|
Although I am certain that this is unlikely to be answered before GENCON is concluded, I figured it would be a good idea to get the ball rolling on this beforehand. I know a number of us have been affected by recent errata to the ARG (and ACG) and feel that broader and clearer rebuild rules are needed for PFS or perhaps additional "grandfathering," if feasible.
Personally, I was frankly left very perturbed by the recent adverse ARG changes to the Favored Class Bonuses ("FCB's") available to Aasmiars. In particular, my character is a high-level, virtually entirely channeling-focused Aasimar Life Oracle. At this point, every feat but one (improved initiative) is directed at channeling. His stats are also entirely Charisma-focused to facilitate the maximum possible number of channels. He does not even carry a weapon because he has not the strength to wield it. Given these facts, the intent and purpose this character has obviously been heavily impacted by the decision to nerf the FCB for this supposedly otherwise "grandfathered" character.
I have debated some in other threads that argue that the change applicable to my character really isn't important enough for a rebuild. Here is my position on that. I have invested over 100 hours in leveling (GM credit included) and adventuring with this character, specifically with the purpose of using the Aasimar FCB to empower his channeling and make the character worthwhile. Were it not for the favorable Aasimar FCB, this life oracle would never have been created, let alone designed in such a fashion as to almost completely emphasize channeling. If Paizo thinks that the FCB unbalances PFS too much, that is fine. However, when Paizo changes its mind in a manner that significantly affects a character, I would think it would only be fair to allow the player change his mind with regards to the nature of the character he wishes to play. If the change is not substantial, Paizo should consider grandfathering the older version in, which it has done before. As it stands now, I have no desire to play this nerfed character. My 100+ hours have been wasted.
With respect to my situation, I find the already-provided rules to be clear as mud. Specifically, what the guide says is:
If an ability-score-dependent feature of a class, prestige class, or archetype is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP. Keep the same equipment, but you can resell any equipment that augments the changed ability score at its full market price.
It seems to me that channeling is an ability-score-dependent feature of my character's class. It was altered by this change. This suggests that I am entitled to the above-described rebuild. While the rebuild is somewhat limiting due to my equipment, I could make it work.
However, the guide also says the following:
If a favored class bonus changes: You may reassign all of your favored class bonus at each level to any of the now legal options.
This would not be an acceptable option. The Aasimar FCB has been nerfed to the point that it is not worth taking. Notably, the available options are distinctly inferior to the extra spell known option available to several other races. To say that I would have made different stat, feat, mystery, or race choices if these had been the original FCB options is an understatement. In fact, I almost certainly would have played a different class.
In conclusion, I am asking Paizo to take into consideration the above concerns in formulating its rebuild/grandfathering policies for PFS, which as I understand it, will be addressed shortly after GENCON. I welcome others with similar concerns to make them known in this thread.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
So. 100+ hours. 25 games? so level 9 chara?
Your level 9 life oracle went from channeling as a level 13 cleric to a level 10 cleric. This is about in line with the previous change to oracle animal companion that limited their use of the Assimar FCB to only boost ACs to one hit die higher than their oracle.
You are complaining that one of combinations most broken has been reduced to being on par with what one of the other most broken options has been reduced to, and it is still better than most channeling clerics. And to add insult to injury, they didn't get *any* rebuild at all. They just had to suck up the wasted FCB. (Though ironically, now they will)
|
Mystic,
With the two Erratas that just came out, probably 75% or more of players are affected by some change or another (ARG has been out a long time). I'm not sure that grandfathering any of it is a good idea. It will likely cause a raucous outcry that will be a steep and slippery slope of discontent that one thing was grandfathered in, but not another from the same errata.
That said, I have a mid-high level Oradin that now loses a large chunk of effectiveness as I've lost a Life Link as well as a channel die. On a character with 4 different classes, this is a major change to the character's build since I cannot fit 2 more levels of Oracle into the build. I made the character to absorb up to roughly 70% of the group's damage between Shield Other and Life Link. She has 3 different channeling pools to compensate for differing amounts of damage, and her only used weapon is a cure wand. I hope beyond hope that at the very least this is dropped to a +1/4, as it is a massive change to triple required resources.
|
|
You are complaining that one of combinations most broken has been reduced to being on par with what one of the other most broken options has been reduced to, and it is still better than most channeling clerics.
The Aasimar FCB is not broken at all with respect to life oracles. A channeling-specialized Aasmiar Life Oracle makes a huge number of sacrifices, including the opportunity to significantly expand its spells available through its FCB, a powerful ability that has been left intact for human and half-human races. The problem with the Aasimar FCB primarily involved Animal Companions, an issue which was addressed some time ago in PFS.
Also, as I pointed out in another thread, Life Oracles have a massive number of disadvantages versus a Cleric:
1)They get 1 + their Charisma mod in channels instead of 3 + Charisma with clerics. Although they end up with slightly more channels, they have to invest much more in CHA to get them.
