|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good luck to the people who had their character planning negatively effected by this, hopefully you can find a proposal that can solve the issues that some of us see with the current option and be able to find a way that limits the chance of abuse.
Unfortunately, the disconnect is that I (and I think a great many others) just don't see any appreciable chance of significant abuse in some of the extant proposals.
Which makes it essentially impossible to come up with better proposals.
Note, I am NOT saying that you and others are being silly or alarmist or unfeeling or anything of that sort. I just honestly don't understand your position. Which means I can't try and change it.
Which is why I wish (wish, NOT demand or expect) Mike would speak up. Even though I recognize why he doesn't and admit that I wouldn't either if I was in his position :-). But absent input from him there is next to 0 chance of changing his mind
|
Since the old FAQ no longer exists, and I disnt save it anywhere, I'm going just off my memory... I believe the specifically said, in the followup clarification note on the FAQ, that allowing early entry was an unintended side effect, and they'd watch it and possibly revisit in the future.
So it was explicitly an unintended result that they left alone for awhile.
Wayback Machine to the rescue! Here is an archive of the exact text used in the most recent update to the FAQ prior to the rule reversal. It did not say it was unintended, it states nothing about intent one way or the other.
|
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it's worth pointing out that the default, standard PFS protocol for a rules change like this would be for characters with early-entry levels in a PrC to get a retrain to make their characters legal. In other words, no early entry characters would be allowed.
Instead, the campaign coordinators decided to let those who had already taken levels in a PrC keep their early entry.
Characters who were on a path towards a PrC (early entry or otherwise) would not be considered impacted by the rules change and get no rebuild. In other words, the same as they are now with the current ruling.
What people are asking for is to extend that exception made for characters with levels in a PrC to any character currently over level 1 (boiling down the proposal to its simplest terms).
Would that do any harm? Probably not.
I think the bigger issue is the precedent it sets (or perhaps the precedent it would break). When the Crane Wing change was made, some asked for characters on the path to Crane Wing to get a rebuild/retrain. It's a reasonable request, but as discussed then, hard to adjudicate. What constitutes 'on the path'? Crane Style? Dodge? Etc.
For better or worse, the standard operating procedure seems to be: "if you've got it when it changes, you can fix it." And it stops there.
It may not be the most fun option, but it's consistent.
It looks like the problem might be that they bent the rules by grandfathering and now the floodgates seem to be bursting. My concern is that if they do change their minds, it will be to remove the grandfathering altogether in the interest of fairness to everyone.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I'd like to nominate Tiger Lily as adjunct forum historian and archivist.Thanks, but that would be slightly difficult on account of the fact that I've only been active on the forum for about a month at this point :)
In this chase I would suggest amending the nomination to adjunct forum archaeologist^^
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since most of the arguments seem to revolve around acquiring a free rebuild, I wonder if the REAL issue is that rebuilding is too costly in Pathfinder Society.
I mean, the resources that you need to rebuild your character in Pathfinder Society are also the only resource that can save your character from zero-recovery perma-death. In Ultimate Campaign, you pay a relatively small gold fee and time. In Pathfinder Society, you pay the same gold fee and prestige points, which are infinitely more valuable than time.
Also, I'm super proud that my Venture Captain didn't ge baited by any of the negative comments hurled his way. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eye.
I see what you did there.
|
|
I'm trying to explain a different view on this ruling then the ones some of the poster have. But really taking apart my post and focusing on one comment out of context and trying to say that I'm comparing the fun levels or that I'm advocating the banning of options based on how much fun people are having isn't fair to what I'm saying.
Yes. Yes it is fair to your position.
Your post is not having a line taken out of "context". Your position is being examined for its content, facts, and rationale and fairly evaluated.
You have repeatedly said that this has been this is the best decision for the campaign but when asked to show how you can possibly think that you use some pretty outlandish explanations that would logically result in half of PFS banning the other half.
