|
Any word on any movement on this issue?
I was wondering this myself.
Also, I noticed from other very recent posts on this forum that "complete rebuilds" have apparently simply been handed out at boons, probably at GENCON. Obviously, Paizo does not believe rebuilds destroy the game, contrary to what some have suggested. Relief via grandfathering or a rebuild is thus all that much more warranted for those of us that have had our entire build savaged by the FCB changes made by Paizo for which we were not at fault.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Any word on any movement on this issue?I was wondering this myself.
Also, I noticed from other very recent posts on this forum that "complete rebuilds" have apparently simply been handed out at boons, probably at GENCON. Obviously, Paizo does not believe rebuilds destroy the game, contrary to what some have suggested. Relief via grandfathering or a rebuild is thus all that much more warranted for those of us that have had our entire build savaged by the FCB changes made by Paizo for which we were not at fault.
Complete rebuilds are limited. They are given as an *option* on a boon for Tier 1 GMs (those who run 8 or more slots.) That boon includes a complete rebuild, but also a variety of race options (races that aren't normally available.) That boon allows someone to choose the complete rebuild (though you can't change gear, prestige spent, etc.) OR to choose to make a character of the special race options. A person cannot do both.
I've talked to a number of GMs who have them (maybe 7-8), and not one of them has used the complete rebuild. I have one from this year, and it won't be used for a rebuild, either.
|
|
Complete rebuilds are limited. They are given as an *option* on a boon for Tier 1 GMs (those who run 8 or more slots.) That boon includes a complete rebuild, but also a variety of race options (races that aren't normally available.) That boon allows someone to choose the complete rebuild (though you can't change gear, prestige spent, etc.) OR to choose to make a character of the special race options. A person cannot do both.
I've talked to a number of GMs who have them (maybe 7-8), and not one of them has used the complete rebuild. I have one from this year, and it won't be used for a rebuild, either.
Yeah. A GM has to put in A LOT of work to get that rebuild. I know that when I GM'd GenCon in 2013 as a Tier 1 I did 7 different scenarios over 8 slots. Even then, I didn't use it for a rebuild. I would much rather play my grippli gunslinger marshal than rebuild a character I don't enjoy into something that I still may not enjoy.
My guess is that any rebuild will be more limited than a Tier 1 rebuild, though I have underestimated John's awesomeness in the past. He continues to amaze.
|
Any word on any movement on this issue?I was wondering this myself.
Also, I noticed from other very recent posts on this forum that "complete rebuilds" have apparently simply been handed out at boons, probably at GENCON. Obviously, Paizo does not believe rebuilds destroy the game, contrary to what some have suggested. Relief via grandfathering or a rebuild is thus all that much more warranted for those of us that have had our entire build savaged by the FCB changes made by Paizo for which we were not at fault.
Complete rebuilds are limited. They are given as an *option* on a boon for Tier 1 GMs (those who run 8 or more slots.) That boon includes a complete rebuild, but also a variety of race options (races that aren't normally available.) That boon allows someone to choose the complete rebuild (though you can't change gear, prestige spent, etc.) OR to choose to make a character of the special race options. A person cannot do both.
I've talked to a number of GMs who have them (maybe 7-8), and not one of them has used the complete rebuild. I have one from this year, and it won't be used for a rebuild, either.
The rebuilds have been expanded past being just tier 1 GM boons, I believe they are on any GenCon GM boon now. (Or at least my tier 4 boon had one too, and I thought the other lower ones I saw did as well.)
|
|
Complete rebuilds are limited. They are given as an *option* on a boon for Tier 1 GMs (those who run 8 or more slots.) That boon includes a complete rebuild, but also a variety of race options (races that aren't normally available.) That boon allows someone to choose the complete rebuild (though you can't change gear, prestige spent, etc.) OR to choose to make a character of the special race options. A person cannot do both.
I've talked to a number of GMs who have them (maybe 7-8), and not one of them has used the complete rebuild. I have one from this year, and it won't be used for a rebuild, either.
