Please no more nerfs


Pathfinder Society

451 to 500 of 708 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

So that's why I keep getting cease and desist letters.

At least it isn't for the Fifty Shades Of Tammy fan fiction I keep submitting. :-)

Big relief!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

It's not about business at all, to my knowledge; I'm no better informed about that than anyone else here.

My guess is: as designers and developers come and go, standards of game balance shift. Someone thought it was a good idea at that time, and observing it in play has led one or more members of the current staff to determine that it needed to change.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

plaidwandering wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
You only need to have your party trapped underground for 2 months, healing the hard way because your healer died, to appreciate those stones. I thought 100 wandermeal would be all I'd ever need... I was very wrong.
This discussion of it having essentially zero value is PFS specific. Home game stuff is a completely separate issue, and it is more likely to at least have some marginal value there. The resonance's were developed in a pathfinder society specific book, thus the lack of value in PFS before the resonance is relevant.

Actually there was one scenario where this MIGHT issue.

Spoiler:
Waking Rune: we WRECKED the room the return tokens were in, talking hurricane force winds GM ruled they were all destroyed Had the stone lords companion make us an air shaft till we could get out

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Isabelle Lee wrote:


That lack of value, whether perceived or real, is probably what led to it having such a bonkers resonance power in the first place.

I'm pretty sure if I turned over a slotless 4,500 gp item that gave constant protection from mind control (and sustenance!) today, I'd be receiving a very sternly worded comment about it.

But what has changed culturally in the development phase to produce that distinctive reaction?

Sorry if that's a bit deep into the business-side, there, and it may be unclear how it came about.

Time. When Seekers of Secrets was written the developers and authors did not have the same command of the game and whats too much as they do 9 years later.

3/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Time. When Seekers of Secrets was written the developers and authors did not have the same command of the game and whats too much as they do 9 years later.

unfortunately I'm not seeing this. There are still tons of never used trash options...and they are usually unable to moderately nerf something that they think is overpowered in most cases turn it into more never used junk. Several recent FAQ answers are highly inconsistent with other rules or the game as it seems most play it, and bardic masterpieces are still in limbo ;p

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.
plaidwandering wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Time. When Seekers of Secrets was written the developers and authors did not have the same command of the game and whats too much as they do 9 years later.
unfortunately I'm not seeing this. There are still tons of never used trash options...and they are usually unable to moderately nerf something that they think is overpowered in most cases turn it into more never used junk. Several recent FAQ answers are highly inconsistent with other rules or the game as it seems most play it, and bardic masterpieces are still in limbo ;p

I'm not seeing it either. I think maybe there's a change in perspective and culture in development but saying the current team is "better" than previous ones is a bold claim to me.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

plaidwandering wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Time. When Seekers of Secrets was written the developers and authors did not have the same command of the game and whats too much as they do 9 years later.
unfortunately I'm not seeing this. There are still tons of never used trash options...and they are usually unable to moderately nerf something that they think is overpowered in most cases turn it into more never used junk. Several recent FAQ answers are highly inconsistent with other rules or the game as it seems most play it, and bardic masterpieces are still in limbo ;p

I partake you haven't been around that long because it's still a clear upgrade. Hell there is a reason why I didn't include the chained monk and the Amulet of Mighty Fists because of the circumstances of their improvements.

3/5

Can you rephrase/clarify, I am not sure what this post is saying other than making an incorrect assumption about me personally.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:
plaidwandering wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Time. When Seekers of Secrets was written the developers and authors did not have the same command of the game and whats too much as they do 9 years later.
unfortunately I'm not seeing this. There are still tons of never used trash options...and they are usually unable to moderately nerf something that they think is overpowered in most cases turn it into more never used junk. Several recent FAQ answers are highly inconsistent with other rules or the game as it seems most play it, and bardic masterpieces are still in limbo ;p
I'm not seeing it either. I think maybe there's a change in perspective and culture in development but saying the current team is "better" than previous ones is a bold claim to me.

I did NOT say the current team is better than the old team. I am saying that the current team, which includes most of the old team, has more experience with what works, what doesn't, and what's too powerful and what's not.