Its not the "context" its the content. The idea that people being annoyed that someone elses character sheet says something they don't like rises to the level of ban the character is a little extreme.
The idea that the level of annoyance on this issue legitimately rises the level where the best solution is to render the the character ineffective with No rebuilds!- is nuttier than a squirrels breakfast.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
For better or for worse, it was a deliberate decision to make rebuilding expensive in PFS. So it's functioning by design.
I personally don't have an opinion on that.
The choice might have something to do with the option to retrain hit points, and a couple of feats like extra arcana.
For my 2 cents, they really could reduce the cost of retraining a bit, or allow characters to "pay" with more gold instead of gold and PP (valuing PP at 750 per 2 PP seems reasonable).
|
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
For my 2 cents, they really could reduce the cost of retraining a bit, or allow characters to "pay" with more gold instead of gold and PP (valuing PP at 750 per 2 PP seems reasonable).
...or, you know, follow the retraining rules as they are RAW from Ultimate campaign (no PP mentioned in the retraining chapter of Ultimate Campaign)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a person with no personal interest in this ruling, i.e. no impacted PFS characters, I would like to offer my two cents. It is my opinion that Paizo has handled this issue very badly, as I will explain.
First of all, from a perspective of role-playing thematic continuity, the original ruling allowing SLA's to meet "able to cast arcane/divine spell level X" prestige class prerequisites made very little sense, at least to me. The idea that one race could enter a prestige class way earlier than others on the basis of the ability to use a single SLA once per day of the appropriate level flies in the face of the concept that SLA's are designed to be a progression of combined classes targeted for a particular entry point. Put in other words, the fact that a character would be able to bypass a bunch of necessary learning just because of an effortless SLA acquired at first level is simply not congruent with the general concepts of level-based progression.
Having made, for better or for worse, the questionable decision to allow the above-described early entry to prestige classes on the stated (and factually correct) rationale that "prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters)," Paizo then decided more than a year and a half later to countermand it. On the basis of what? As a threshold matter, I think I have played enough PFS to know that these early-entry prestige class characters are relatively rare in PFS play, and for good reason. Those that I have seen (made by competent players, BTW) hardly dominate the table and are, in fact, quite suboptimal from an optimization standpoint, as was correctly noted by Paizo in its earlier FAQ. Where is the "in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful" mentioned in the earlier FAQ as the only possible reason for reexamination? I would love to see it. No matter how Paizo tries to package it, there is no good explanation for this ruling.
Not allowing retraining is the third error made by Paizo regarding this issue. Paizo needs to remember that each scenario represents at least four hours of precious player time, not including prep and/or travel time. As such, no one is happy when a rule change leaves a broken character that cannot accomplish a reasonable semblance its original goals. While I understand not wanting to allow a broad-based rebuild, the reality is that characters intended for these prestige classes tend to be pretty easy to spot, as they have stats and class combinations that typically would not make sense otherwise. The simple solution is to give Venture Officers the authority to award a rebuild upon a petition by an impacted player demonstrating the intended outcome of the character and the prejudice from this ruling. This is not a perfect solution, I admit, but it should be able to tamp down some of the ill-will that the sudden change has wrought. Moreover, given the limited number of these characters (which typically involve the now-banned Planetouched races) it should not overburden the venture officers.
|
|
Yes. Yes it is fair to your position.
Your post is not having a line taken out of "context". Your position is being examined for its content, facts, and rationale and fairly evaluated.
You have repeatedly said that this has been this is the best decision for the campaign but when asked to show how you can possibly think that you use some pretty outlandish explanations that would logically result in half of PFS banning the other half.
Its not the "context" its the content. The idea that people being annoyed that someone elses character sheet says something they don't like rises to the level of ban the character is a little extreme.
Yes it is out of context. The whole level of fun issue was a response Trik's assertion that options that are fun should not be banned (to paraphrase).
