Here is another way to look at it possibly. Does a fighter have prof with bastard sword in 2H use before he takes feats? I think it does due to him not taking a non-prof penalty. Now lets say we had a new PrC that stated that to get in you need to be prof with Bastard swords, not the feat mind you just prof.. I would assume that we would have rules questions surrounding a character will all martial prof. could qualify.
If the design team said yes they did and then later changed it to no you don't since you technically aren't proficient with a bastard sword just a single usage of it then we would be in the same boat.
People were told that X met the Prereqs and so did Y but now Y doesn't. So yes in a way what was required did in fact change.
I will say I think the majority of people aren't asking for rebuilds but a further extension of the current grandfathering rules.
|
Folks, the thread was locked because it was going nowhere, then unlocked because apparently progress was being made, but all I see are the same people arguing the same points without being convinced. (I guess that is what the forums are for, to some degree.)
If the goal is to get Mike and John to re-examine the issue - they did that 400 posts back, and decided to not change the ruling. Maybe it will change in the future, but if it does, it won't be because four or five people are still here in this thread restating the same points over and over to each other.
Someone needs to blink first and just stop responding to every little word nuance in a previous post. We've lost sight of the issue and some people are just arguing now.
Now - if this level of effort was put into "how to enjoy my MT PC now that they've had an enforced career change"... that would be a lot more productive.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In the past, rebuilds are given to people who actually have levels in a class that has had changes made to them (such as the Warpriest). So, to be consistant, rebuild options should be given to people who actually have levels in the Prestige Classes already, not to those who were simply planning on taking them at a later date.
But there's a fundamental difference between a base class and a prestige class. Like I said earlier in this same page, there's a big difference between a class you can take at literally any level (including 1st) and a class you can only take later on after you've jumped through some hoops. Treating them like they're the same may be "consistent", but it's also a short-sighted mistake.
If I had a character who hadnt actually taken levels in Warpriest yet, but had planned to take a few later on, and I felt my character concept was ruined now because of the change, then should I have been allowed a rebuild?
There's a difference between having made the choice to wait until level X to start taking levels in such-and-such a class, and not being allowed to have taken any levels in it yet.
Only characters who are currently being affected by the change to the class in which they have levels should be given a rebuild (if even then).
People really need to break free from this (erroneous) belief that changing a PC's future doesn't truly affect the character. That's like saying a 2nd-level bard wouldn't be "affected by the change" if the bard class suddenly got demoted to half-BAB. Nothing changed for him at the time, but he'd sure as hell be affected.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?
To use EK as an example, the requirements were (in addition to martial weapon prof):
To either have a number of levels in an arcane spellcasting class to reach 3rd-level spells on their class progression chart, or be able to cast a 3rd-level arcane SLA.What are the requirements for that same PrC after the revision to the FAQ?
To have a number of levels in an arcane spellcasting class to reach 3rd-level spells on their class progression chart.
Are both of those the same?
Nope.
|
Folks, the thread was locked because it was going nowhere, then unlocked because apparently progress was being made, but all I see are the same people arguing the same points without being convinced. (I guess that is what the forums are for, to some degree.)
If the goal is to get Mike and John to re-examine the issue - they did that 400 posts back, and decided to not change the ruling. Maybe it will change in the future, but if it does, it won't be because four or five people are still here in this thread restating the same points over and over to each other.
Someone needs to blink first and just stop responding to every little word nuance in a previous post. We've lost sight of the issue and some people are just arguing now.
Now - if this level of effort was put into "how to enjoy my MT PC now that they've had an enforced career change"... that would be a lot more productive.
Honestly, I agree that this thread has out lived its usefulness. The abuse of the last time a grace period was headed out in essence prevents any future grace periods. I can definitely understand their decision on this.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see why someone always feels the need to come in to threads they don't like and tell others to stop talking about it? Wouldn't it just he better to ignore the thread?
If it gets bad, it will he locked, or people will stop posting. Otherwise, just let others debate it, and maybe someone will discover something new.
|
|
DM Beckett: Because sometimes, this sort of thread does more damage to the cause than good. When the main association someone makes with an issue is, "oh, yeah, that thousand-post thread that got locked twice that was just four guys yelling" - it paints the issue with the same brush as the argument.
EDIT: removed the "just picking a fight" part of my post. Trying to walk the talk.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, but how is that up to you, (or others) to decide? I'm actually finding the discussion interesting, being neutral on the subject for the most part.
Jiggy is pretty well known for making solid arguments and even getting official things changed based on logic. theJeff, BNW, and LazarX have been at this enough to have earned time to speak their thoughts with some authority on the subject. The others as well can offer some different perspective. Its been pretty civil sense it was locked (even then, wasn't terrible), and there is no indication of that changing for the worse. Its not like there is a time limit on the topic. It comes of as very rude to try to stop a discussion, especially one that very well might set a precedence for later.