Silver Crusade 1/5

Tallow wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
plaidwandering wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Time. When Seekers of Secrets was written the developers and authors did not have the same command of the game and whats too much as they do 9 years later.
unfortunately I'm not seeing this. There are still tons of never used trash options...and they are usually unable to moderately nerf something that they think is overpowered in most cases turn it into more never used junk. Several recent FAQ answers are highly inconsistent with other rules or the game as it seems most play it, and bardic masterpieces are still in limbo ;p
I'm not seeing it either. I think maybe there's a change in perspective and culture in development but saying the current team is "better" than previous ones is a bold claim to me.

I did NOT say the current team is better than the old team. I am saying that the current team, which includes most of the old team, has more experience with what works, what doesn't, and what's too powerful and what's not.

Curious. In this post you seem to be implying that power creep is a thing. That appears incompatible with your statement that design team knowledge of power balance has simultaneously increased. Who's making these "more powerful" additions to the game, if not the design team?

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

In reference to an alleged disconnect with "game as it seems most play it", I'd say that how some isolated groups and prolific posters play the game doesn't equate to how most play it. I suspect they have a good handle on how most play it, as they have hundreds of GM's with direct communication channels to report how things are played.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

plaidwandering wrote:
Can you rephrase/clarify, I am not sure what this post is saying other than making an incorrect assumption about me personally.

The development team from years back is so much more worst when it came to that sort of stuff. I don't think I've ever seen anything broken on the scale that I've seen back when I first started playing. They eventually reversed the decision and made improvements but they never should have entered into the state of an entire chapter of multiple books are now broken levels of errata.

3/5

James Risner wrote:
In reference to an alleged disconnect with "game as it seems most play it", I'd say that how some isolated groups and prolific posters play the game doesn't equate to how most play it. I suspect they have a good handle on how most play it, as they have hundreds of GM's with direct communication channels to report how things are played.

I'm talking about arrows here btw

3/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
plaidwandering wrote:
Can you rephrase/clarify, I am not sure what this post is saying other than making an incorrect assumption about me personally.
The development team from years back is so much more worst when it came to that sort of stuff. I don't think I've ever seen anything broken on the scale that I've seen back when I first started playing. They eventually reversed the decision and made improvements but they never should have entered into the state of an entire chapter of multiple books are now broken levels of errata.

Thanks, I understand now, I just don't agree...I think it's a shift in philosophy. It's just a very odd stance because well...core wizard/clr/dru still trumps everything they've ever reduced

Scarab Sages 5/5

supervillan wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
plaidwandering wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Time. When Seekers of Secrets was written the developers and authors did not have the same command of the game and whats too much as they do 9 years later.
unfortunately I'm not seeing this. There are still tons of never used trash options...and they are usually unable to moderately nerf something that they think is overpowered in most cases turn it into more never used junk. Several recent FAQ answers are highly inconsistent with other rules or the game as it seems most play it, and bardic masterpieces are still in limbo ;p
I'm not seeing it either. I think maybe there's a change in perspective and culture in development but saying the current team is "better" than previous ones is a bold claim to me.

I did NOT say the current team is better than the old team. I am saying that the current team, which includes most of the old team, has more experience with what works, what doesn't, and what's too powerful and what's not.

Curious. In this post you seem to be implying that power creep is a thing. That appears incompatible with your statement that design team knowledge of power balance has simultaneously increased. Who's making these "more powerful" additions to the game, if not the design team?

Power creep is not necessarily new more powerful additions, but rather the totality of everything added over a period of time that causes unintended combinations. Over 9 years this has become pervasive.

But you can see some major steps by both PFS, in consultation with the design and development teams by creating campaign clarifications for books likely to not get errata or FAQ, and the design team with some of the "stealth errata" we see in Ultimate Intrigue and the reprint changes in Adventurers Guide.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

Silver Crusade

plaidwandering wrote:

The price rebalance reasoning on the resonance stuff really boggles my mind.

Can anyone honestly claim they spent 4k for the sustain without food ever in PFS? The value of that is zero at the level you budget one of these.

Yes, they can. Twice.

3/5

Ignatious the Seeker of Flame wrote:
Yes, they can. Twice.