I answered his assertion with my own that says that just because it's fun for one person doesn't mean it's fun for everyone and you can't predict what's fun for 10's of thousands of people. So you can't use fun as a determination for banning. (To paraphrase)
You've decide to take that and apply that to my reason why I agree with the ruling we have now, even though that was no where in the post that I made about why I agree in the ruling.
So you've decide to take my post that was addressing Trik's idea that banning has to be based on whether or not people are having fun and apply it directly to this issue.
So yes you've missed the context Big Norse Wolf, either that or your trying to bait me into an argument to make me seem unreasonable. I'm choosing to believe that your honestly missing the context of what I was reply to and that it was separate from my post about why I agree with the rulings.
I understand that in a thread like this with ideas getting tossed about that sometimes misunderstandings happen, and I probably shouldn't have tried to answer Trik's question about not banning fun options in this thread because it is a more general answer then a specific answer.
So I apologize for my part in this misunderstanding.
|
|
Yes it is out of context. The whole level of fun issue was a response Trik's assertion that options that are fun should not be banned (to paraphrase).
That... is so completely different from how I read Trik's statements that I'm not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion. He was saying that if you have to make a change, do so in the way that has the least negative impact to fun. Further, what was done does not follow this, as telling a bunch of people "sucks to be you" with no recompense is most decidedly a rather severe negative impact to those people, especially when another option that would help them without causing any legitimate negative impacts to others exists.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Yes it is out of context. The whole level of fun issue was a response Trik's assertion that options that are fun should not be banned (to paraphrase).That... is so completely different from how I read Trik's statements that I'm not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion. He was saying that if you have to make a change, do so in the way that has the least negative impact to fun. Further, what was done does not follow this, as telling a bunch of people "sucks to be you" with no recompense is most decidedly a rather severe negative impact to those people, especially when another option that would help them without causing any legitimate negative impacts to others exists.
No one but you and those on your side have used the phrase, "sucks to be you." Please, stop repeating it. That's a terrible mischaracterization of this conversation.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While no one has used that phrase directly, the current decision results in "It is unfortunate you have been negatively effected however, you have no recourse.". That phrase and "sucks to be you" are equivalent in meaning, even if they use different wording.Yes it is out of context. The whole level of fun issue was a response Trik's assertion that options that are fun should not be banned (to paraphrase).That... is so completely different from how I read Trik's statements that I'm not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion. He was saying that if you have to make a change, do so in the way that has the least negative impact to fun. Further, what was done does not follow this, as telling a bunch of people "sucks to be you" with no recompense is most decidedly a rather severe negative impact to those people, especially when another option that would help them without causing any legitimate negative impacts to others exists.No one but you and those on your side have used the phrase, "sucks to be you." Please, stop repeating it. That's a terrible mischaracterization of this conversation.
It is also both baiting, and inflammatory, and is yet another example of why this thread should just be locked.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one but you and those on your side have used the phrase, "sucks to be you." Please, stop repeating it. That's a terrible mischaracterization of this conversation.
I think she's referring to the sentiment, not the exact phrase.
That is, I think she's using the phrase "players were told 'sucks to be you'" to summarize (for brevity) a situation in which a group of players who did nothing wrong had a game-altering decision come out very abruptly, with no accommodation for (or representation from) the affected players.
I don't think she meant an individual actually typed that exact phrase verbatim; I think it was (fairly reasonable) shorthand for the situation some players have found themselves in.
Or at least, that's how I took it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's probably not the most diplomatic shorthand, despite its accuracy. But I think Mark ought to cut Tiger Lily a little slack; one can only repeat oneself so many times before reaching for any kind of shorthand available, potentially overlooking more diplomatic word choices.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Yeah, it's probably not the most diplomatic shorthand, despite its accuracy. But I think Mark ought to cut Tiger Lily a little slack; one can only repeat oneself so many times before reaching for any kind of shorthand available, potentially overlooking more diplomatic word choices.