I don't mean to denigrate the hard work of GENCON GM's; my point was to further establish the arbitrariness of rebuilds under current rules. As I mentioned, I have 100+ hours invested in this character, which is hardly insignificant. Moreover, 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. When you are handing rebuilds out as boons, there is that much more reason to offer them to those significantly affected by rule changes.
Moreover, either grandfathering or a rebuild will work. If the change is not that important to the game, grandfathering is great. If the change is significant enough to enforce for those characters that were made under the prior rules, this is evidence that the change is significant enough to warrant a rebuild.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
The rebuilds have been expanded past being just tier 1 GM boons, I believe they are on any GenCon GM boon now. (Or at least my tier 4 boon had one too, and I thought the other lower ones I saw did as well.)Any word on any movement on this issue?I was wondering this myself.
Also, I noticed from other very recent posts on this forum that "complete rebuilds" have apparently simply been handed out at boons, probably at GENCON. Obviously, Paizo does not believe rebuilds destroy the game, contrary to what some have suggested. Relief via grandfathering or a rebuild is thus all that much more warranted for those of us that have had our entire build savaged by the FCB changes made by Paizo for which we were not at fault.
Complete rebuilds are limited. They are given as an *option* on a boon for Tier 1 GMs (those who run 8 or more slots.) That boon includes a complete rebuild, but also a variety of race options (races that aren't normally available.) That boon allows someone to choose the complete rebuild (though you can't change gear, prestige spent, etc.) OR to choose to make a character of the special race options. A person cannot do both.
I've talked to a number of GMs who have them (maybe 7-8), and not one of them has used the complete rebuild. I have one from this year, and it won't be used for a rebuild, either.
Your Chronicle should tell you to cross off any boon that you did not qualify for.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
I know of at least 2 teir 2 GM's that didn't have that crossed off this year. I assumed that it meant that it was given to more than just tier 1 this year. Sounds like it may have been given out in error.
With that said, we actually did have one of those GM's from my area use the rebuild on a tier 2 to build a character that didn't scale well into mid-levels into a shiny new Occult character. (Don't recall what kind.)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I don't mean to denigrate the hard work of GENCON GM's; my point was to further establish the arbitrariness of rebuilds under current rules. As I mentioned, I have 100+ hours invested in this character, which is hardly insignificant. Moreover, 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. When you are handing rebuilds out as boons, there is that much more reason to offer them to those significantly affected by rule changes.
No. You would not have been.
If they had changed channels per day from charisma to intelligence, you would get a complete rebuild. If they changed if from 1+cha bonus to cha bonus (minimum 1) or 1d6 per 3 levels, you get no rebuild.
Also, you are comparing 20-30 full rebuilds a year to something on the order of 100,000 rebuilds. The two have vastly different effects on game.
I have a little sympathy for the people who were using fcb + multiclassing to keep channel / bard song relevant. But in your case, you are trying to get 15 level channeling in a 10th level caster. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for you. (I also have limited sympathy for the guys who were trying to get 15th level shapeshifting at 10th level. There is a reason that is an 15th level power. Yeah, I understand that you spent a lot of money on minis, and I do sympathize a little on that. But seriously? 15th level shapeshifting 5 levels early? That is pretty abusable.
|
|
I have a little sympathy for the people who were using fcb + multiclassing to keep channel / bard song relevant. But in your case, you are trying to get 15 level channeling in a 10th level caster. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for you. (I also have limited sympathy for the guys who were trying to get 15th level shapeshifting at 10th level. There is a reason that is an 15th level power. Yeah, I understand that you spent a lot of money on minis, and I do sympathize a little on that. But seriously? 15th level shapeshifting 5 levels early? That is pretty abusable.
For the shapeshifting, you couldn't do it until level 11 btw because you can't put FCB before level 3 due to not having the revelation yet. Not to mention druids get to do most of those forms at level 10 anyway, one level before you could have done it as an oracle, and then get an even greater form at level 12. Oh, and it's also hours/level for them and requires absolutely no investment on the druid's part.
|
|
No. You would not have been.
If they had changed channels per day from charisma to intelligence, you would get a complete rebuild. If they changed if from 1+cha bonus to cha bonus (minimum 1) or 1d6 per 3 levels, you get no rebuild.