It's been gone over, it's a self-assigned RP purchase. No actual need is being filled. Except for those 1 in 500 scenarios where they want survival to be a thing, no one ever asks you to eat, go to the latrine, feed your familiar, polish your armor, patch holes in your tunic etc. These are not PFS game concerns in general practice. Those few scenarios that do are generally low enough level they are below the budget threshold for this item. Extreme edge cases fighting a rune lord don't really count, anyone fighting him should be prepared enough to have some other solution for something as basic as food.

Please stop trying to pretend food is a real concern beyond the lowest levels of PFS in an extreme few survival scenarios.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
plaidwandering wrote:
DesolateHarmony wrote:
I have a clear spindle ioun stone on my -1 character, a sorceress. I bought it very late (chronicle 24, 9th level) because I didn't have the ring slot for a ring of sustenance. I found out about the resonance power after I bought it. I don't have one on another character. So, I guess I am a counterexample of the reason to get one, and I don't really mind the change. I now have slotted my scarlet and blue sphere for the +1 to Will saves.
I knew someone would eventually come and post a no really I bought it for the sustenance. The problem is, it's a self constructed false need. There's still no value. PFS just doesn't put you in food gathering relevant situations without rare exception, and in those the stone probably would have been taken away for it anyway, or there's some other gimmick to the scenario.(scenarios usually too low lvl as well) You, like the mammoth guy are intentionally making a purchase for no mechanical benefit in PFS. Now I get spending money for RP purposes, outfits, tools, PP on vanities etc...but most of us aren't going to blow 4,000 GP on it.

It was a need for me because my Angel doesn't eat after he ascended. There was also this time in the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. . . Oh, and that time I was trapped in Hell for an unknown amount of time. And, come to think of it, all those long trips I've taken to fix yet another of the Societies screw ups. I also happen to knoe for a fact it saved at least one little girl in a collapsed school beforr she gave it to me.

3/5

Ignatious the Seeker of Flame wrote:
It was a need for me because my Angel doesn't eat after he ascended. There was also this time in the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. . . Oh, and that time I was trapped in Hell for an unknown amount of time. And, co e to think of it, all those long trips I've taken to fix yet another of the Societies screw ups. I also happen to knoe for a fact it saved at least one little girl in a collapsed school beforr she gave it to me.

RP need, low level scenario, NPC in a storyline...you're actually just reinforcing my point.

Silver Crusade

plaidwandering wrote:
Ignatious the Seeker of Flame wrote:
Yes, they can. Twice.

It's been gone over, it's a self-assigned RP purchase. No actual need is being filled. Except for those 1 in 500 scenarios where they want survival to be a thing, no one ever asks you to eat, go to the latrine, feed your familiar, polish your armor, patch holes in your tunic etc. These are not PFS game concerns in general practice. Those few scenarios that do are generally low enough level they are below the budget threshold for this item. Extreme edge cases fighting a rune lord don't really count, anyone fighting him should be prepared enough to have some other solution for something as basic as food.

Please stop trying to pretend food is a real concern beyond the lowest levels of PFS in an extreme few survival scenarios.

Actually I think its just you asserting that as if it where a undesputable fact and being disagreed with by a few folks, but sure, happy to move on.

But Im not sure Id call 14th level low (or the lowest), levels.

3/5

temple of empyreal enlightenment is 1-5, something level 14 is not a PFS scenario which is what I am talking about

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I am talking about a 12+ PFS module. Again, not needed to eat or drink has come up a few times. Its not common, because most PFS DMs ignore it in play, especially in all those "Your trip was uneventful. Two months later. . ." scenario setups, but it does have some mechanical value at times.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
plaidwandering wrote:
The resonance's were developed in a pathfinder society specific book, thus the lack of value in PFS before the resonance is relevant.

That lack of value, whether perceived or real, is probably what led to it having such a bonkers resonance power in the first place.

I'm pretty sure if I turned over a slotless 4,500 gp item that gave constant protection from mind control (and sustenance!) today, I'd be receiving a very sternly worded comment about it.

I'm sorry, how is that "bonkers"? It seems like a pretty spot on price range, considering its a "slotless" item that is very easy to have stolen, destroyed, or targeted for dispelling, requires a second magic item for the other power to function, and that power is basically a fraction of a almost universal level one spell. That spell already being very limited in usefulness as is.