2)Oracles do not get fort as a high save. Also, a cleric's casting stat, WIS helps MASSIVELY with will saves. My Oracle, which has dumped WIS, actually has a problematic will save.
3) Oracles are distinctly inferior spellcasters. Most of the Oracle's benefits of being a spontaneous caster are shared by clerics, who can spontaneously cast cure spells. Clerics get higher level spells one level earlier and also get domain spells, which are generally superior to and more diverse than mystery spells. Clerics can also more easily change roles by memorizing different spells. They can also leave spell slots open to memorize a crucial spell (such as remove curse or blindness) when the need arises.
4) Domains tend to be much more powerful than revelations. The Travel, Heroism, and Feather Domains are absurdly powerful, just to name a few.
The Aasimar FCB gave Aasimar Life Oracles the limited benefit of being by a significant margin the best burst healers in the game, with the above significant trade-offs and the taxing need to absolutely maximize CHA to have any endurance with channeling and quick channeling. With that lost, they are lost and have no advantage over Clerics and a number of crippling disadvantages. They are also inferior casters to oracles of many other races because of the lack of an extra spell known FCB.
|
|
Mystic,
With the two Erratas that just came out, probably 75% or more of players are affected by some change or another (ARG has been out a long time). I'm not sure that grandfathering any of it is a good idea. It will likely cause a raucous outcry that will be a steep and slippery slope of discontent that one thing was grandfathered in, but not another from the same errata.That said, I have a mid-high level Oradin that now loses a large chunk of effectiveness as I've lost a Life Link as well as a channel die. On a character with 4 different classes, this is a major change to the character's build since I cannot fit 2 more levels of Oracle into the build. I made the character to absorb up to roughly 70% of the group's damage between Shield Other and Life Link. She has 3 different channeling pools to compensate for differing amounts of damage, and her only used weapon is a cure wand. I hope beyond hope that at the very least this is dropped to a +1/4, as it is a massive change to triple required resources.
Thanks for your reply. As a starting point, given the fact that the Aasimar race has been grandfathered into PFS in the first place, I fail to see why its FCB cannot be grandfathered as well. The problem is inherently self-limiting as far as PFS.
That being said, the slippery slope in this situation was caused by the errata of a long-standing book, in defiance of players' very reasonable expectations that these rules had been set. If Paizo changes its mind on balance issues and decides to make my character build significantly less useful or powerful, why should I not be permitted to make the choices that I would have made if I had the correct information regarding those abilities? I simply would not have built this character but for the ARG rules that were long-established even before this character was created. I have no desire to play it now, and frankly my desire to participate in PFS is somewhat waning due to what I view as wasted time spent towards a phantom goal. I fail to see how it hurts Paizo to allow a rebuild under such a circumstance.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
the two channel difference is more than made up for by the fact that you don't need to split your wisdom and charisma, which as a bonus gives you more higher level spells.
Assuming you had not dumped stats, you are looking at a +3 difference in fort, which is effectively a single feat, and while you have a lower will save, you have improvements in the other character options charisma gives you. Among them, way better social skills, and more skill points to take advantage of them.
Some Domains may be more powerful than revelations. The cleric gets 2 ever. You have 3 at level 9, and will have 4 by the time you hit twelve, and you can take feats or items to get more. (PS, travel is nice, but I am pretty sure there is an identical time revelation, and I think they get it a level earlier.)
At level 9 you get substantially more spells per day than a cleric, especially since you can pump more into charisma. The only difference is that they get 2 level 5 spells, one of which is picked for them. At level 10, you drown them in spells when you get your level 5 spells.
Actually, we can price a lot of this:
First 6 levels of Human FCB:
1-3 at best gets them cantrips. probably better spent on hp
4-5 gets them a first level spell
6 gets them a second level spell
6000 gp (2 first level page of spell knowledge, one second.)
first 6 levels of assimar FCB:
5500 gp (1/4 Philactary of positive channeling) * 2 (slotless)
First 6 levels of old assimar FCB
16500 gp (3/4 Philactary of positive channeling) * 2 (slotless)
Plus a little bit for stacking with the philactary.
I admit, I am not sure why they didn't go to 1/4 instead of 1/2.
|
|
the two channel difference is more than made up for by the fact that you don't need to split your wisdom and charisma, which as a bonus gives you more higher level spells.
Assuming you had not dumped stats, you are looking at a +3 difference in fort, which is effectively a single feat, and while you have a lower will save, you have improvements in the other character options charisma gives you. Among them, way better social skills, and more skill points to take advantage of them.
Some Domains may be more powerful than revelations. The cleric gets 2 ever. You have 3 at level 9, and will have 4 by the time you hit twelve, and you can take feats or items to get more. (PS, travel is nice, but I am pretty sure there is an identical time revelation, and I think they get it a level earlier.)
At level 9 you get substantially more spells per day than a cleric, especially since you can pump more into charisma. The only difference is that they get 2 level 5 spells, one of which is picked for them. At level 10, you drown them in spells when you get your level 5 spells.