Also, you are comparing 20-30 full rebuilds a year to something on the order of 100,000 rebuilds. The two have vastly different effects on game.
I have a little sympathy for the people who were using fcb + multiclassing to keep channel / bard song relevant. But in your case, you are trying to get 15 level channeling in a 10th level caster. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for you. (I also have limited sympathy for the guys who were trying to get 15th level shapeshifting at 10th level. There is a reason that is an 15th level power. Yeah, I understand that you spent a lot of money on minis, and I do sympathize a little on that. But seriously? 15th level shapeshifting 5 levels early? That is pretty abusable.
I disagree with your interpretation. There was a prior rebuild rule that read differently and consistent with what you are saying, but the more recent rule says that if an ability-score dependent feature of a class is altered, a rebuild is permitted. If the rebuild changes a required ability score, than an item to enhance the ability score may be sold back at full price.
As far as your sympathy, I simply don't care about your uninformed opinion. I made my character pursuant to ARG rules that existed at the time (and had, in fact, been in place for several years). I have also explained the reason why the character is otherwise inferior to a cleric of the same level, and why my choices would have been different otherwise. When I choose one set of tradeoffs and have the rug pulled out from under me, I am understandably unhappy. If Paizo doesn't want massive rebuilds, then grandfather or don't make massive changes to the rules.
ETA: Old rule, from season 5 Handbook: "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."
New Rule: "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."
Obviously the change was intended to focus on the change in a required ability score to a change in an "ability-score-dependent" feature.
|
|
However when you made the character you where in full knowledge that rules can change and that there are rebuild rules in place to handle that. So the risks of building a character reliant on an FCB bonus that was obviously stronger than others was known to you. It would be nice to get some lenience on the rebuild rules for this case but no one should be demanding a full rebuild because Paizo wronged them.
However when you made the character you where in full knowledge that rules can change and that there are rebuild rules in place to handle that. So the risks of building a character reliant on an FCB bonus that was obviously stronger than others was known to you. It would be nice to get some lenience on the rebuild rules for this case but no one should be demanding a full rebuild because Paizo wronged them.
I'm not a huge fan of that attitude though. I want to get into PFS at some point. (when its not a 2+ hour drive) and between things like this and table variation talk I feel like I should just play a greatsword wielding human fighter who uses power attack and such and stick to nothing un-ordinary at all.
|
|
However when you made the character you where in full knowledge that rules can change and that there are rebuild rules in place to handle that. So the risks of building a character reliant on an FCB bonus that was obviously stronger than others was known to you. It would be nice to get some lenience on the rebuild rules for this case but no one should be demanding a full rebuild because Paizo wronged them.I'm not a huge fan of that attitude though. I want to get into PFS at some point. (when its not a 2+ hour drive) and between things like this and table variation talk I feel like I should just play a greatsword wielding human fighter who uses power attack and such and stick to nothing un-ordinary at all.
What you are viewing is really the fringe discussions that happen online. The number of times I've run into any of the issues you see discussed on the boards, on a daily basis, I can count on one hand. In 4-1/2 years, 253 GM credits and about 200 tables played.
Just don't create a character dependent on a very extreme rule, and you usually won't have to worry about table variation or whatnot.
|
|
Your Chronicle should tell you to cross off any boon that you did not qualify for.The rebuilds have been expanded past being just tier 1 GM boons, I believe they are on any GenCon GM boon now. (Or at least my tier 4 boon had one too, and I thought the other lower ones I saw did as well.)Any word on any movement on this issue?I was wondering this myself.
Also, I noticed from other very recent posts on this forum that "complete rebuilds" have apparently simply been handed out at boons, probably at GENCON. Obviously, Paizo does not believe rebuilds destroy the game, contrary to what some have suggested. Relief via grandfathering or a rebuild is thus all that much more warranted for those of us that have had our entire build savaged by the FCB changes made by Paizo for which we were not at fault.
Complete rebuilds are limited. They are given as an *option* on a boon for Tier 1 GMs (those who run 8 or more slots.) That boon includes a complete rebuild, but also a variety of race options (races that aren't normally available.) That boon allows someone to choose the complete rebuild (though you can't change gear, prestige spent, etc.) OR to choose to make a character of the special race options. A person cannot do both.