What haven't I called people out for? I know that I specifically in an earlier post rejected the notion that people in the affected group were cheating [it wasn't at all appropriate to label it cheating) (nor did I think people who made a lot of aasimar/tiefling in the grace period were cheating, but I did label that as abuse, yes.) I have asked people in general to not make this debate personal, and in fact, was chided for doing such because this debate hadn't gotten to that point (and my post was bout not letting this thread become like the other one.) And, look what's happened: the very thing I cautioned against is exactly what happened, so much so that this thread was locked so moderators could go through, remove posts, etc.
So, I am not sure what things I haven't called people out for Jiggy, but if you want send that to me privately, I'll go back and review them, certainly.
Look, I don't have any desire to have this thread locked, I don't. However, if people are going to just continually mischaracterize things, and deliberately so, because they are upset, if they continue to make posts which are baiting and/or inflammatory, then if asking isn't sufficient to stop it, I'll just flag every one of those posts.
I'd rather us be able to have a reasonable discussion, but that just doesn't seem possible (to me, at least.)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
@trik: While this thread hasn't affected the SLA FAQ grandfathering ruling, the ideas and emotions that have been expressed in this thread may prove useful for a future situation when a similar ruling needs to be implemented. I understand that it doesn't help you feel any better right now or cause the immediate resolution you would prefer, but this type of discussion is still valuable input.
|
|
I answered his assertion with my own that says that just because it's fun for one person doesn't mean it's fun for everyone and you can't predict what's fun for 10's of thousands of people. So you can't use fun as a determination for banning. (To paraphrase)
So if you can't predict whats fun for people how do you do anything, at all, in a game who's very purpose is to have fun?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one but you and those on your side have used the phrase, "sucks to be you." Please, stop repeating it. That's a terrible mischaracterization of this conversation.
While I do personally believe it to be an accurate summary of what's going on, I'll admit it is a rather sarcastic means of expressing such and hence inflammatory. I apologize and will refrain from further use of that expression in this conversation.
I see there is a favorite on this comment. For the sake of full disclosure, be aware that the below was added as an edit after that.
It should be noted that I was not intentionally addressing that phrase at anyone in particular, but rather the overall situation, although that was likely not clear given that I had a quote in my post. A less inflammatory rephrasing of my intention would be along the lines of "We know this has had a negative effect on a few of you... but we're not going to do/able to do anything to help, you just have to make do." Pretty much the same meaning, but with 99% less sarcasm ^_^
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
All:
1. I apologize, without reservation, if anything I have said here was baiting or inflammatory. It certainly wasn't my intention to do so, and if something I wrote struck people that way, I apologize. I can't ask others to do that unless I am first willing to do so.
2. I am not, in any way, attempting to shut this discussion down. What I am attempting to do is to end the baiting and inflammatory stuff that is pervading this thread, because it is not only against the code of conduct here, it serves absolutely no purpose other than to fuel anger, attack one another etc.
3. On the particular subject of this thread: this is only my opinion, because I do not speak for Mike or John, but I do not believe it is reasonable to expect them to come to any thread and provide some rationale (beyond what they have already provided) simply because someone asked them to do so. Mike provided their rationale, and I understand that some people feel that it didn't sufficiently answer their request. If you feel that way, you do - I wouldn't suggest you aren't entitled to feel that way. For some of us, we think Mike's answer is sufficient. Some of you don't think it is. But, think for a moment, what would happen if Mike and/or John did what was requested each and every time such a request were to be made - they would do almost nothing else. People would know, "I only have to ask them to come give a rationale and they will."
But, for purposes of this situation, let's say that Mike did, indeed, come here and say, "No, we are not going to use your proposed solution and here's why," would that satisfy you? I mean, after all, he would have done what you asked, namely to come here and respond to that specific request. In the end, though, you wouldn't be in any different position.