If in fact the choice is made and there is no chance it will be rethought or altered based on rational arguments, general consensus of its merits/flaws, or well, anything really, than there is no need to worry.
If there is, than the right thing to do is allow people to talk about it until they are done. Crap, let them duke it out, or someone is just going to make another thread, its going to have more angst and irritation from the start, and everyone involved is just going to be even less satisfied with how it failed to conclude.
Paizo, (and PFS), are kind of terrible about spreading the word when things change or get errata, so threads like this also help spread the word.
|
Honestly, I agree that this thread has out lived its usefulness. The abuse of the last time a grace period was headed out in essence prevents any future grace periods. I can definitely understand their decision on this.Good thing no one is asking for grace periods then.
Seriously, that point has been clarified no fewer than a dozen times so far, and yet it keeps getting brought back up, many people seem to seriously be repeatedly dropping in to the thread and throwing out random opinions without actually bothering to read or comprehend the other side's arguments >.<
Pretty sure your considered temp work so no vacation or other benefits for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, (...)
Fair enough - have at it, then. The thread was locked once, because "we're done here" I think was the staff comment.
Of course, repeating the same complaints without any new information or proposals will ultimately hurt the actual issue in the long run. People who keep complaining about an issue after it has been decided, re-visited, and upheld start to lose credibility. I just think it will make it harder to have the issue revisited in the future.
EDIT: tried to remove some snark.
|
|
@GM Lamplighter—Although I would be in favor of a policy change in one form or another, there are far more benefits to be had from an open discussion than just policy change.
I agree with that - but I've been reading this thread from the beginning, and it really lost its "discussion" status about 200 posts ago. The same things are being re-said, in an effort to convince the "other side", in the mistaken assumption that the "other side" just didn't understand it the first twelve times. If people are deriving benefit from the posts since then, great - it seemed like it was just an excuse to disagree and vent because people are mad. I understand that, but I don't think it helps anyone in the long run.
EDIT: And thanks, Jiggy, for disagreeing with me in a completely non-confrontational way, that is conducive to furthering discussion instead of just trying to provoke me. That's an example of these forums at their best.
Actually the we're done here wasn't in response to a finality of arguments but to overall tone of the previous pages and the rising vitriol.
EDIT: Alot of the rehashing is coming from the constant bringing up of how rebuilds or grace periods are bad and will be bad because they have been bad in the past. While for the most part the side in favor or more leniancy is asking for only an extension of the current grandfathering to be applicable to characters headed for those PrC based off of the rules at the time of creation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The thread was locked once, because "we're done here" I think was the staff comment.
And when prompted to give it a second look, she (the staff member who locked it) saw sufficient value to go to the trouble of re-opening it. I'm sorry you don't see it, but please don't try to take it away from those who do.
|
|
What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?To use EK as an example, the requirements were (in addition to martial weapon prof):
To have a number of levels in an arcane spellcasting class to reach 3rd-level spells on their class progression chart.What are the requirements for that same PrC after the revision to the FAQ?To have a number of levels in an arcane spellcasting class to reach 3rd-level spells on their class progression chart.
Are both of those the same?Yep.
Fixed that for you. Just because something can be attained in another way doesnt change the wording of the requirement.
Seth if thats the case your fixed version is still wrong. It required the ability to cast 3rd level spells no mention of how.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Fixed that for you. Just because something can be attained in another way doesnt change the wording of the requirement.What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?To use EK as an example, the requirements were (in addition to martial weapon prof):
To have a number of levels in an arcane spellcasting class to reach 3rd-level spells on their class progression chart.What are the requirements for that same PrC after the revision to the FAQ?To have a number of levels in an arcane spellcasting class to reach 3rd-level spells on their class progression chart.
Are both of those the same?Yep.
As I've said before (most recently to Mystic Lemur, I believe), trying to assert that there's a meaningful difference between changing the text's words and changing the text's meaning is unreasonable.
|
|
The same things are being re-said, in an effort to convince the "other side", in the mistaken assumption that the "other side" just didn't understand it the first twelve times.
Should be noted I wasn't referring to you or most of the people actively participating with that - that was mostly a reference to people who keep dropping in and making the same point about grace periods despite the fact that it's entirely immaterial to the discussion as no one is asking for any kind of grace period. That's the frustrating thing - I have no problem with a good argument about the facts, it's having the same unrelated tangent brought in repeatedly that was getting annoying.
@Seth - it's been noted elsewhere in the thread that editing someone's quote to put words in their mouth is extremely rude.