I've talked to a number of GMs who have them (maybe 7-8), and not one of them has used the complete rebuild. I have one from this year, and it won't be used for a rebuild, either.
There is nothing to indicate I don't qualify for it according to the sheet, whereas the Tier 1/2/3 races are crossed off. The sheet starts off with "choose one cross of the other", not 'if not tier one cross off the rebuild option'. Considering mine and the few others I saw I honestly see no reason to believe it is still a tier 1 only boon. If that is clarified to be incorrect I'm happy to accept that, I'm not planning on using the rebuild anyway.
|
|
However when you made the character you where in full knowledge that rules can change and that there are rebuild rules in place to handle that. So the risks of building a character reliant on an FCB bonus that was obviously stronger than others was known to you. It would be nice to get some lenience on the rebuild rules for this case but no one should be demanding a full rebuild because Paizo wronged them.
To start with, no one is "demanding" a full rebuild. Grandfathering would be perfectly fine. However, if grandfathering is not in the cards, I would want the ability to change my channeling-related feats and possibly the race to human so I could get more spells at least.
Second, there were no rebuild rules one way or the other for FCB's at that time, nor was there any contemplation that FCB's would be changed. The ARG was also not a new book when I made my character. Moreover, every class has a feature or power that is somehow better than another; tying to predict what Paizo will nerf is not a realistic goal. Hell, they just nerfed wild armor from the core rule book.
|
|
What you are viewing is really the fringe discussions that happen online. The number of times I've run into any of the issues you see discussed on the boards, on a daily basis, I can count on one hand. In 4-1/2 years, 253 GM credits and about 200 tables played.
Just don't create a character dependent on a very extreme rule, and you usually won't have to worry about table variation or whatnot.
What is an extreme rule? Looking at just core, Paladins are incredibly powerful relative to a significant proportion of even recent content, possessing good attack ability against most foes, great attack ability against evil foes, staying power due to lay on hands, class skills that allow him to be a "face" character, and awesome saves and immunities. Should no one make a Paladin?
When looking at the big picture, the Aasimar FCB hardly made my character overpowered. He is best at one type of healing, so what? A cleric could outdistance him in so many other areas that it is not funny, as was explained earlier in this thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just don't create a character dependent on a very extreme rule, and you usually won't have to worry about table variation or whatnot.
I'm not sure I can qualify this as a "very extreme rule." We were given no warning about it happening and it had been established for 2 years that it worked that way.
|
|
So, the bottom line seems to be this, Mystic...
Having *just* created a rule to cover the precise change that was coming, what good policy purpose would be served by making an exception to that brand new rule before the first time it is put into practice to evaluate whether it serves its intended purpose?
Actually, this is the correct time to point out a problem with a rule, when it is promulgated. The ambiguity in the rule is what this whole thread is about. I explained why it is my position (and still is) that a rebuild is allowed under current rules but it could be stated better.
Relatedly, I would also point out that Paizo has announced that it has lost Mike Brock as organized play coordinator and has not announced a replacement. While I appreciate Mr. Compton's response, is it authoritative like Mike Brock's would be or is merely an opinion like James Jacob's? Given the fact that we will have a new coordinator, it is appropriate to ask what his or her position is.
|
So, the bottom line seems to be this, Mystic...
Having *just* created a rule to cover the precise change that was coming, what good policy purpose would be served by making an exception to that brand new rule before the first time it is put into practice to evaluate whether it serves its intended purpose?
Could you please tell us the intended purpose behind the changes-after-errata rules? That might be helpful in this discussion.
Here is the effect that I'm seeing: friends of mine are considering scrapping their characters entirely because of the change to the FCB.
They are feeling blind-sided by the errata.
|
While I appreciate Mr. Compton's response, is it authoritative like Mike Brock's would be or is merely an opinion like James Jacob's? Given the fact that we will have a new coordinator, it is appropriate to ask what his or her position is.