Actually, we can price a lot of this:
First 6 levels of Human FCB:
1-3 at best gets them cantrips. probably better spent on hp
4-5 gets them a first level spell
6 gets them a second level spell6000 gp (2 first level page of spell knowledge, one second.)
first 6 levels of assimar FCB:
5500 gp (1/4 Philactary of positive channeling) * 2 (slotless)
First 6 levels of old assimar FCB
16500 gp (3/4 Philactary of positive channeling) * 2 (slotless)
Plus a little bit for stacking with the philactary.
I admit, I am not sure why they didn't go to 1/4 instead of 1/2.
I think that there can be little doubt that CHA is the least useful casting stat. WIS affects a crucial save and INT gives skill points. CHA gives nothing but skill bonuses, which WIS ant INT also provide.
Your pages of spell knowledge analogy actually makes my point, as that item rightfully gets more expensive at higher level. At tenth level one point of human oracle FCB is worth 16,000gp! Moreover, as I calculate it, the human FCB is worth a total of 60,000 gp between 4th and 11th level! Do you still think the unmodified Aasmiar FCB is too powerful?
|
|
Hey Mystic, ignore the negativity...
Part of being a player in organised play means sometimes nice toys get taken away because some parts of the player base abuse a hole in the rules (it's a maturity thing). If broken bit can be patched that's great but sadly these changes catch harmless players as well, I too have been caught in sweeping change that side-lined a well loved PC.
Don't bother expecting a change of heart from the Dev's as you are starting to see on the thread there are polar attitudes about overpowered PC's (and I agree, OP builds played badly can make for several hours of not fun).
Personally I only make edge case builds because they fit a concept or idea I have, they are usually supporting characters and the OP in one area allows me to focus on a weakness in another area. So I surprise people.
/rant
and back to your point, I'd take your free rebuild as outlined in your first post and rebuild your PC to something else. I'd also avoid using builds of the web, and avoid posting your own build details online. The last thing you want is some copycat who uses/expands on your ideas and gets the next thing errated.
More than a couple of us are holding back on our ideas/builds, and saving them for RPG superstar or similar projects (or just playing flexible well-built characters at the table - sometimes it's an idea to have a cheat sheet with reference/rulings/faq's if the build uses some clever mechanic.
Thanks for the support, Lastblacknight. In the absence of clarification, I fully intend to take a rebuild as I believe it is supported by at least one reasonable interpretation of the wording of the rules. Interestingly, this is hardly a RPG superstar build, as its healing has not "dominated" or unbalanced any table, although a few undead rue the day they met this character. I also have not heard any complaints about this character being overpowered. In fact, I have had a few players express concern that it did not have the full range of status-removing (such as remove disease or remove blindness/deafness) spells that they would have wanted, hence my envy of the human FCB.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the "abuse" and "loophole" line.
That's stupid.
The player builds a PC, using the well established rules, that are not unclear, or use unique combinations, that might confuse some, and suddenly, they are demonized when some sudden, unexpected changed comes?
That's flat out horrible.
To even attack a player like that, is unacceptable.
Organized Play should never be that hostile to it's own community.
I truly hope those who dare commit such acts, realize, and be ashamed.
Such hostility is unwelcome here.
|
|
While I feel for those who will have characters altered by this, and I have one of my own affected (though in a much smaller way), there is an issue with arguing grandfathering Aasimars on this would have a limited affect because they are no longer legal. Elves have the same favored class bonus. Elves don't make as good of channelers as Aasimars, but their FCB could have been used elsewhere, and it could be just as important to their build. If grandfathering is allowed for Aasimars, it's hard to argue it shouldn't be allowed for Elves, so the fact that Aasimars aren't legal anymore becomes less of a factor. I don't think, in this case, grandfathering makes as much sense. John Compton has indicated he's open to listening to reasonable requests for expanded rebuilds, so I'd suggest going that route. I wouldn't expect to get a decision until after Gen Con, though, since he indicated in another thread his access will be limited while he's there.
|
|
I think that there can be little doubt that CHA is the least useful casting stat.
Unless of course you measure character effectiveness from more than its combat potential. Imagine you were not just an uber-medic in a special forces team, but someone who explores, reports, and cooperates in a variety of social situations as well as dungeon delves. The Charisma-based skill Diplomacy is second only to Perception in the number of times it is used in PFS - you can gather informartion in every scenario to give you (sometimes life-saving) information in advance.
in my experience, an aasimar life oracle in the party means the party cannot ever be at risk in combat. Even crits lose their fear factor if one player can just reset everyone's HP to full with a standard action.
Final point: if your character concept is ruined because of a mechanical change (especially one of this small a magnitude), you are missing out on a lot of the richness and fun of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Mystic,
When looking at the two rebuild rules you cited (ability-score-dependent vs. FCB), I don't believe the former applies; the mechanic of channeling has not changed, for only the favored class bonus that improves your channeling changed.