It annoys me because I try to avoid gear like the Ring of Protection and Cloak of Resistance to disprove the "Big 6". Items like this are interesting and occasionally useful, but and give reasons to branch out to other things besides a Ring of Protection or whatever.

It is (was) a perfectly fine item, and there was no reason to alter it. It offered half the benefits of a Ring of Sustenance for almost double the cost, and had a special rider Resonating power. Both abilities where only a fraction of the two things they combined, and in my opinion, neither the. Sustenance power or the Protection from Evil aspects where the more desirable ones taken, (reduced sleep or immunity to summoned creature's touch).

Out of 25 is characters, I might have 4 or 5, maybe, and I know that two of them, all the way up into the level 10ish range have never even used them. I even forgot one had it the one time it should have mattered.

This seems like a trend Ive seen pop up around the time of Horror and Occult Adventures advising terrible DMing techniques to rob PCs of agency and build abilities so that "the story" can work.

The current version of the Clear Spindle Stone is absolutely bonkers as far as price for function. A one use spell that destroys the item pretty much kills the item. Especially as, for me, the only characters that had it can already cast the spell themselves, the intent being to protect the party when others get hit.

Scarab Sages 3/5

plaidwandering wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
You only need to have your party trapped underground for 2 months, healing the hard way because your healer died, to appreciate those stones. I thought 100 wandermeal would be all I'd ever need... I was very wrong.
This discussion of it having essentially zero value is PFS specific. Home game stuff is a completely separate issue, and it is more likely to at least have some marginal value there. The resonance's were developed in a pathfinder society specific book, thus the lack of value in PFS before the resonance is relevant.

....that was a PFS game. It went very, very badly. Trial by Machine was more a trial by dinner. Also where I learned the intricacies of cannibalism on Golarion.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
The current version of the Clear Spindle Stone is absolutely bonkers as far as price for function. A one use spell that destroys the item pretty much kills the item.

It's only destroyed if you use the power as an immediate action instead of using it beforehand to activate a 12 minute protection from evil/good/law/chaos

Edit: the full text under the spoiler.

Resonance clear spindle:
The wearer can cast protection from chaos/evil/good/law on himself once per day (CL 12th). He can activate this ability as an immediate action, but doing so drains the ioun stone of its magic, turning it into a dull gray ioun stone.

Silver Crusade

Angel Hunter D wrote:
plaidwandering wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
You only need to have your party trapped underground for 2 months, healing the hard way because your healer died, to appreciate those stones. I thought 100 wandermeal would be all I'd ever need... I was very wrong.
This discussion of it having essentially zero value is PFS specific. Home game stuff is a completely separate issue, and it is more likely to at least have some marginal value there. The resonance's were developed in a pathfinder society specific book, thus the lack of value in PFS before the resonance is relevant.
....that was a PFS game. It went very, very bad.

Like I tried to point out, this character has <had> both the Clear Spindel and the Ring of Sustenance, and a permanent (limited) Protect from Evil feat.

3/5

Angel Hunter D wrote:
....that was a PFS game. It went very, very badly. Trial by Machine was more a trial by dinner. Also where I learned the intricacies of cannibalism on Golarion.

Its a 1-5, so item not relevant. Also...two months of natural healing seems quite a bit far fetched. Your GM letting this go on two months is a bit out of hand too. This was supposed to be a simple skill building trip, they would have come after you sooner.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

It bears mentioning that the new version is not a 100% downgrade, either. While it lacks the always-on total immunity to mental influence of the original, there are some newly gained advantages.

It now functions against all alignments, not just evil; in addition, it grants the full benefit of the spells in question, including resistance bonuses on saves, deflection bonus to AC, and the hedging out of summoned monsters.

In terms of effect-for-price, it's now much more comparable to existing spell-in-a-can items like the (also contentiously errata'ed) feather step slippers. And it still does the sustenance thing.

1/5

Kalindlara wrote:

It bears mentioning that the new version is not a 100% downgrade, either. While it lacks the always-on total immunity to mental influence of the original, there are some newly gained advantages.