John Compton's rulings are definitive for PFS independent of the status of the Campaign Coordinator.
|
|
Relatedly, I would also point out that Paizo has announced that it has lost Mike Brock as organized play coordinator and has not announced a replacement. While I appreciate Mr. Compton's response, is it authoritative like Mike Brock's would be or is merely an opinion like James Jacob's? Given the fact that we will have a new coordinator, it is appropriate to ask what his or her position is.
John's word regarding PFS rulings carries the full weight of campaign coordinator, especially right now as he is acting in that capacity pro tem.
Moreover, when we do get a new campaign coordinator, I think that it is inappropriate to ask them their opinion on a bunch of different rulings that past coordinators made. You may safely assume that the old rulings are still current until otherwise notified.
|
|
John's word regarding PFS rulings carries the full weight of campaign coordinator, especially right now as he is acting in that capacity pro tem.Moreover, when we do get a new campaign coordinator, I think that it is inappropriate to ask them their opinion on a bunch of different rulings that past coordinators made. You may safely assume that the old rulings are still current until otherwise notified.
Here is what Mr. Compton said: "Just to be clear, I am not the new campaign coordinator. I am, however, handling the campaign coordinator duties as best I can on top of my developer duties until we finalize the hiring of the new coordinator."
I would agree that it is inappropriate to ask the new coordinator to reconsider every rule ever made. However, these rules are recent, as in days old, and were promulgated with a campaign coordinator with one foot out the door. It is not unreasonable to ask the coordinator who will actually have to live with these brand new rules to reconsider them.
|
|
John's word regarding PFS rulings carries the full weight of campaign coordinator, especially right now as he is acting in that capacity pro tem.Moreover, when we do get a new campaign coordinator, I think that it is inappropriate to ask them their opinion on a bunch of different rulings that past coordinators made. You may safely assume that the old rulings are still current until otherwise notified.
Here is what Mr. Compton said: "Just to be clear, I am not the new campaign coordinator. I am, however, handling the campaign coordinator duties as best I can on top of my developer duties until we finalize the hiring of the new coordinator."
I would agree that it is inappropriate to ask the new coordinator to reconsider every rule ever made. However, these rules are recent, as in days old, and were promulgated with a campaign coordinator with one foot out the door. It is not unreasonable to ask the coordinator who will actually have to live with these brand new rules to reconsider them.
Except that both before the rulings were made and after a new Campaign Coordinator is hired John Compton has the right/power to make rulings for PFS.
|
|
Just don't create a character dependent on a very extreme rule, and you usually won't have to worry about table variation or whatnot.I'm not sure I can qualify this as a "very extreme rule." We were given no warning about it happening and it had been established for 2 years that it worked that way.
Agreed, and this is why I am particularly annoyed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree that it is inappropriate to ask the new coordinator to reconsider every rule ever made. However, these rules are recent, as in days old, and were promulgated with a campaign coordinator with one foot out the door. It is not unreasonable to ask the coordinator who will actually have to live with these brand new rules to reconsider them.
And I cannot imagine any new coordinator doing so, at least not initially. It would be grossly insulting to Mike, who has done a terrific job as campaign coordinator for PFS over the last several years.
|
|
Just don't create a character dependent on a very extreme rule, and you usually won't have to worry about table variation or whatnot.I'm not sure I can qualify this as a "very extreme rule." We were given no warning about it happening and it had been established for 2 years that it worked that way.
In my opinion, anything that ramps up a class's power to 50% better than the class that originated that power, is a very extreme rule. Specific favored class bonuses are usually to blame for this. Whether it has worked that way for over 2 years or not, really isn't at issue. Its the fact that 50% more power just because you pick a particular race is very extreme.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Except that both before the rulings were made and after a new Campaign Coordinator is hired John Compton has the right/power to make rulings for PFS.
John's word regarding PFS rulings carries the full weight of campaign coordinator, especially right now as he is acting in that capacity pro tem.Moreover, when we do get a new campaign coordinator, I think that it is inappropriate to ask them their opinion on a bunch of different rulings that past coordinators made. You may safely assume that the old rulings are still current until otherwise notified.