There might be an argument for grandfathering. There might not. I'll wait to speak with some of the other team members before deciding on that.
|
|
John, in this case I would be in favor of a more liberal rebuild policy over grandfathering. It is going to be confusing enough as it is, and if we had two versions of the FCB running around then we complicate even more. Plus the first time we have a grandfathered character sitting with a regular one there will be problems.
Table: We need a healer
P1: I can bring a life oracle?
P2: Me too.
Table: either of you grandfathered FCBs?
P1: yeah
P2: Wha?
Table: Yeah, P2, bring something else.
|
I think that there can be little doubt that CHA is the least useful casting stat.Unless of course you measure character effectiveness from more than its combat potential. Imagine you were not just an uber-medic in a special forces team, but someone who explores, reports, and cooperates in a variety of social situations as well as dungeon delves. The Charisma-based skill Diplomacy is second only to Perception in the number of times it is used in PFS - you can gather informartion in every scenario to give you (sometimes life-saving) information in advance.
I wholeheartedly agree with this! :) Charisma is my favorite casting stat in PFS precisely for this reason. There are even scenarios written such that diplomacy can eliminate entire combat encounters.
Final point: if your character concept is ruined because of a mechanical change (especially one of this small a magnitude), you are missing out on a lot of the richness and fun of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Totally disagree with this. :/ To paraphrase Big Norse Wolf from another thread, some characters are built with the precision of a finely tuned watch. One small change to one cog and the whole thing is thrown off.
The richness and fun of PFRPG is found by the multitude of people in a multitude of ways. You have every right to enjoy the game as you see fit, and so does the OP of this thread.
Furthermore, it is entirely within the realm of possibilities that a small mechanical change can ruin the non-mechanical aspect of a character concept.
To everyone: please try to find compassion for players who are negatively affected by the recent errata. They are just as heavily invested in their characters as you are in yours. Even if you are happy about individual rules changes, please try to be sympathetic to the feelings of the players that might be sitting at your next table.
|
While not every PFS character is affected by the ACG and ARG erratas, the combined erratas were fairly broad in their reach. It might not be a terrible idea to offer a general one time ability score, class, archetype, and feat rebuild. Following that, the item rebuild rules can be applied for any affected pieces.
This seems like the simplest solution possible vs. the often very specific and somewhat confusing current rebuild rules, and removes the need to grandfather anything.
|
|
I have two life oracles in PFS with this build so I think I know it pretty well. I can see the point of the 1/2 modification being a little overpowered. Funny thing is though it doesn't really become a real issue until the character hits 10 and above. At level 10 you're channeling like a level 15 (3d6 more) and it just ramps up from there. I could see the ratio changed to 1/3 or even 1/4, 1/6 is just too damn much. Most PFS players will only see the bonus roll over once in their entire playtime unless the character goes Seeker. It pretty much makes the entire idea useless. What's next? Change the FCB on the human sorcerer to 1/4 for their ability to see how it goes. Some people are mentioning the change to nature oracles and lunar oracles but that was a separate change. People are also forgetting that the bonus was very tightly focused and only affected one revelation.
|
|
Some people are mentioning the change to nature oracles and lunar oracles but that was a separate change. People are also forgetting that the bonus was very tightly focused and only affected one revelation.
I said it in the other thread, but let's not assume what people are or aren't doing with their FCBs.
I have an Apocalypse Oracle in PFS that used the FCB for Erosion Touch.
Andrew posted he had a Thundercaller Bard that used it, as well as a Dark Tapestry oracle that used it too.
Life Oracles is one of the affected builds, maybe it's even the most prevalent one. But it's not the only one.
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
I would love for there to be grandfathering. We do have grandfathering in other areas of PFS play. I don't see there ever being a situation where one life oracle is welcome and another is not. We've had duplicates of other classes and archetypes at PFS tables with no issue in the games that I've played.
Failing that, a more generous rebuild option would be nice. I specifically took a feat for Lyric to have channeling early so that I could boost it with the FCB. Now... Now I'm wondering whether I would have done that or if it would have made more sense in her case to take the feat "extra lay on hands" so that she could use the more advantageous (for her) option of lay on hands with life link more.
Hmm
PS John, thank you for even considering the option or grandfathering or rebuild. This is most appreciated.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the change to the FCB is a good one.
But I support very liberal rebuilds when previously unambiguous rules change. We can all argue how significant the change is but, really, the only person who knows how important it is to the player is the player.
In a home game I can't imagine a GM going "no, the rule changed. You're now weaker. No, you can't change your character. Suck it up".
One major problem is that I fundamentally don't understand why liberal rebuilds are a bad idea in PFS. I greatly respect John and Mike as reasonable people who very much have the interest of the campaign at heart so obviously they are seeing an issue which I am not seeing. When John has time (post GenCon obviously) perhaps he would be so good as to articulate the issues.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grandfathering is somewhat problematic given the depth and number of changes being made. It's one thing to verify with someone playing a level two Aasimar when the character was created; it's another to rundown a whole bunch of Favored Class Bonuses, feats, and other character options. More liberal rebuild options for those affected might be nice, but not a decision to make quickly.