It now functions against all alignments, not just evil; in addition, it grants the full benefit of the spells in question, including resistance bonuses on saves, deflection bonus to AC, and the hedging out of summoned monsters.

In terms of effect-for-price, it's now much more comparable to existing spell-in-a-can items like the (also contentiously errata'ed) feather step slippers. And it still does the sustenance thing.

You sure about that? Damanta's spoiler could be read like that, but I'm reading that as "you may cast one of the Protection spells", rather than "you may cast a merged super-Protection spell." If my reading is right, it doesn't function against all alignments, it functions against any one alignment. That means you still have to guess which alignment is going to be trying to mind-control you in the next 12 minutes. In pretty much any circumstance (especially in PFS), "Evil" is the most reasonable choice there, and you'll still have the problem of "oh, no, this guys is totally Chaotic Neutral, really!"

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I think there's an argument for either interpretation, but even going with the more conservative interpretation of "pick one", that's still broader than "only evil, nothing else, no choices".

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
I think there's an argument for either interpretation, but even going with the more conservative interpretation of "pick one", that's still broader than "only evil, nothing else, no choices".

Except for the fact that if one did 'Protection from Chaos' with the 1/day thing, and that was the magic protection roulette number, then the GM is going to think in the back of their mind that the player is cheating/has advance knowledge of the scenario.

...or may just go 'well, it's only been Prot. Evil in the past, so that's what we're going with in this session, even though it may have been FAQ'd or errat'd or whatevs'.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I think there's an argument for either interpretation, but even going with the more conservative interpretation of "pick one", that's still broader than "only evil, nothing else, no choices".
Except for the fact that if one did 'Protection from Chaos' with the 1/day thing, and that was the magic protection roulette number, then the GM is going to think in the back of their mind that the player is cheating/has advance knowledge of the scenario.

While there's some validity to this concern, it doesn't take away from my point about the item being more versatile. There are any number of reasons why you might choose a specific alignment in the context of a scenario.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
...or may just go 'well, it's only been Prot. Evil in the past, so that's what we're going with in this session, even though it may have been FAQ'd or errat'd or whatevs'.

This, on the other hand... I'm not sure "GM explicitly violates PFS rules" is a problem with the item. If this sort of thing happens, I recommend contacting your local Venture-Officer.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
...or may just go 'well, it's only been Prot. Evil in the past, so that's what we're going with in this session, even though it may have been FAQ'd or errat'd or whatevs'.
This, on the other hand... I'm not sure "GM explicitly violates PFS rules" is a problem with the item. If this sort of thing happens, I recommend contacting your local Venture-Officer.

'Expect Table Variation' v. 'GM explicity violating PFS rules'

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

There's a lot of space between the two, Wei Ji.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
There's a lot of space between the two, Wei Ji.

I have been told by GMs that blunt arrows aren't a thing, and if they were, they'd only do non-lethal.

I've had GMs who have told me to my face that a three-round cast spell could be cast in one round.

There are far too many rules on paper *to begin with* that when a player presents something from the forums/site (that most GMs aren't up to date on, as GMing Pathfinder for most folks is not a full-time job) that a GM is presented with two choices:

Take the player at face value

OR

Disallow use of item/etc due to not knowing enough about the situation.

...this is one of several reasons, including a lack of personal time, that I'm not a GM-herder. Because I'd be compelled to side with a GM who did the latter in an effort to keep a table moving...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is one of the reasons why having a legal source (or, in the case of items modified by clarifications, a copy of the Campaign Clarifications) is important. Show them where it says "protection from chaos/evil/good/law" in your source, and they won't have a leg to stand on.

While it's important to keep the game moving, that isn't carte blanche to do whatever one pleases as a GM, nor is it something the system should bend over backwards to fix.

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
This is one of the reasons why having a legal source (or, in the case of items modified by clarifications, a copy of the Campaign Clarifications) is important. Show them where it says "protection from chaos/evil/good/law" in your source, and they won't have a leg to stand on.

Rules arguments create legs out of nothing at a rate that would astonish centipede summoners.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:


In terms of effect-for-price, it's now much more comparable to existing spell-in-a-can items like the (also contentiously errata'ed) feather step slippers. And it still does the sustenance thing.

