Request For Clarification of Rebuild Rules Or Alternatively Further "Grandfathering" After Recent Errata


Pathfinder Society

101 to 141 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
1/5

Mystic Madness wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
Mystic Madness wrote:
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.

I appreciate your reply. Thank you.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


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.

Andrew : these comments aren't particularly directed at you. Your post was just convenient

I agree that the FCB were overpowered and I'm glad that they were nerfed.

But I think that rebuilds should be allowed. The rules were clear, the people who took advantage of them did nothing the slightest bit wrong. Their characters were sufficiently seriously affected that I can see reasonable people deciding that they are no longer fun to play.

There are LOTs of overpowered options. Expecting people to not use them and punishing them when they do is just wrong. And expecting them to somehow know which overpowered options will be nerfed is just silly

Liberty's Edge 5/5

pauljathome wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


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.

Andrew : these comments aren't particularly directed at you. Your post was just convenient

I agree that the FCB were overpowered and I'm glad that they were nerfed.

But I think that rebuilds should be allowed. The rules were clear, the people who took advantage of them did nothing the slightest bit wrong. Their characters were sufficiently seriously affected that I can see reasonable people deciding that they are no longer fun to play.

There are LOTs of overpowered options. Expecting people to not use them and punishing them when they do is just wrong. And expecting them to somehow know which overpowered options will be nerfed is just silly

I admit, I am not completely versed in why the current rebuild rules are not sufficient. But you gotta admit that the current campaign leadership team has really gone above and beyond to open up more rebuild options. And he's promised to take a longer look soon.

Nobody is being punished. The campaign team is working hard to make the errata transition as painless as possible. But it also has to maintain campaign integrity as well.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Well, to be fair, there are some "clockwork" builds out there, where they need X dice to qualify for feat Y and they took exactly X*2/3 levels + FCB to get the needed dice, got the feat and then cross classed to something else, and now short of rebuilding they are no longer eligible for the feat, etc.

But "I wanted to have a level 18 channeling Oracle by level 12 and only got 14" is not really making me sad.

I feel like people really undervalue channeling, because they keep comparing it to single damage, interruptible spells. Channeling won't win battles. But it will give you that extra little edge, *as a team* to turn a TPK into a flawless victory.

Scarab Sages 3/5

FLite wrote:
Well, to be fair, there are some "clockwork" builds out there, where they need X dice to qualify for feat Y and they took exactly X*2/3 levels + FCB to get the needed dice, got the feat and then cross classed to something else, and now short of rebuilding they are no longer eligible for the feat, etc.

Yeah, these are the builds that I was talking about.

I don't have any characters affected by the FCB errata, but let me share a bit about one of my characters who was only spared by the grace of the developers.

Cosmo Berrythwaite is a halfling oracle 4, archivist bard 1, mysterious stranger gunslinger 1, pathfinder field agent 1.

Cosmo is built as a knowledge monkey. I gave him just enough levels of oracle to overcome the most debilitating part of his curse (clouded vision). With 4 levels of oracle and a couple of alternate FCBs, he was able to extend his darkvision to 60 ft. Certainly not something overly powerful.

If his FCB had changed to +1/6 oracle level toward the oracle curse instead, then he would need another level of oracle to get that bonus, and he would not benefit from the FCB at all. Moreover, if the FCB had been +1/6 from the beginning then I probably would not have given him that many levels of oracle. I would have given him only 1 or 2, and put the other levels into bard, rogue, or something else entirely.

It isn't about building the most powerful character possible. In fact, Cosmo is not very well built. I am just using his FCB to overcome some of his shortcomings.

So that small change to FCB would have a pretty large impact on how I would build this character. And it has nothing to do with having the most powerful build at the table and dominating encounters.

(You can look at his stat block in the profile of this Alias.)

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

*psst* The Fox.

You realize that your oracle Level for purposes of determining your curse is Oracle level + 1/2 everything else levels, right?