As far as the wording of the PrC requirements - the actual words didn't change, but the definitions of them did change, in a very fundamental way. If you don't consider that a change... well, I'm not sure there's any way our opinions are ever capable of coming to terms on this matter :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Seth - it's been noted elsewhere in the thread that editing someone's quote to put words in their mouth is extremely rude.
For what it's worth, I personally don't take offense at being the recipient of a FTFY post, so no worries there. :)
|
What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?Stuff I could to at 4th level
What are the requirements for that same PrC after the revision to the FAQ?Stuff I can't do till 6th level.
Are both of those the same?Nope
On the other hand, PrCs weren't built with the expectation of being able to qualify for them before 5th level. (going back to 3.x)
Paizo said that via SLAs yes, yes you can qualify before 5th level.
Then they decided no, that was a mistake. *yoink* "No more!"
This is just like arguing at city hall about a stretch of road that had its speed limit reduced to what it originally was.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is something out and about that is related to this change regarding some feats that a character may no longer be qualified to take. These have to be retrained ("for free") to make the character legal.
Just pointing this out, all.
Also, I have a few characters that have/are going for PrC's and I never even entertained the idea of actually using this shortcut. Seemed to much like gooey cheese to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
On the other hand, PrCs weren't built with the expectation of being able to qualify for them before 5th level. (going back to 3.x)
Paizo said that via SLAs yes, yes you can qualify before 5th level.
Then they decided no, that was a mistake. *yoink* "No more!"
This is just like arguing at city hall about a stretch of road that had its speed limit reduced to what it originally was.
Yeah, and if I'd been constantly obeying whatever the speed limit was at any given time that I was driving, but then got accused of speeding* because during the time of the higher speed limit I had been driving faster than the lower speed limit, of course I'd be arguing about it. What point were you trying to make?
*Or whatever penalty/inconvenience would be a proper analogy to the situation in which affected players find themselves.
What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?Stuff I could to at 4th level
What are the requirements for that same PrC after the revision to the FAQ?Stuff I can't do till 6th level.
Are both of those the same?Nope
On the other hand, PrCs weren't built with the expectation of being able to qualify for them before 5th level. (going back to 3.x)
Paizo said that via SLAs yes, yes you can qualify before 5th level.
Then they decided no, that was a mistake. *yoink* "No more!"
This is just like arguing at city hall about a stretch of road that had its speed limit reduced to what it originally was.
A better example would be the city changing a no through trucks road to allow big rigs and saying that if noise or traffic are an issue we will revisit it. 18 months later without any real notice the city changes the law and lets all trucks on the road finish using it but stop any trucks not on it even if they are in the lane with the signal on to turn down it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I have a few characters that have/are going for PrC's and I never even entertained the idea of actually using this shortcut. Seemed to much like gooey cheese to me.
This is what gets threads locked. If you're fully aware of what you're doing, please just keep it to yourself in the future. If my reply seemed unwarranted because you don't see anything wrong with the above, I implore you to ask someone to explain what you're doing so you can stop doing it. Thanks.
|
|
What point were you trying to make?
That complaining that what used to be legal is now not legal is pointless.
Yeah you can't get your destination as fast as you used to. But you can still get there. Just as fast as originally intended, and not a smidgen slower.
There's not a whole lot to complain about when the only "there there" is that you can't get there faster than originally intended, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, PrCs weren't built with the expectation of being able to qualify for them before 5th level. (going back to 3.x)
Paizo said that via SLAs yes, yes you can qualify before 5th level.
Then they decided no, that was a mistake. *yoink* "No more!"
This is just like arguing at city hall about a stretch of road that had its speed limit reduced to what it originally was.
I'll remind everybody that these analogies are sometimes instructive, but in this case mostly serve to emphasize your point of view and serve as a focal point for arguments about definitions (this one led to a few sassy "clarifications" already).
We have largely moved past the discussion of the change to the FAQ and are discussing whether the way PFS is handling it is the best way to do so. Everyone understands (or it has been hashed out in other threads) that this is a change in the rules, it's just a question of (1) who was affected in a meaningful way and (2) how can we maximize both character continuity and campaign integrity (like hull integrity on a ship, not values).
I have also already stated my read of this, including its downsides (as succinctly evaluated by thejeff ;-)), so I'll leave it there.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I just think everyone is getting worked up over something that was akin to looking at the man behind the curtain. This looks about the same as trying to wield oversized Earth Breakers because of a mis-placed Period.
This was a loophole that was let loose for a bit because PrC's are, quite frankly, not quite up to par compared to the regular classes. Some are alright, but the character/player has to weigh in on what they are losing compared to continuing with regular class progression.