It was overshadowed by the jingasa, but that nerf wasn't contentious it also obliterated an item into useless garbage. It made it a hundred times more effective to just buy a wand (even if you can't, someone in the party can- and the base home game assumption for PFS makes that MORE likely than PFs, not less)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damanta wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
The current version of the Clear Spindle Stone is absolutely bonkers as far as price for function. A one use spell that destroys the item pretty much kills the item.

It's only destroyed if you use the power as an immediate action instead of using it beforehand to activate a 12 minute protection from evil/good/law/chaos

Edit: the full text under the spoiler.
** spoiler omitted **

The thing is, is "but doing so drains the ioun stone of its magic, turning it into a dull gray ioun stone" refering to using the Protection from alignment effect or doing so as an immediate action? When I read it, it sounds like the former, and the real potential for a rather expensive item to be destroyed when a DM disagrees with a specific interpritation. It would have be3n better to say somehing like "the Resonance Power stops working for 1 day if used as an Immediate action", making the option a reasonable one to actually use.

Generally speaking, the two Alignments I am actually concerned about being protected from are Evil and all the Neutral ones that normally Protection from Alignment does not help with, so adding Protection From Chaos, Good, and Law, to me is pretty meaningless. And like I said, for all of the characters that I have that actually have the item, its now just become effectly a scroll of something I can already do anyway, and already have prepaired consistently. Even if it is only using the Immediate action casting that destroys it, well thats basically the one rewson I would opt for this item, which is now just rediculously expensive, (a Ring of Sustenance and a Shining Wayfinder, or wands scrolls of Prot from Evil is cheaper and does much more). They are actually a better and wiser investment now, too, because I can use those Wands and Scrolls on others, as well as the Shining Wayfinder, or hand them to other characters to use as needed, while the Clear Spindel, if transfered to someone else becomes useless for a solid week.

In essence, as it pertains to me and nearly any realistic reason I would desire this item, it has been rendered pointless over what seems like a personal pet peeve. I dislike that, but I also dislike the direction the game might be heading towards with possible creative motivations behind calls like this.

In regards to the Lore Warden, the wifey's main character is a Lore Wardnen/Chained Rogue 11, waiting to do Eyes of the Ten as others catch up. Depending on how this turns out, and PFS leadership's responces are not filling us with confidence, she is probably just going to walk away from PFS rather than struggle to rebuild.

PFS and PF have so many issues, and these two things are what has been decided on to "fix"?

Dark Archive

Sorry for your wife's one character DM Beckett. The great thing about PFS is you can just make more characters. I currently have a 15 Sorc 15 Flame Oracle several 10's a few 9's, a 7, and now 5.

The stable grows every day! Just make something new and move forward.
I've had to rebuild a synth summoner, so I understand why and how you'd be upset, but no reason to stop playing.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, (for her). Its not her only character, but the her first for PFS, the one she is most invested in, and also been waiting to finish up with. She is the type of player that dislikes all the number crunching, so possibly rebuilding and/scrapping the character, depending on just how it all turns out, might be too much, if it hasn't been ruled on already. Im just coming out of the field for a month, so Im behind, still.

Grand Lodge

DM Beckett wrote:
Thanks, (for her). Its not her only character, but the her first for PFS, the one she is most invested in, and also been waiting to finish up with. She is the type of player that dislikes all the number crunching, so possibly rebuilding and/scrapping the character, depending on just how it all turns out, might be too much, if it hasn't been ruled on already. Im just coming out of the field for a month, so Im behind, still.

Don't they usually grandfather these things? I still have a classic summoner because she was 5th level when "Un-chained" came out. But then, I have also never used an archetype that has been changed, so they may treat them differently. I hope not though. It would be a rather d**k move not to.

Shadow Lodge

Who knows. I would think so, but there have also been plenty of examples of them not, and one would think if grandfathering in was the case, that would have been the number one thing that John Compton mentioned in this thread, in big, bold caps.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Item changes are usually nerf hammered on the spot character changes are more likely to be grandfathered.

Silver Crusade 1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Grandfathering is not always a sufficient solution.

It does not address the fact that content has been purchased, in good faith and in accordance with the rules of the campaign, that can never be used for the purpose that it was purchased for.