Here is what Mr. Compton said: "Just to be clear, I am not the new campaign coordinator. I am, however, handling the campaign coordinator duties as best I can on top of my developer duties until we finalize the hiring of the new coordinator."
I would agree that it is inappropriate to ask the new coordinator to reconsider every rule ever made. However, these rules are recent, as in days old, and were promulgated with a campaign coordinator with one foot out the door. It is not unreasonable to ask the coordinator who will actually have to live with these brand new rules to reconsider them.
Before this Mike Brock left, John Compton (Designer (for PFS?)) and Mike Brock (Campaign Coordinator) had to agree on rules for them to go into effect. Now John Compton (Designer) has to agree with John Compton (Campaign Coordinator) to put rules into effect.
After the new coordinator is hired, to reverse one of John's rulings, he would have to get the Designer (John Compton) to agree that it was incorrect.
I think you have lost this ruling. You have a better chance getting the ACG Design crew to revisit the errata and reduce the nerf from 1/6 to 1/4.
|
|
Here is the effect that I'm seeing: friends of mine are considering scrapping their characters entirely because of the change to the FCB.They are feeling blind-sided by the errata.
Rather than quibbling over who has authority, we should be talking about this. These changes are clearly a significant customer service problem for Paizo. Moreover, this problem is compounded by the fact that people who buy physical books, like many friends of mine, are outraged that they will have to consult pages upon pages of errata to use them. Adding insult to such injury is not wise.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree that it is inappropriate to ask the new coordinator to reconsider every rule ever made. However, these rules are recent, as in days old, and were promulgated with a campaign coordinator with one foot out the door. It is not unreasonable to ask the coordinator who will actually have to live with these brand new rules to reconsider them.And I cannot imagine any new coordinator doing so, at least not initially. It would be grossly insulting to Mike, who has done a terrific job as campaign coordinator for PFS over the last several years.
If I were Mike Brock, I would find the characterization of "one foot out the door" a little insulting. My recollection from the forums is that he was active and engaged right up through gencon. And from impressions I got on the forum, a lot of the new rebuild rules was being hammered out weeks if not months earlier.
|
|
Rather than quibbling over who has authority, we should be talking about this. These changes are clearly a significant customer service problem for Paizo. Moreover, this problem is compounded by the fact that people who buy physical books, like many friends of mine, are outraged that they will have to consult pages upon pages of errata to use them. Adding insult to such injury is not wise.
Here is the effect that I'm seeing: friends of mine are considering scrapping their characters entirely because of the change to the FCB.They are feeling blind-sided by the errata.
The PFS campaign leadership team has nothing to do with the Paizo Design team's choices for errata changes.
All we can do is react to those changes as best we can. We are all (including myself) affected by them.
John has done a fantastic job of opening up more inclusive options for rebuilding and such, and he's indicated that he may not be done. Lets just hold our panic for awhile and see what happens in the next couple months, especially after a new Campaign Coordinator is hired.
Regardless of what the new campaign coordinator along with the current campaign leadership team decide, the new rule is as the errata says, and that PFS cannot change.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Rather than quibbling over who has authority, we should be talking about this. These changes are clearly a significant customer service problem for Paizo. Moreover, this problem is compounded by the fact that people who buy physical books, like many friends of mine, are outraged that they will have to consult pages upon pages of errata to use them. Adding insult to such injury is not wise.
Here is the effect that I'm seeing: friends of mine are considering scrapping their characters entirely because of the change to the FCB.They are feeling blind-sided by the errata.
Some people are outraged over fairly silly little things. Annoyed I would grant you. Outraged is pushing it pretty hard. Honestly I am not sure I want to game with anyone with anger management issues that severe.
Every hardcover in PF has had errata, pretty much. Either formally through the errata, or informally through the FAQ.
ACG was historic levels of bad. And I would certainly sympathize with people who wanted Paizo to pay to replace hard covers, but I also am not sure logistically how that could ever be done in an effective manner.
ARG had fairly minor errata (in quantity) even if it had a pretty major effect. I vastly prefer that to companies that *don't* errata their books, letting broken powers stand, or even leaving you to come up with half the rules yourself.
|
|
Regardless of what the new campaign coordinator along with the current campaign leadership team decide, the new rule is as the errata says, and that PFS cannot change.