In my opinion, I just don't think it's reasonable. To me, they have already gone beyond what is typical for them to do (that is, early entry characters can still play, provided they met certain requirements.) It is possible in the future they could just say, "No more grandfathering of any type. This is the rule, it applies immediately, and all characters, without exception, have to comply." They tried to sort of split the baby here, and it has left some people upset.
I would love to see well reasoned logic behind the disagreement on both sides. I would love to see divergent opinions considered and explored. I would love to see some indication that this is for more than show.
I think we have seen this. There have certainly been people who have made more emotional appeals rather than logical (although since the goal here is "fun", emotion has its place in the discussion). There have also been faulty arguments on both sides. Campaign management hasn't weighed in on how they weight the various goals, but beyond that I think you can capture two reasonable sides of the discussion from this thread.
|
|
But, for purposes of this situation, let's say that Mike did, indeed, come here and say, "No, we are not going to use your proposed solution and here's why," would that satisfy you?
Very likely not. If there were a good rationale for not doing it someone would have offered it by now.
They tried to sort of split the baby here, and it has left some people upset.
Two good examples of why the golden mean fallacy is a fallacy. Half a baby isn't half as good as a baby and you can always propose more outlandish examples to move the middle.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I followed this when it first happened, so I'll share the timeline:
1) First, the PDT made The FAQ, without the addendum that BigDTBone quoted.
2) Then, those community members most proficient with the rules realized that this meant you could give your fighters Arcane Strike or even get into a PrC early.
3) Those less proficient with the rules said "But those prereqs say 'spells', plural, so an SLA doesn't count."
4) The PDT clarified that no, that pluralization doesn't mean that, and yes, an SLA really does count.
5) That same population said "But SLAs aren't arcane or divine, so they can't fulfill prereqs that require arcane/divine spells."
6) The PDT posted a new FAQ about SLAs being arcane/divine and how to tell which is which. (The exact wording of this FAQ changed a couple of times, but with little effect other than tweaking which SLAs counted for which prereqs.)
7) That same population then said "But the examples you're using [Copycat and Send Senses] aren't exact duplicates of those spells [mirror image and clairvoyance], so they don't count as being those spell levels [2nd and 3rd]."
8) Then-designer Sean K Reynolds clarified that an SLA's spell level is always the level of the spell it emulates; the only time you have to calculate a spell level is when it's not based on a spell at all (like many domain/bloodline powers).
9) After weeks of having every protest countered by the design team, that same population resorted to the old fallback of "But it'll be broken," with many of them adding, "and therefore that's not how it works."
10) Many heated debates ensued, as people tried to demonstrate that early entry was (A) legal, and (B) not broken. The protestors did not budge. Posts were removed, threads were locked; you know, the usual.
11) Finally, the PDT stepped in with the above-cited addendum to the FAQ, which (A) asserted that yes, this really is legal; (B) affirmed that the affected PrC's are weak enough that this won't be a problem; and (C) assured the protestors of the time that if anything broke, they'd fix it.
I wasn't around when it first happened, but I think you need to add recent history as well.
12) Inner Sea Gods came out, and had the Evangelist PrC in it.
13) Much ruckus on the forums about how overpowered this was and it allowing early entry.
14) A specific exception was made that forbade early entry to Evangelist.
15) Much ruckus on the forums about exceptions to rules and people expressing how they would rather just get rid of the SLA rule than have this exception.
Special: Any one of the following: base attack bonus +5, 5 ranks in any skill other than Knowledge (religion), or ability to cast 3rd-level spells.
16) SLA early entry was revoked.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wasn't around when it first happened, but I think you need to add recent history as well.
Note that my post was a reply to someone asking about how the original FAQ's addendum had come about and what it therefore meant. That's why I stopped once it was put in place (since it never changed after that).
15) Much ruckus on the forums about exceptions to rules and people expressing how they would rather just get rid of the SLA rule than have this exception.
16) SLA early entry was revoked.