If I don't actually have levels in Lore Warden when the grandfathering is announced then I never get to use the content I purchased at all. (And I expressly purchased it for PFS, not any other purpose). Even if I have one character protected by grandfathering, I still lose the opportunity to build and play other character concepts that use the original content.

This is the worst aspect of the nerf policy; it undermines consumer confidence in the product.

I'll give a concrete example: I recently purchased Faiths & Philosophies because I want to make a character with the Crocodile Domain. The familiar and the sneak attack granted by that domain, as well as the fluff that goes with it, are essential components to a particular character concept that I want to play. I can have no certainty as at this moment that Paizo are not going to nerf the Crocodile Domain in an imminent publication/errata/FAQ, before I ever get to play this character.

Am I a mug for purchasing this product as the campaign rules require?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in a similar position. At this point, I really only buy Pathfinder Products in order to use in PFS. Undermining that is just going to lead me to buy less or find other games instead.

It is what it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More Nerfs! More Nerfs! More Nerfs!

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the above sentiment.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

2 people marked this as a favorite.
supervillan wrote:

Grandfathering is not always a sufficient solution.

It does not address the fact that content has been purchased, in good faith and in accordance with the rules of the campaign, that can never be used for the purpose that it was purchased for.

If I don't actually have levels in Lore Warden when the grandfathering is announced then I never get to use the content I purchased at all. (And I expressly purchased it for PFS, not any other purpose). Even if I have one character protected by grandfathering, I still lose the opportunity to build and play other character concepts that use the original content.

This is the worst aspect of the nerf policy; it undermines consumer confidence in the product.

I'll give a concrete example: I recently purchased Faiths & Philosophies because I want to make a character with the Crocodile Domain. The familiar and the sneak attack granted by that domain, as well as the fluff that goes with it, are essential components to a particular character concept that I want to play. I can have no certainty as at this moment that Paizo are not going to nerf the Crocodile Domain in an imminent publication/errata/FAQ, before I ever get to play this character.

Am I a mug for purchasing this product as the campaign rules require?

Rather than debate the reasons people buy Pathfinder books, here's what John said on the matter (purchased books being nerfed) up thread.

John Compton wrote:

I gather there's some confusion and concern about legal versions of resources.

Should the Additional Resources for Adventurer's Guide require using the more recent version of a legal character option, having any version of that resource will be sufficient for Additional Resources purposes. You don't need to buy a new book to use an option you already had.

So you don't need to rebuy anything--you are out no additional funds. The rules for the game of Pathfinder have been updated, patched, errated, nerfed--whatever you want to call it. Pathfinder Society is predicated on following the rules for Pathfinder.

And I understand that you're upset by that, but those are the rules for PFS. They are even highlighted in the Guide.

Guide to Organized Play, Season 8, pg. 8 wrote:

PLAYTESTS AND ERRATA

The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a living game, and whether in the form of a playtest that varies from its final incarnation, conversion from the 3.5 rules set to the Pathfinder RPG, or errata or FAQ for the core rules, sometimes game elements change over the course of a PC’s career.

What follows on that same page are instructions on how to update your character should things be changed.

None of this should ever be a surprise to anyone that reads the Guide and plays PFS.

Again, I am sympathetic that you're negatively effected by these changes, but that's a side effect of a living game. Pathfinder is constantly changing, growing, and restructuring it's elements in order to stay vibrant. Part of the enjoyment (at least for me) is finding ways to get the most out of the options that are available.

I hope you can find some enjoyment there as well.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:

Rather than debate the reasons people buy Pathfinder books, here's what John said on the matter (purchased books being nerfed) up thread.

John Compton wrote:

I gather there's some confusion and concern about legal versions of resources.

Should the Additional Resources for Adventurer's Guide require using the more recent version of a legal character option, having any version of that resource will be sufficient for Additional Resources purposes. You don't need to buy a new book to use an option you already had.

So you don't need to rebuy anything--you are out no additional funds.

Note, though, that this says you will be able to continue to use the item - it does not guarantee that you will be able to use it as if the original rules governing it were still in force.

451 to 500 of 708 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Please no more nerfs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.