The real problem is that there were a lot of changes made in a very short amount of time before the year's largest convention. That's going to give a lot of sour feelings at Gencon. However, I'd personally prefer avoiding any hasty decisions, even though a number of my characters were affected.
My suggestion would be that rather than Grandfathering (at least for right now), have a Grace Period. Especially for characters that are going to be drastically effected, letting people get in a couple more games and not having to worry about making permanent changes in a day would avoid a lot of the "Pre Gen-con" stress. It would also allow the Organized Play team to weigh options a bit more thoroughly without the impending deadline.
|
|
To paraphrase Big Norse Wolf from another thread, some characters are built with the precision of a finely tuned watch. One small change to one cog and the whole thing is thrown off.
I suppose, but in this case the cog was replaced by a similar cog with only a slightly-reduced effect. It's still a watch, it still keeps excellent time, it has just lost... well, it has lost its ability to be better than every other watch out there. I think this should be an easier mechanical change to still enjoy playing than some other ones we've seen.
|
|
To paraphrase Big Norse Wolf from another thread, some characters are built with the precision of a finely tuned watch. One small change to one cog and the whole thing is thrown off.I suppose, but in this case the cog was replaced by a similar cog with only a slightly-reduced effect. It's still a watch, it still keeps excellent time, it has just lost... well, it has lost its ability to be better than every other watch out there. I think this should be an easier mechanical change to still enjoy playing than some other ones we've seen.
Yes, just because reduced cog causes it to miss a second here or there doesn't mean that the time it says isn't close, for a while...
Like whats the difference between a rolex and a disney princess watch from Walmart?
|
|
I suppose, but in this case the cog was replaced by a similar cog with only a slightly-reduced effect. It's still a watch, it still keeps excellent time, it has just lost... well, it has lost its ability to be better than every other watch out there. I think this should be an easier mechanical change to still enjoy playing than some other ones we've seen.
I would also argue that, in my personal opinion, a change to 3 effective levels vs. 10 effective levels is considerably more than a "slightly-reduced effect". Not implying that such a character would no longer be effective at all - just that it may no longer be what the player in question signed up for.
I won't speak for anyone else here, but building characters is fully half of my fun in gaming. To folks like me, the mechanics, builds, and synergy are an essential part of our fun experience.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To paraphrase Big Norse Wolf from another thread, some characters are built with the precision of a finely tuned watch. One small change to one cog and the whole thing is thrown off.I suppose, but in this case the cog was replaced by a similar cog with only a slightly-reduced effect. It's still a watch, it still keeps excellent time, it has just lost... well, it has lost its ability to be better than every other watch out there. I think this should be an easier mechanical change to still enjoy playing than some other ones we've seen.
And if someone had a feat and or magic item that required X dice of channeling? Or someone bought armor for their large tiger who's suddenly lost a lot of weight?
If the changes needed to be made then they needed to be made. But then you have to give people the flexibility to adapt with them.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
To paraphrase Big Norse Wolf from another thread, some characters are built with the precision of a finely tuned watch. One small change to one cog and the whole thing is thrown off.I suppose, but in this case the cog was replaced by a similar cog with only a slightly-reduced effect. It's still a watch, it still keeps excellent time, it has just lost... well, it has lost its ability to be better than every other watch out there. I think this should be an easier mechanical change to still enjoy playing than some other ones we've seen.And if someone had a feat and or magic item that required X dice of channeling? Or someone bought armor for their large tiger who's suddenly lost a lot of weight?
If the changes needed to be made then they needed to be made. But then you have to give people the flexibility to adapt with them.
Those are actually some cases where I would fully support adding some flexibility.
I feel like one thing that in general is missing from the existing rebuild rules is that if something changes, you can rebuild that thing and the things that are prerequisites for it. But it doesn't go the other direction: There needs to be a rule saying that if a change means your character no longer meets the prereqs for a feature, you get to rebuild that feature as well.
|
|
Some people are mentioning the change to nature oracles and lunar oracles but that was a separate change. People are also forgetting that the bonus was very tightly focused and only affected one revelation.I said it in the other thread, but let's not assume what people are or aren't doing with their FCBs.
I have an Apocalypse Oracle in PFS that used the FCB for Erosion Touch.
Andrew posted he had a Thundercaller Bard that used it, as well as a Dark Tapestry oracle that used it too.
Life Oracles is one of the affected builds, maybe it's even the most prevalent one. But it's not the only one.
It is big hit on thundercallers - you can't even start talking the FCB on the thundercall until you get the thundercall (a different ruling) - it was nice not having to wait until 8th level to do more than 1d8 with your big attack
(the saving throw of which is not all that great and not much ways to increase the DC.)
|
|
Hi Mystic,
When looking at the two rebuild rules you cited (ability-score-dependent vs. FCB), I don't believe the former applies; the mechanic of channeling has not changed, for only the favored class bonus that improves your channeling changed.
There might be an argument for grandfathering. There might not. I'll wait to speak with some of the other team members before deciding on that.
