion and well short of the "fact" that many indicate.
Most people who I've seen commenting from the perspective of personally playing the classes have said that they felt like a third wheel for nearly the entire PFS span of the character, and I've seen more than one mention of people in home games trying to play them then suiciding the character because they felt so far behind the rest of the party. It's not that they weren't "winning", its that they felt their contributions to the shared success of the party so small as to be insignificant. One does not play even an early entry MT to "win", those that want to "win" don't sacrifice caster levels.
I hope that is not the intention or people's understanding. There is nothing wrong with discussing the rules and making suggestions you think would be better. However, this thread like the others seems to have moved from that to some level of demand for a response from Mike/John. Their track record has been, for quite some time, that they listen to the comments provided by the community and consider them when making decisions. They discussed this issue at length and decided on the course of action. It also appears they were continuing to follow the various threads on this topic for some time, but it appears they have not read anything that convinced them to change the initial ruling. The seemingly incessant demand for them to comment further is unnecessary and might border on the insulting. Dunno. Surely you/we can continue to discuss the merits of alternative rules without the demand that Mike/John acknowledge every new suggestion, can't we?
After the first couple of days of nerdrage about the general FAQ change, the vast majority of the requests for comments have been asking about one thing, extended grandfathering. As we got into above, that is one thing that they have not said a single word about. All it would take to stop all this is a single direct comment about why or why not for that specific proposal.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After the first couple of days of nerdrage about the general FAQ change, the vast majority of the requests for comments have been asking about one thing, extended grandfathering. As we got into above, that is one thing that they have not said a single word about. All it would take to stop all this is a single direct comment about why or why not for that specific proposal.
Except it won't stop there and we all know that. Give a reason, you get a counter reason. Give another reason get another counter reason and so on and so on, ad nauseam. The bottom line is you cannot please all the people all the time.
It is clear that Mike/John have not seen an argument compelling enough to make them reconsider the current plan else they would have responded by now. They have said more than once, this is the ruling as it stands.The current plan includes a grandfather exception allowing those who already have the PrC through early access to maintain it. What is being asked now is to create/extend a grace period such that those intending to enter the PrC early, but have not yet done so, to be able to do it despite the rules change. That is not a grandfather clause. They provided a contributing reason why a grace period was not created. Some just don't like the reasoning and continue to argue the point.
As I said, there is nothing wrong with continuing to debate the topic and develop additional possible solutions. They may even reconsider in the future. But, at this point, the thread progressively feels more about "we disagree with your ruling, have formulated a better (in our opinion) plan, and demand that you respond." That aspect of the thread is very childish IMHO and not likely to garner a response.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grandfathering any PC that can't freely rebuild as of the date of the change (essentially 1 played session at 2nd level), is not a "grace period".
You can call it whatever you want, grandfathering, grace period, whatever, (I'm not going to argue the definition of catch phrases) the fact remains, they considered the options and extending the time to enter the PrC is not currently being reconsidered. The suggested alternate course of action might sound great to you and its other supporters, but it is clearly not enough to make Mike/John reconsider their current position, and after all the recent activity, they do not seem interested in commenting further, otherwise I expect they would have by now. This is clearly a "hot" topic after all.
Look, we can banter back and forth, but in the end, at least for the foreseeable future, the decision has been made. I encourage people to contribute other solutions/ideas that they feel would be an improvement on the current ruling, but there really is no point in continuing to yammer on about the same solution over and over.
And I just don't understand the apparent and incessant need some people [generally speaking] have to be addressed personally by Paizo staff.
This could happen every time a FAQ or errata is updated. It's the nature of the beast. It's also the nature of organized play, that there will be some rules not everyone likes, but are in force for the good of organized play.
Everyone who signs up to play PFS should be aware of this.