Cosmo has a Oracle level 5 as far as his curse goes without putting anything into FCB...

I'm not sure that example illustrates what you meant it to.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
I'm not sure that example illustrates what you meant it to.

It illustrates that my characters are precision built like finely-tuned watches...er...um...dammit! ;)

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

Bob Jonquet wrote:

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.

Yes, I stand corrected. I thought I had read somewhere that the rebuild was for Tier 1 GMs only - it's clear that is not the case. Thanks, Bob.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My wife got mine, anyway, Mark. GenCon boon, SchmenCon boon.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
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.

I would hope it's as you say the problem like others have posited is how to determine what rules might be viewed as extreme? How many years does it need to stay a rule to feel safe that the rug isn't leaving out from under your feet?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I consider myself a voice of calm and reason on these boards. I don't believe that I build over powered builds to unbalance the game. Instead, I try to build mechanically sound support builds. Characters that help out the entire team, and try to give everyone a chance to shine.

I found some of the phrasings in this thread very hurtful when they suggested that I did something underhanded by trying to boost the channel on my multi-classed oradin, Lyric the Singing Paladin. Did I know that her FCB was strong? Yes. So are many other FCBs that were untouched by this errata.

When the errata came out, I felt the rug was pulled out from under me. It was a complete and utter surprise. I was not expecting this, particularly since it targeted support builds -- builds that in PFS are all too rare.

Lyric is still playable. Her sunny personality and goofball humor (on a Paladin!) are the reason that I love this character so much, not her mechanics. But I had to seriously revise what I see her doing to help the team. Would I have spent an extra feat to get Channel early? I don't think so.

I will persevere, and Lyric's FCBs will now go to skill points and spells known. I have resigned myself to this change. But please... Please stop inferring that I should have "known better" or that I was in any way trying to cheat the system by building her. These statements hurt, especially when they come from posters whose views I otherwise respect and honor.

Respectfully yours,
Hmm

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, with the ACG, we knew they were doing a re-edit almost right from the get go. So anything you used from it was suspect until the errata hit the street. Nobody expected it to take a year, but that's what happened.

Things like Crane Wing had been out for two or three years before being changed.

If a players had seen the posts discussing animal companions from the moon Oracle from blood of moons that I think came out in May of 2014, and the subsequent PFS FAQ, where John Compton noted he'd had a discussion with the design team, there was a hint the FCB change could have been wider reaching more than a year ago.

But to answer your question. PFS doesn't have any say on when or how the design team handles errata. The ARG errata could have been one sitting in thier queu for over two years until the reprint. We don't know. I can't give you a safe time frame.

But common sense should tell you what is an extreme build. For starters, if an option is 50% better because of the race you choose, when no other FCB has that kind of impact, then its likely an extreme option. Use with care.

Any option that allows constant one-shot kills, slumber hex all the time, dipping classes to overcome the game balance weaknesses of other classes, dipping the add 50% or more power to certain abilities, dipping crossblooded sorcerer and taking feats, traits and items to do 2 or more damage extra per damage die, etc.

I can't fault an Archer when they take archery feats. I can't fault a cavalier when they take mounted feats. But the dubiousness of teaching your mount kung fu so he can charge over difficult terrain and through allies...

In other words, the balance of the game gives classes strengths and weaknesses, and if you manipulate the rules so you have no weaknesses while exponentially increasing your strengths, do not be surprised if a nerf happens at some point.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


In other words, the balance of the game gives classes strengths and weaknesses, and if you manipulate the rules so you have no weaknesses while exponentially increasing your strengths, do not be surprised if a nerf happens at some point.

You do realize that some of the builds severely affected are single classed builds doing nothing more extreme than picking a race for its FCB?

And your description pretty much applies to 90% of multiclass builds?