Thank you for your response Mr. Compton. It is a pleasure to hear from a representative of Paizo. One of the reasons that I posted this thread is that it is evident that a number of changes are in the works at Paizo, most particularly the imminent appointment of a new organized play coordinator. I hope to constructively influence these upcoming changes.
Part of my point was that your present rebuild rules are hardly a panacea, and I believe that I established at least that they are subject to multiple interpretations. Additionally, they are frankly somewhat arbitrary as to whom they grant relief and whom they don't.
I do have an additional alternative suggestion that I believe might help to solve at least two serious structural problems with PFS that I have seen cropping up in my area. Specifically, I recommend allowing a rebuild for each GM star.
First, veteran player retention has been a serious problem in my area, IMO. While there is certainly a smattering of high-level play, just the other day I heard the VL that runs a long established PFS location announce that it was just reaching the point where offering 3-7 level games would be appropriate at that venue. My personal impression is that the veteran player pool was much more robust a year or two ago. While it is certainly not the only contributing factor to this loss, others have noted here that nerfing characters without the opportunity to rebuild most adversely affects veteran players.
Also, I have noticed very recently that my area is suffering from a pronounced GM shortage. It always seems to be the same few people GMing, even at multiple gaming stores. Also, when a Venture Officer or venue organizer is present, they are almost always GMing as opposed to playing. I have also seen a few full tables of players cancelled because of a lack of a GM. Notably, our area has lost two VL's in the past year, at least one of which I believe was at least partially motivated to leave by the fact that he virtually never got to play. This VL was one of the best GM's in the area and also one of the most rules-knowledgeable players in the area. His loss was huge.
My suggestion would serve the dual purpose of placating veteran players with a nerfed build while also encouraging all players, but particularly veteran players, to get involved with GMing. I hope it an be considered for discussion as well as other options. While I still feel that rebuilds should be more freely available for those adversely affected by changes, this might be more palatable to Paizo in that it would reward those who give their time to make PFS a success. I would point out that the replay benefit originally offered has been significantly watered-down by the Core campaign.
Another possibility is allowing venture officers to be the arbiters of whether a major power of a character had been significantly affected by a rule change. A savvy venture officer might offer to review such characters at a GM 101 session.
ETA, I am a one star, not overly far from two star GM, so its not like I would personally get a whole bunch of rebuilds immediately from the GM star rule.
|
|
I've had two characters affected by this build, my Life Oracle, who is 11th level and had put all 11th FCB into his channel energy loses out on a couple d6 of healing, its a bummer but that character is near the end of their regular play life, even if I had the opportunity to full rebuild I am not sure I would.
I do however have a Bard 4/Swashbuckler 1 who has dervish dance and used that Favored Class bonus to treat his level as 1 higher to get that +2 inspire courage. An integral part of my build really since I don't gain much of anything from taking a 5th level except that small increase. I'd also willingly forgone all future FCB with Swashbuckler to get that small bonus to being a bard. If it was at least reduced to a reasonable number like +1/4 to level I still wouldn't be screwed. Its a bummer and I am not really sure what I am going to do with that character now except take that extra level of Bard and just bite the bit.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the 1/6 and not 1/4 that bugs me.
1/4 is reasonable.
1/6 is punitive. It feels like a slap in the face, and being told "You should be ashamed for taking this option, you cheater!" It's a Favored Class Penalty now, since taking it gives such a miniscule bonus that no one ever would forego the bonus hit points or skill points you could get in exchange.
|
|
But I support very liberal rebuilds when previously unambiguous rules change. We can all argue how significant the change is but, really, the only person who knows how important it is to the player is the player
In light of my above posts mentioning possible constructive alternatives, I would like to clarify that my emotional sentiments are still in line with the above. The ARG was several years old at the time of the errata and the rules were unambiguous. When Paizo decided a problem was important to make a change, the changes made to my character should have been regarded as important enough to allow me to make a change as well.
|
|
I fully support complete rebuilds. These changes, for certain characters, don't just weaken a character, they can destroy them. For instance, my Ifrit Wood Oracle, which I thankfully never got around to making. She'd planned to take the Ifrit FCB into the Tree Shape revelation and get high-level plant form options early. If that were taken from her, there would be no point to playing the character, and I would simply throw her character sheet into the trash.
If Paizo feels an option is too strong and wants to change it, that's fine, but they shouldn't do it in a manner which leaves players no recourse to fix characters who relied on the formerly-powerful options to be enjoyable once more.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It's the 1/6 and not 1/4 that bugs me.
1/4 is reasonable.
1/6 is punitive. It feels like a slap in the face, and being told "You should be ashamed for taking this option, you cheater!" It's a Favored Class Penalty now, since taking it gives such a miniscule bonus that no one ever would forego the bonus hit points or skill points you could get in exchange.
I don't know. Which would you rather have at level 12?
+12 hp?
or
+1d6 of 30 foot radius healing six times a day?