Hey, careful, you're not allowed to suggest that PFS causes rule changes for everyone else. ;)
|
|
1) There's a difference between "must respond each and every time" and "Would be nice following a major controversial ruling".
2) For me it would depend on the rationale. After all, it's possible they'd come on and say "We ruled that way just to tick you off." Not likely, but possible. :)
It's also possible they'd raise an issue with the earlier grandfathering proposal I haven't seen and I'd be completely convinced they made the right choice. Also not likely, though much more so.
More likely, I'd still disagree, but would at least be sure they'd considered the specific option that seems like the least problematic approach and had reasons for not taking that route.
This is pretty much my perspective as well. My problem isn't so much that a decision was made, or that it wasn't my favorite decision - decisions, and ones I disagree with, are inevitable. It's that something was done that has a significant negative impact to some people with what I perceive as insufficient expressed rationale. All I want to see is the rationale as it pertains specifically to not allowing locked in characters to continue on their path. I am 100% ready to drop the entire thing at that, no matter if the rationale is for or against my stance.
Also, I would like to issue a more general apology to the members of the forum and the Paizo staff. This whole situation has made me fairly angry - a personal fault of mine, I tend to get excessively invested/wrapped up in what should generally be insignificant things when I see something I perceive as an injustice. I tend to express that emotion as sarcasm. As a result, in my passion to defend my position on this issue, I am quite certain I have been considerably more inflammatory than necessary to pretty much all involved. I will work on playing nicer in the future :)
|
|
I would love to see well reasoned logic behind the disagreement on both sides. I would love to see divergent opinions considered and explored. I would love to see some indication that this is for more than show.
The rules of the game changed. As a result some peoples characters need to change or are left in a lurch.
The optimal solution would seem to be the one that minimizes ( harm X number of people) but still gets PFS in line with the rules changes. So you're balancing
Amount of harm
Number of people harmed
Ease of implementation
Getting PFS in line with the revised rules.
If you grandfather in every character ever you really don't get pfs in line with the changes.
The cut off for grandfathering harms fewer people, but the lack of a rebuild option causes a lot of pain for those left. Its not quite "just toss the character in the shredder" levels of harm but its not that far from it either.
Grandfathering in level 2s doesn't hurt the game. Even if you believe that stampedes are harmful there aren't enough people to stampede. Checking to see if i was level 2 before the change went into effect is even easier than seeing if i was a mystic theurge before this went into effect. Just from looking at my chronicle sheets you can't tell if i was a 3 wizard 1 cleric heading for theurgedom or 2 wizard 1 cleric with the right domains theurge 1.
Allowing a rebuild hurts...?
|
|
BNW, I think the reasonable concern about rebuilds is "who gets them?" It has a significant impact if too broadly applied since it sort of tramples over those who spent PP and gold to utilize the Ultimate Campaign rebuild rules.
As someone who originally fell firmly on the side of letting people rebuild, I'm starting to come around to the decision that Mike and John came to with this issue. I think it is the option of least harm at this point, save for the possibility of extending that grandfathering to level 2s.
|
|
The biggest issue I see with a rebuild vs extended grandfathering is that it is more difficult to define who is permitted to use it and hence likely to be more open to exploitation. Many people not effected by the change can gain things from a free rebuild. Not many people outside those already planning to do so can gain things by being allowed to use an SLA to qualify for a PrC - even if there were no rules outside having a locked in character at the date of the rule change, most characters either wouldn't qualify in the first place or would be doing themselves a disservice by using the option. It is as a result self-selecting, simplifying the rules and limiting both the possible and the practical avenues for abuse.
|
|
BNW, I think the reasonable concern about rebuilds is "who gets them?" It has a significant impact if too broadly applied since it sort of tramples over those who spent PP and gold to utilize the Ultimate Campaign rebuild rules.
Someone getting something isn't the same as you losing something. I also don't think there's a whole lot of rebuilding at level 2-4 is there? Its right after the level 1 rebuild , its a little early to realize you made a mistake and you don't have the prestige to retrain extensively anyway.
save for the possibility of extending that grandfathering to level 2s.