I reject the thesis that any powerful character should expect to be nerfed without recourse

Liberty's Edge 5/5

pauljathome wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


In other words, the balance of the game gives classes strengths and weaknesses, and if you manipulate the rules so you have no weaknesses while exponentially increasing your strengths, do not be surprised if a nerf happens at some point.

You do realize that some of the builds severely affected are single classed builds doing nothing more extreme than picking a race for its FCB?

And your description pretty much applies to 90% of multiclass builds?

I reject the thesis that any powerful character should expect to be nerfed without recourse

Thank you for misrepresenting what I was saying.

90% of multiclass builds do not do what I said. I have several multiclass builds. Some with Fighter to get more feats. Some where the classes nicely complement one another (mindchemist and luring cavalier is my favorite). My first character is a Rage Prophet, which requires multiclassing to even enter. The Oracle and Barbarian do nicely complement one another.

But when folks take a Barbarian with 1/Rage rage powers, and then dip a level of Lame Oracle simply so they can use the free action to activate and drop rage to use that 1/rage rage power every round, is what I'm talking about. Those folks who dip a level of Cleric of Gozreh simply to get the Growth Domain so they can enlarge in every fight in a PFS scenario is what I'm talking about.

Those who teach their animal Kung Fu just to get around the weakenesses around charging.

I have a lot of characters (22 to be exact) and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. If their weaknesses start becoming a burden that affects the chances of not only my character's survival but the entire party's, then I do something about it. Usually by buying some magical item to help.

90% of multiclassing does NOT do the above. I reject that assertion.

And by picking a race for an FCB that is significantly better than any other FCB out there, and makes that character significantly better at doing something by 50% than maybe even the primary class that has that ability, then something is askew. Apparently the design team agrees with me.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A few things coming up in this thread and the related ones that I believe should be addressed.

First, yes, the errata was pretty broad sweeping, and affects a lot of builds. That sucks for those affected. Whether or not the campaign leadership decides to allow very broad rebuilding or not, I personally do not see it as punishment. I look at it like this:

If they allow very broad rebuilds, then they are being exceptionally understanding about exactly how the changes affect certain builds, and how those changed builds can affect an individual's fun (particular for those of us who are character builders).

If they do not take that into consideration, I do not see it as punishment, I simply see it as not being terribly sympathetic.

Second, the demonization some individuals are demonstrating towards those asking for that sympathy and understanding seems incredibly out of hand. I get that not everyone enjoys this game the same way. That's perfectly fine. But to suggest that the character builder's enjoyment is in some way invalid or wrong is just ridiculous.

At what point did we move away from being a fun, lighthearted game and organization to numerous voices hellbent on making this experience more rigid than an IRS tax code? The lack of empathy and sympathy from some of the posters, some of which are even high starred VO's, is incredibly saddening.

1/5

haha, "Getting half of a level for 1 revelation/performance is definitely SOOO much stronger than getting half of a feat every level (the human option)."
I disagree, I feel it's more interesting, you get some spells already, you couldn't boost the revelations or performance level otherwise. I really wish we had more useful FCB options. Like look at the gnomes FCB for the medium compared to the halflings.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
One seems interesting and worth taking, the other seems like it'll never really be useful or worth taking.
I super hate those people that say "You should have realized it was OP and going to be nerfed" what about the Halfling FCB for the medium or the FCB for the dwarf Kineticist? Should I realize they're OP and going to be nerfed because I might take them over the HP? The gnome FCB for arcanist now that consume spells was nerfed? Should we assume that extra X feats are OP and could be nerfed since we have developer statements saying they wish they hadn't done them? should we just say "Shame on all the people that took extra rage power on a Barb, they should have known that the feat would be nerfed unannounced because you'd consider taking it every time. You dirty cheaters are probably the kind of people who used SLA to get into prestige classes early. Obviously it was SOOO OP since it caused some people to actually look at and consider playing PrC and that shouldn't happen"

If they wanted to fix things I'd say make all FCB interesting or make them open to more races. Like these three races can all take any of these three FCB.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


I have a lot of characters (22 to be exact) and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. If their weaknesses start becoming a burden that affects the chances of not only my character's survival but the entire party's, then I do something about it. Usually by buying some magical item to help.