The second is effectively +21 hit points to yourself *and* everyone else in the party.
|
|
It's the 1/6 and not 1/4 that bugs me.
1/4 is reasonable.
1/6 is punitive. It feels like a slap in the face, and being told "You should be ashamed for taking this option, you cheater!" It's a Favored Class Penalty now, since taking it gives such a miniscule bonus that no one ever would forego the bonus hit points or skill points you could get in exchange.
I don't know. Which would you rather have at level 12?
+12 hp?
or
+1d6 of 30 foot radius healing six times a day?
The second is effectively +21 hit points to yourself *and* everyone else in the party.
For those with the Fey Foundling feat: On average this means an effective 33 (3.5*6+12) extra hit points for you, and 21 for everyone else. That feat alone makes the FCB worth going for.
|
|
This is what I meant when I said that some characters are like a finely tuned watch.
Codanous has a character who has more levels of Swashbuckler than of Bard. He took Bard as his favored class because of the aasimar +1/2 effective character level. But he was only taking a minimal number of levels of Bard, just enough that the FCB would pay off. Now he either has to take a bunch more levels of Bard, or just have a character who doesn't get a favored class bonus at all. I'm guessing—I don't know for sure because I'm not him—that if he were able to change his favored class to Swashbuckler instead, it might not sting quite so much.
That is just one example.
|
|
Hi Mystic,
When looking at the two rebuild rules you cited (ability-score-dependent vs. FCB), I don't believe the former applies; the mechanic of channeling has not changed, for only the favored class bonus that improves your channeling changed.
There might be an argument for grandfathering. There might not. I'll wait to speak with some of the other team members before deciding on that.
Thanks for your input John.
I am in favour of grandfathering please.
A full rebuild holds no attraction for me. My elf oracle is centred on the Many Forms revelation of the Dark Tapestry, with feats and curse synergising to allow spell casting by will alone in any shape. I don't see any other way to accomplish that character design; druid does shapeshifting hugely better than Many Forms post-errata/nerf, but doesn't have a deaf curse and doesn't present any opportunity to role-play an unwitting vessel of the Outer Gods trying to be a Good elven paragon.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To paraphrase Big Norse Wolf from another thread, some characters are built with the precision of a finely tuned watch. One small change to one cog and the whole thing is thrown off.I suppose, but in this case the cog was replaced by a similar cog with only a slightly-reduced effect. It's still a watch, it still keeps excellent time, it has just lost... well, it has lost its ability to be better than every other watch out there. I think this should be an easier mechanical change to still enjoy playing than some other ones we've seen.
Similar cog? Yes.
Only a slightly-reduced effect? I gotta seriously disagree.
Original cog: +1/2 or +3/6 revelation per level
Replacement cog: +1/6 revelation per level.
That is a reduction by 66%, which qualifies as a loss of the majority of the cog. Try doing that on a gear on your bicycle or car, and let me know if it still works.
I have used up all my GM Star replays. Don't have access to the GM Star recharge boon. Am not likely to ever reach that 5th star. So, now, I have to see what all is affected on him, including all the feats spent on the ability which is no longer as good, by a 66% reduction of bonus, as it was.
Previously, at 5th level, he was channeling as a 7th level Cleric. Now, he will be channeling with a 2/7th reduction in that ability. When he, eventually, levels to 6th level, he will, once again, be channeling as a 7th level Cleric, when he was on-track to Channel as a 9th level Cleric at that time.
Note that this hurts even worse if you were planning or building toward using it on a revelation that can't be taken at first level, since the other FAQ means that you couldn't take the FCB for it until you actually have it. If it doesn't become available until 6th level, you get the benefit for only one level in normal PFS play. If it requires higher than 6th, you can only gain any actual benefit from it if you are playing at Seeker levels.
Oh, and just to give a small numeric representation of how the 1/6th version effects the Channel Energy revelation:
1 - N/E (1/6)
2 - N/E (2/6)
3 - N/E (3/6)
4 - N/E (4/6)
5 - N/E (5/6)
6 - +1 level (+1d6 for Channel, +6/6)
7 - +1 level is N/E (+1 level does nothing, +7/6)
8 - +1 level (+1d6 Channel, +8/6)
9 - +1 level is N/E (+1 level does nothing, +9/6)
10 - +1 level (+1d6 Channel, +10/6)
11 - +1 level is N/E (+1 level does nothing, +11/6)
12 - +2 level (+1d6 Channel, +12/6)
Note that even when you reach 6/6, the effect is intermittent, since the Channel is affected only by odd numbers of levels. It is only after 12 levels of the FCB that you are guaranteed for it to have an effect every level thereafter, and even then, the effect will never be more than guaranteeing one extra d6 of Channel every level. To me that counts as 8 dead levels for the FCB.
For the old version, at 1/2, it would be N/E at 1st level, starts the bounce at 2nd level, N/E again at 3rd level, and at 4th would become a guaranteed extra die. Even that gives two "dead" levels for the FCB.