Mr. Compton has already indicated in this very thread that there is consideration of grandfathering, so your statement above is clearly incorrect. Also, his comment that he needed to consult others is what made me ask if his comments are advisory or authoritative. My comments about authority were not meant to disparage any employee of Paizo, including particularly Mr. Compton. I appreciated his willingness to respond.
|
|
ACG was historic levels of bad. And I would certainly sympathize with people who wanted Paizo to pay to replace hard covers, but I also am not sure logistically how that could ever be done in an effective manner.
With respect to the physical book issue the ACG was exactly what I was talking about. One of my friends bought it like a month before the change for our home PFS games. He was definitely quite a bit more than "annoyed" that he had to consult errata for just about every point mentioned in the book because he could not otherwise be certain whether it had changed. Also, many of the features he bought it for were changed, meaning he probably would have never bought it in the first place. He was, of course, not violently angry or anything like that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree that it is inappropriate to ask the new coordinator to reconsider every rule ever made. However, these rules are recent, as in days old, and were promulgated with a campaign coordinator with one foot out the door. It is not unreasonable to ask the coordinator who will actually have to live with these brand new rules to reconsider them.
Just a side note that I would take to heart if you wish to have any kind decent social interaction with people in the PFS boards. Don't insinuate that the PFS coordinator or any of the developers or staff are incompetent and negligent in their job and how much they care for the PFS community.
Alot of the people who are vocal on this board have nothing but utmost respect for the job Mike did and how far he took PFS during his tenure. Some of us have shared tables with him, drank beers with him, volunteered our time for him. He was a great coordinator. To insinuate that he was "one foot out the door" is insulting not only to him but to a lot of us who know better.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, anything that ramps up a class's power to 50% better than the class that originated that power, is a very extreme rule. Specific favored class bonuses are usually to blame for this. Whether it has worked that way for over 2 years or not, really isn't at issue. Its the fact that 50% more power just because you pick a particular race is very extreme.
The problem is, without any sort of developer input or any sort of staff indication, how are we supposed to know what is working as intended and what isn't? How do we qualify what is "extreme" and what isn't? To me, yes, many people took this class bonus, but I never really saw anyone screaming about it. Not a single word from a developer, not a single indication about why it was changed...just boom and it was done.
No offense, but I don't agree with your assessment of the power level of the FCB. The theory of it by itself sounds great but in reality it doesn't really change things all that much. As a player with total combined class levels of 48 levels of oracle, I never felt that anything that was being done was abusive or wrong. I never saw anyone who nullified a table with this FCB. I have also never had anyone complain to me about it.
I have seen summoning make an entire party obsolete. I have seen archers solo encounters before anyone has a chance to act. I have seen a level 8 magus/barbarian deal over 200 damage in a single blow consistently without the aid of spellstrike. But never have I seen anything with this FCB break things (even with animal companions...after the PFS ruling that was had), and to me that indicates that there really isn't anything wrong with it. Add that to the fact that at least 4 races in the advanced race guide have this power. I just don't see the cause for alarm.
But apparently I was wrong, and I should think "will this later be changed by a developer" before I make any concept for a character. Apparently.
(Not trying to bash on anyone specific here. I get frustrated every time I see a thread like this and people are like "Welp, you should have known. Sucks for you!" That is a toxic attitude that I will never adopt and never appreciate.)
|
|
IMO, John Compton's response to consult others was not in any way permissive. Rather, the design and development teams at Paizo have a history of discussing topics, even being sounding boards, when rulings affect PFS and how we should react to them. Further, I think he recognizes that the new CC will want to have input into any campaign rulings and an announcement of who will be taking the reins could be merely days or just a few weeks away. It might be prudent to wait until that position is filled before making any rulings on how the new errata will be adjudicated. I suggest a little patience.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the topic of the GM boon from GenCon...the way the boon is written, there are two options available to ALL GMs.
The first is a CHARACTER REBUILD with the listed restrictions. This is available to ALL GenCon GMs. If you select this option, cross the other off the sheet.