Ironically, you'd probably approve of most of my characters since it sounds like our personal build philosophies are fairly similar.

But that is totally beside the point.

The people making what you and I consider overpowered builds are doing absolutely nothing wrong. They're not abusing rules, they're not going after edge cases. In some cases they're combining features in ways the developers may or may not have anticipated, in other cases they're doing builds that the developers CLEARLY anticipated (Aasimar using FCB to improve a revelation like channel for Life Oracles, for example, HAD to be anticipated).

And therefore, when rules change, every effort should be made to keep them happy. I accept (reluctantly) that sometimes the good of the campaign means that there is no recourse. But, at the very least, we should be sympathetic to them and NOT accuse them of badwrongfun because they built characters more powerful than we'd like.

For what it is worth, I am not intentionally misrepresenting you. I honestly think that I am correctly representing your position.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

The only thing I feel strongly about on this subject is that it hurts me every time I see "Grandfathering" so egregiously misspelled.

The Exchange 1/5

pH unbalanced wrote:
The only thing I feel strongly about on this subject is that it hurts me every time I see "Grandfathering" so egregiously misspelled.

I humbly beg forgiveness for my typo. I have spelled if correctly many times in this thread. If I could still edit it in the title, I would.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
And by picking a race for an FCB that is significantly better than any other FCB out there, and makes that character significantly better at doing something by 50% than maybe even the primary class that has that ability, then something is askew. Apparently the design team agrees with me.

It is statements like this, which is both false and misleading, by people who should know better, that makes me sad that they are in positions of pseudo-authority.

For an example, not only did Aasimar get the +1/? to their Oracle level for the purposes of determining the effect of one revelation, but it was also an FCB for Elves, and therefore, Half-Elves, as well.

So, since three races have it, it no longer qualifies as " picking a race for an FCB that is significantly better than any other FCB out there".

And that completely ignores the effects of other FCBs that were, and are, still better than this very limited benefit.

An Elf Oracle could use a single revelation, for every two levels of FCB spent, as though he were one level higher. For the Life Oracle's channeling, as an example, that was a benefit that kicked in for a visible effect only for one level out of two.

A Human Sorcerer, on the other hand, can get an extra spell known every level. That is something that takes effect right from the get-go, and has additional effect every level, not every other level.

Which one is stronger? Which one hasn't been changed, even though it was already stronger to begin with?

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Mystic Madness wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
The only thing I feel strongly about on this subject is that it hurts me every time I see "Grandfathering" so egregiously misspelled.
I humbly beg forgiveness for my typo. I have spelled if correctly many times in this thread. If I could still edit it in the title, I would.

Not only are you forgiven, but one of our awesome mods fixed it. So now I'm happy. :)

1/5

While I appreciate everyone’s point of view, I feel that this is argument has a slippery slope. If I understand your point (please correct me if I am wrong), the issue arises when an individual selects an option that negates a possible game balance condition or that boosts an ability significantly for low cost. At this point they should be prepared for a nerf. The slippery slope arises when you try to determine which option deserves a nerf, which ones are legitimate increases to a character’s powers, and what is sufficient investment to allow the game balance alteration. The argument “I know it when I see it” tends to arise in these situations.

My questions for consideration

There are options to get flight which negates dwarf movement penalties. Does this mean that dwarves should be prepared for a nerf when they get the overland flight spell since it removes a game balance impediment? How much investment is sufficient to remove a game balance impediment without it being considered “cheese?”

Some animal companions are significantly stronger than others. Does this mean that a Druid who takes a much stronger companion should be prepared for a nerf? How would it be if apes, cats, etc were all reduced to a single attack?