So, the new version gives 4 times as many dead levels as the old one for the Channel Energy revelation. That is a change from 16% of your PFS career, to 66% of your PFS career.
So, I'll ask you, is that something that counts as only "slightly reduced"?
|
|
Hi Mystic,
When looking at the two rebuild rules you cited (ability-score-dependent vs. FCB), I don't believe the former applies; the mechanic of channeling has not changed, for only the favored class bonus that improves your channeling changed.
There might be an argument for grandfathering. There might not. I'll wait to speak with some of the other team members before deciding on that.
Given that it is now a few days after GENCON, I think it is proper that this thread be brought to the forefront as a gentle reminder to Paizo of this pending issue. Notably, I think that this thread has been useful in demonstrating the significance of the ARG errata and the considerable comparative inferiority of the changed FCB's relative to what was available originally under the ARG for these races and what FCB's are presently available to other races. In particular, I found it entertaining that another poster attempted to use the relative monetary value of the Human and Aasimar FCB's for the Oracle class to establish that the Aasimar FCB was overpowered. As it turned out, the Human extra spells known FCB from levels 4-11 required 60,000 gp to replicate with items, thus making quite the opposite point.
As I have said before, I can certainly understand why Paizo would wish to retain the authority to make balance changes to characters that it perceives as breaking the PFS game. However, as a corollary, Paizo should be more receptive to the complaints of players who merely ask that they be allowed to make the choices that they would have made if the nature of the changed abilities had been made known to them beforehand. Here, based upon personal experience, I think that the FCB's in question could be grandfathered in with little or no disruption to PFS play. However, if Paizo believes that these changes need to be implemented into PFS, then it needs to implement a reasonable mechanism to provide players that have been impacted an ability to make meaningful reactive changes.
Concerning the issues specific to my character, I think that there is little question that, even under Mr. Compton's interpretation, I would be entitled to a rebuild if the life oracle channeling had been reduced, for example, to 1d6 for every three levels instead of 1d6 every two levels, as the mechanic of the power would have changed. What has happened here with FCB's is in practice not that far off in its effect on my character, but Mr. Compton suggests that I might have no remedy despite the similar impact of the change. As I explained in my prior posts, I have 100 plus hours invested in my character with a finely-tuned build almost entirely dedicated to a power that has been substantially depreciated. Because of these changes to long-standing and well-established rules, I have lost interest in further pursuing this build. To put it mildly, I would personally be exceptionally dissatisfied if the original FCB's were not grandfathered in and no rebuild was allowed, as this would mean the effective loss of my substantial investment in this character. While I might be powerless to recoup this loss if Paizo maintains ill-advised rules that produce arbitrary and different results for similarly-impacted characters, this loss could (and would) certainly inform my future participation in PFS.
Notably, I hardly think that I have been inflexible with regards to a solution. Indeed, I have tried to point out that PFS appears to be suffering from a few significant structural flaws, namely a shortage of GM's and poor veteran player retention, both of which might be improved by tying rebuilds to GM stars. This solution would also simultaneously address Paizo's concerns about carte blanche rebuilds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of stuff. Sorry, the amount was too long for the reply command to handle well
I'm not personally invested in this change. Though I think 1/2 is too powerful and 1/6 may be too far nerfed. If there was a second change to make all FCB 1/4 instead would that be better? (I mean mechanically yes, it's better than 1/6 and worse than 1/4, but how hurt would people feel in that case) Personally, I think the most overpowered FCB in the game pre or post errata was already a 1/4 FCB.
I will say GM and player retention is much more dependent on region than what you are experiencing. For example, locally we have enough veteran players that we ran two simultaneous tables of Eyes of the Ten. (I believe these were the third and fourth runs of Eyes, and a fifth group has already started forming) For GMs he have 26 active players/GMs with at least 1 star, including 5 who hit a new star over level of the past week (two got their second star, 2 got their 3rd, and 1 got their 5th). Other regions require a certain amount of contributing to the community to keep playing. For most people that contributing comes in the form of GMing though not all. I know one group that requires GMing at least 1 in 4 sessions. (For reference, our local lodge is about 20-30 highly active players with about that number again in less active players)
|
|
I will say GM and player retention is much more dependent on region than what you are experiencing. For example, locally we have enough veteran players that we ran two simultaneous tables of Eyes of the Ten. (I believe these were the third and fourth runs of Eyes, and a fifth group has already started forming) For GMs he have 26 active players/GMs with at least 1 star, including 5 who hit a new star over level of the past week (two got their second star, 2 got their 3rd, and 1 got their 5th). Other regions require a certain amount of contributing to the community to keep playing. For most people that contributing comes in the form of GMing though not all. I know one group that requires GMing at least 1 in 4 sessions. (For reference, our local lodge is about 20-30 highly active players with about that number again in less active players)
I have no doubt that there are regional variations. We have an Eyes of the Ten upcoming as well, which might even span two tables. I have noticed, however, that a number of those that intend to participate no longer regularly attend PFS events. They seem to have one foot out the door.