The second is EXOTIC HERITAGE meaning you gain access to a normally restricted race. While this option is also available to ALL GMs, your volunteer tier level determines which race(s) you gain access to. If you were less than a tier 1 volunteer, the tier options above you should be crossed out, leaving you access to the one applicable to your volunteer level plus those below it. Again, if you choose this option, cross the other off the sheet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree that it is inappropriate to ask the new coordinator to reconsider every rule ever made. However, these rules are recent, as in days old, and were promulgated with a campaign coordinator with one foot out the door. It is not unreasonable to ask the coordinator who will actually have to live with these brand new rules to reconsider them.Just a side note that I would take to heart if you wish to have any kind decent social interaction with people in the PFS boards. Don't insinuate that the PFS coordinator or any of the developers or staff are incompetent and negligent in their job and how much they care for the PFS community.
Alot of the people who are vocal on this board have nothing but utmost respect for the job Mike did and how far he took PFS during his tenure. Some of us have shared tables with him, drank beers with him, volunteered our time for him. He was a great coordinator. To insinuate that he was "one foot out the door" is insulting not only to him but to a lot of us who know better.
If it came off as an insult, that was not intended. It was merely a comment that he is not responsible for things that occur after his departure.
Frankly, a few individuals, most particularly FLite, have been trolling pretty hard in this thread. I apologize if my annoyance at him might have bled through the rest of my posts. I mean, FLite is telling me I have already lost when Mr. Compton has specifically stated he is considering grandfathering. The whole point of posting today was seeing if there was an update. Also, I must admit that I was a bit taken aback when I learned they hand out rebuilds as boons but heavily restrict them for characters that are significantly affected by a rule change.
|
|
So, the bottom line seems to be this, Mystic...
Having *just* created a rule to cover the precise change that was coming, what good policy purpose would be served by making an exception to that brand new rule before the first time it is put into practice to evaluate whether it serves its intended purpose?
You may reassign all of your favored class bonus at each level to any of the now-legal options.
The main issue is that, in cases like this, where there was a significant change to a FCB, one that has a noticeable and permanent effect on the PC, there is no coverage in this rule to account for side effects.
So, in the case of my sole Aasimar Oracle, who was built as a support character, with several feats spent on his channeling, and spells all spent on support options, there are several effects of this change to his only-taken FCB.
Even if he retains the same (nominal) FCB:
He will not get any benefit from it for another level, where he has been benefiting, and his allies have been benefiting from it, for a couple of levels now.
As a much less efficient support PC, I may never have built him at all, much less spent several scenarios and modules on him, now, including a special benefit from a module that is unique in PFS.
I would probably never have enjoyed playing him as I did in the past, and am not sure how much enjoyment he will provide, if all I can do on him is retrain his 5 levels worth of FCB, which went from allowing him one extra die of healing to absolutely NO effect at all right now.
With the change to the FCB, I probably would have chosen to play a different PC through Fangwood Keep, among other choices. Now, I have to determine if he is salvageable for enjoyment purposes, as much of my purpose in building him has been negatively impacted, and, in addition, the rule only lets me rechoose his FCB, not any other things that would have been chosen because of the FCB.
So, because he was focused on Channeling, I took a trait that improved his channeling. I also took some channeling feats, which may or may not remain as "good" choices with the change in focus that this errata will cause.
Note: My opinion is that the FCB rebuild rule, while nice, does not pay attention to he law of unintended consequences, and does not cover the situation where the FCB choice was part of a coordinated build plan for a PC. Yes, you can change FCB, but that won't affect other choices that may have been predicated on the original FCB taken.
Example:
I have a Sorcerer who uses the Human FCB for extra spells known.
One of the spells known taken through that option was Guidance, gained on his spell list with the trait Two-World Magic.
If that FCB gets changed to 1/2 spell known per level, instead, would he also get to change his trait, since the choice was based on using the FCB to have room for it in his spells known?
And, also, note that, in addition to losing half his "extra" spells known from this change, it would also affect things like the use of the FCB at 4th level. In this hypothetical situation, would the 3rd level FCB choice be usable with the 4th level choice to get a 1st level spell, or only a cantrip?