Why is the kung fu style to allow charging thru allies shady when used for an animal companion but not when used for a pc? Why is that choice (which requires investing in a feat chain) more problematic than other chains which allow for greatly enhanced attacks?

Mounted feats such as wheeling charge eliminate some game balance conditions in the standard cavalier by allowing turns etc. Should cavaliers be prepared for a nerf? Why is it ok to take a set of feats that allow a cavalier to charge around a corner while other options are problematic?

Why is boosting your channeling via a feat or magic item ok while boosting it thru a FCB is not? Is it because FCB is considered a minor non-typed class ability for all characters (because every character gets FCB as an additional ability to whichever class they select as favored)

My position

I am of the position that if the game designers change something, then a liberal rebuild should be allowed. I would not expect grandfathering but I do expect the ability to effectively compensate for the change. If I make the decision to buy a family of funds and the funds change yielding lower returns, I would not be content to only pick from the new funds. I would want to be able to choose a whole new family of fund since the basis for the initial choice changed. Remember, the choice for the PC was not done based upon a shady interpretation but upon clearly defined rules.

Grand Lodge

Perceived badwrongfun.

1/5

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Perceived badwrongfun.

I am unfamiliar with this phrase. What does it mean?


Badwrongfun means that even though you might be having fun your doing it wrong so your style of fun is bad.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

My cleric 1 / oracle 4 decided to just take it and retrain; using the con boon for -5 to the cost of retraining. Now she's a cleric 4 / oracle 1. I'm not happy about it, but you do what you have to do.

Unfortunately, even then her cleric channeling is terrible. She had a variant channeling on cleric because it was never going to grow and the amount healed wasn't important. Now it's her main channel, but still only half effective, which blows.

And variant channeling isn't one of the class abilities covered by retraining, so the character is pretty much useless as a healer now. Her main focus was harm undead and the equipment channel feat anyways, which still works, but she get's pressed into the healer role often enough for it to be a pain.

1/5

Wow. I am not sure how my post could be considered as such since I was illustrating my point about the difficulty as to where do you draw the line (trying to pull various examples which share the same qualities). I apologize if anyone was offended and will refrain in the future.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

tomas rosenberg wrote:
Wow. I am not sure how my post could be considered as such since I was illustrating my point about the difficulty as to where do you draw the line (trying to pull various examples which share the same qualities). I apologize if anyone was offended and will refrain in the future.

I don't think anyone was saying you engage in badwrong fun; rather, in response to the examples you posted as questions, such as:

tomas rosenberg wrote:
Why is the kung fu style to allow charging thru allies shady when used for an animal companion but not when used for a pc? Why is that choice (which requires investing in a feat chain) more problematic than other chains which allow for greatly enhanced attacks?

the phrase "badwrongfun" was an answer. The reason some people draw a distinction between those options is that it's not their preferred play style.

I didn't take blackboodtroll's comments to be about YOU, but rather, a response to your questions about "why."

My 2 coppers, at any rate.

Silver Crusade 3/5

I read that the same way as Mark.

Community Manager

Removed some posts and responses. Tone is very hard to read through text, and we should all keep that in mind.

Grand Lodge

Yeah.

I was answering the why.

I play Chess with Blue and Green pieces, and you play with Black and White pieces.

So, one of is wrong.

That is the kind thinking that gets bad reactions, FAQ, and Errata.

That is what I am trying to get across.

No personal attacks of any kind.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

John Compton wrote:

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.

Any movement on this?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's one thing to grandfather a race choice, but I think all players should be playing under the same set of rules, so I'm against grandfathering mechanics. (and I do have a Life Oracle that's affected by this which I'll probably just keep as is.)

A more liberal rebuild option.. that I can get with.

3/5

I've been trying to be patient, but I too am wondering on the state of this, as I've been holding off on playing my bard ever since this was announced.

101 to 141 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Request For Clarification of Rebuild Rules Or Alternatively Further "Grandfathering" After Recent Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society