In PF, I believe that PrC's should have had a lower entry level across the board, since all the regular classes got beefed up while PrC's stayed pretty much the same. But having this particular shortcut was not the way to do it, as PrC's like Arcane Archer and such had BAB requirements that would not have been helped by this.
If I read the rules in the book and never see the Errata/FAQ, the spell like equivalent would never enter my thoughts. Hearing it for the first time two years ago was a head scratcher, the phrase "Well, that's a stretch" having been uttered once or twice.
I think to make PrC's better from the beginning (with a target of 4th level entry) would have put them up to par with the base classes.
I know some are burned by the change of heart. This was done in part to be consistent with another ruling about much of the same thing regarding other entry loopholes. (Maybe to do with feats) I feel your frustration. I just don't think it is as bad as it is being made out to be.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If it isn't "The SLA rule made PrCs playable and now they're not", then you're right, I don't get it.There's not a whole lot to complain about, really....I'm not sure I believe you know what's being complained about, or the nature of the complaints, or what's being asked for.
That's... related.
It's more that there are people whose PCs are seriously affected by the change and are not being accommodated in any way.
I mean, you say you'll "get there" eventually, just slower... but there's a sort of "deadline" in the form of there not being any PFS scenarios past a certain level.
If you can't play the levels at which your character finally "gets there", then (experientially) that's the same as not "getting there" at all.
To use your speed limit example, it would be like if you planned a time-sensitive trip (such as getting to a wedding or job interview or something) based on how long it would take you to get there with the current speed limit, then while you're already on the road you get forcibly slowed down to the point that you won't make it to your destination in time.
For example, an Eldritch Knight will eventually "get there" to be a caster/martial hybrid, but with traditional entry that doesn't happen* until about 13th-14th level. When the campaign you're in effectively ends before that level, then for all intents and purposes, that's the same as never getting there.
A character in that situation should have some sort of recourse, but they don't.
*And by "happen" I mean being reasonably close to on-par with other caster-martial hybrids. He doesn't need to be as good at stabbing as a fighter, but catching up with a bard sometime before 13th level would be nice.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't think it is as bad as it is being made out to be.
Now, see, that's a much better way of communicating. :)
Anyway, as for what it's "being made out to be", I played an EK (traditional entry) all the way through retirement. This isn't just theorycraft here. A half-BAB bard (like, if you took the existing bard, then just straight-up demoted it to half-BAB) would have been better at hitting things than an EK, for most of the levels of PFS.
|
|
This was a loophole that was let loose for a bit because PrC's are, quite frankly, not quite up to par compared to the regular classes. Some are alright, but the character/player has to weigh in on what they are losing compared to continuing with regular class progression.
It was not a loophole, it was an explicitly stated rule that lasted 18 months without modification. It had a notice that it was being evaluated, but that was on there pretty much that entire period of time with no indication whatosever from the developers that they were seeing problems with it.
In PF, I believe that PrC's should have had a lower entry level across the board, since all the regular classes got beefed up while PrC's stayed pretty much the same. But having this particular shortcut was not the way to do it, as PrC's like Arcane Archer and such had BAB requirements that would not have been helped by this.
If I read the rules in the book and never see the Errata/FAQ, the spell like equivalent would never enter my thoughts. Hearing it for the first time two years ago was a head scratcher, the phrase "Well, that's a stretch" having been uttered once or twice.
I think to make PrC's better from the beginning (with a target of 4th level entry) would have put them up to par with the base classes.
This is getting a bit more into some of the content of the Day 1 threads about the change. I think the PrCs being changed would be by far the best option - the SLA thing was clunky, it just helped sort out a distantly associated mechanical problem, it makes more sense to fix the mechanical problem (like drop MT to CL2 in each class - it now has a smoother power progression, still gives you a disadvantage in exchange for the advantages you gained, and makes it possible to use with spontaneous classes). I have a vague hope it will be fixed in Unchained. But if it is going to be fixed in Unchained, I really wish someone would at least drop a hint about it, so that those people affected know they can sit that character out for a couple of months instead of taking perhaps drastic actions to try to fix them now that might cause it to no longer work when Unchained comes out. Given that such a hint would stop the entire argument in its tracks (and would have done so from Day 1, saving in excess of 1,000 posts on the subject and all the associated moderator time), but was not made, I'd be willing to put money on it not being fixed in Unchained.
Well i have my doubts about unchained making it into PFS to begin with. Though i haven't done alot of reading on the subject so i can't say for sure if it will or won't. But it would seem that a dramatic shift in capability for classes that would affect newly made characters but not ones out before the books would cause issues itself.
Unless in addition to Core we were to get PFS Unchained.