I would prefer that option as well, but either one is better than either tossing argentum into the shredder or having to spend 7 dm credits building argentum 2.0 or 7 credits building up enough prestige necessary to retrain him into... a pretty bad character
|
|
You paraphrased my statements to a point that it's not what I was saying in a post that is specifically pointing out that your words have been taken out of context.
I apologize that you feel that way, but that's what I took from your post. It seemed to me that you were advocating that if people were having fun with a rules option that was later removed from play that they shouldn't lose that option because it would hurt their fun.
Which I paraphrased the way I did because it was what my understanding of your post was. Specifically I'm referencing this post.
Again let me apologize for reading your post in a way you did not intend. If you feel up to it would you be able to PM the details of what you intended that I was off on? That way I can give you a more fitting answer to the question that I failed to understand the first time.
|
|
All:
To me, they have already gone beyond what is typical for them to do (that is, early entry characters can still play, provided they met certain requirements.) It is...
They've changed what the default effect of this change would be but I don't think that it is at all accurate to say that they've "Gone beyond it".
If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment
Now, admittedly its not clear how to parse that but I THINK that it is saying that the default expected action would be to allow a rebuild. Certainly for characters who are in the Prestige Class, arguably for all characters aiming for the prestige class (that quote is exceedingly unclear wrt who gets the rebuild)
I'm honestly not sure if I'd prefer a full rebuild on my existing Mystic Theurge as opposed to grandfathering it. I certainly wouldn't complain if I got the rebuild instead of the grandfathering.
And I think a fairly good argument could be made that the guide says that I should be able to rebuild my Mystic Theurge wannabe. If you accept that, then I'm being offered LESS than promised, not more.
|
|
All:
To me, they have already gone beyond what is typical for them to do (that is, early entry characters can still play, provided they met certain requirements.) It is...
They've changed what the default effect of this change would be but I don't think that it is at all accurate to say that they've "Gone beyond it".
If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment
Now, admittedly its not clear how to parse that but I THINK that it is saying that the default expected action would be to allow a rebuild. Certainly for characters who are in the Prestige Class, arguably for all characters aiming for the prestige class (that quote is exceedingly unclear wrt who gets the rebuild)
I'm honestly not sure if I'd prefer a full rebuild on my existing Mystic Theurge as opposed to grandfathering it. I certainly wouldn't complain if I got the rebuild instead of the grandfathering.
And I think a fairly good argument could be made that the guide says that I should be able to rebuild my Mystic Theurge wannabe. If you accept that, then I'm being offered LESS than promised, not more.
The rebuild under those rules would only extend to people who had taken levels in the class that lost early access. Because if you don't have that class then that class wasn't changed. The guides rebuild rules are not meant to allow rebuild if something you haven't yet taken changes. And since the SLA's themselves haven't changed they wouldn't count.
|
|
BNW, I think the reasonable concern about rebuilds is "who gets them?" It has a significant impact if too broadly applied since it sort of tramples over those who spent PP and gold to utilize the Ultimate Campaign rebuild rules.Someone getting something isn't the same as you losing something. I also don't think there's a whole lot of rebuilding at level 2-4 is there? Its right after the level 1 rebuild , its a little early to realize you made a mistake and you don't have the prestige to retrain extensively anyway.
save for the possibility of extending that grandfathering to level 2s.I would prefer that option as well, but either one is better than either tossing argentum into the shredder or having to spend 7 dm credits building argentum 2.0 or 7 credits building up enough prestige necessary to retrain him into... a pretty bad character
I think you have made several fair points here and I agree with your recommended suggestions, as well as the order of preference. I think that the extended grandfathering to level 2 characters would not unduly impact GM responsibilities to audit characters while having limited impact on the table experience and being extremely difficult to abuse in the way that was seen with the Aasimar/Tiefling situation.