|
I don't think that people are taking these things in a negative light so much as that to most people they are just really negative changes to the game.
This is the crux of it - you see it as negative, others don't. "Most" needs to be based on the whole campaign, and not just the vocal 0.1% or so who post here. It's very difficult to get past the bias that our own opinions represent the majority, especially when we are in an echo chamber like these forums.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not so sure that chastising people for a silly spending habit or their opinions on whether Paizo product is worth purchasing is really appropriate or germane to this conversation.
It is not often I agree with Tallow on things, but on this one we're in agreement.
Could we move back towards the topic at hand, namely how to avoid 'nerfing' previously written content without invalidating newer content capability?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
No it really is a silly stance because well you agreed with the guy who for most people admitted to a really horrible spending habit.It's scary to buy your unreliable products.This is kind of a silly stance.Luckily, whether a person's stance has your seal of approval or not, we still get to have our stances anyway. So if Paizo's issues are not fixed, that's OK, I'll put my money toward other games. No worries. So really, it's just down to whether Paizo wants the money from the customers they used to have, and if so, are they willing to address those concerns in order to get that money back.
I'm not so sure that chastising people for a silly spending habit or their opinions on whether Paizo product is worth purchasing is really appropriate or germane to this conversation.
Yeah it is. You're playing a game where the reasonable expectation is that mechanics change. Why are you buying a book for a single feat when mechanics change?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS the way to not nerf stuff changed in other books is to have both be legal. Nothing in Adventure's Guide says it's supposed to replace the old versions. So the way to not nerf stuff in PFS is to not have the new stuff that has the same name and similar mechanics overwrite the old stuff that should still be legal.
Lore warden HAS NOT actually changed, just there's another lore warden that is similar. Nothing requires PFS to not allow both.
Now if Adventure's Guide said that the stuff here was supposed to be an update for any material in it or something then PFS should remove the old and there's not much for them to do about it. But as it stands, PFS can just allow both and still be following unaltered PF rules.
*Note this is different then when a book gets errata'd to actually change the class and then propagating the change into other books that also had the stats for that (like jingasa). They should still do that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is kind of a silly stance. Because if the product was unreliable, we wouldn't be getting any errata whatsoever.So if something has problems that need to be fixed, that proves it's reliable, and any other opinion is silly?
And frankly, not everything gets errata. Until the campaign clarifications document (and with the lone exception of Adventurer's Armory), splat books did not get errata, because they did not get reprinted. As such, FAQ answers are virtually non-existent for these books as well.
And these are the books that most need errata, because they are the ones that have the least attention paid to continuity with the rest of the rules set.
|
|
In PFS the way to not nerf stuff changed in other books is to have both be legal. Nothing in Adventure's Guide says it's supposed to replace the old versions. So the way to not nerf stuff in PFS is to not have the new stuff that has the same name and similar mechanics overwrite the old stuff that should still be legal.
Lore warden HAS NOT actually changed, just there's another lore warden that is similar. Nothing requires PFS to not allow both.
Now if Adventure's Guide said that the stuff here was supposed to be an update for any material in it or something then PFS should remove the old and there's not much for them to do about it. But as it stands, PFS can just allow both and still be following unaltered PF rules.
*Note this is different then when a book gets errata'd to actually change the class and then propagating the change into other books that also had the stats for that (like jingasa). They should still do that.
This way madness lies.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah it is. You're playing a game where the reasonable expectation is that mechanics change. Why are you buying a book for a single feat when mechanics change?No it really is a silly stance because well you agreed with the guy who for most people admitted to a really horrible spending habit.It's scary to buy your unreliable products.This is kind of a silly stance.Luckily, whether a person's stance has your seal of approval or not, we still get to have our stances anyway. So if Paizo's issues are not fixed, that's OK, I'll put my money toward other games. No worries. So really, it's just down to whether Paizo wants the money from the customers they used to have, and if so, are they willing to address those concerns in order to get that money back.
I'm not so sure that chastising people for a silly spending habit or their opinions on whether Paizo product is worth purchasing is really appropriate or germane to this conversation.
They have a right to purchase things in any way they wish. This thread is not about how people choose to purchase things.
Lets stop attacking the people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not so sure that chastising people for a silly spending habit or their opinions on whether Paizo product is worth purchasing is really appropriate or germane to this conversation.
It is not often I agree with Tallow on things, but on this one we're in agreement.
Could we move back towards the topic at hand, namely how to avoid 'nerfing' previously written content without invalidating newer content capability?
I generally don't agree with the entire premise of this thread. But then, I think I've made that pretty clear throughout.
|
|
This way madness lies.In PFS the way to not nerf stuff changed in other books is to have both be legal. Nothing in Adventure's Guide says it's supposed to replace the old versions. So the way to not nerf stuff in PFS is to not have the new stuff that has the same name and similar mechanics overwrite the old stuff that should still be legal.
Lore warden HAS NOT actually changed, just there's another lore warden that is similar. Nothing requires PFS to not allow both.
Now if Adventure's Guide said that the stuff here was supposed to be an update for any material in it or something then PFS should remove the old and there's not much for them to do about it. But as it stands, PFS can just allow both and still be following unaltered PF rules.
*Note this is different then when a book gets errata'd to actually change the class and then propagating the change into other books that also had the stats for that (like jingasa). They should still do that.
Unless the PDT state that it's supposed to be a replacement there's no reason to assume it's a replacement. We've had this before in PFS that two archetypes or items with the same name but different stuff in different books come out and both are legal. We didn't ban the rogue when the updated rogue came out.
So PFS doesn't HAVE to replace stuff since the core line hasn't replaced them. And not replacing stuff would be the only way for them to not "nerf" already existing stuff.
Not saying that I think they shouldn't replace the stuff, just that if we want PFS to not nerf existing stuff it would be by not removing it when it's not required to be removed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the PDT state that it's supposed to be a replacement there's no reason to assume it's a replacement.
The track record of "new and updated things" is a reason to CONCLUDE they're going to try to make the swap. And to prime the grarg engines to try to get that not to happen.
|
|
Unless the PDT state that it's supposed to be a replacement there's no reason to assume it's a replacement.The track record of "new and updated things" is a reason to CONCLUDE they're going to try to make the swap. And to prime the grarg engines to try to get that not to happen.
I agree. I'm just advocating the actual view needed to address the OP's request to not nerf stuff in PFS due to new books coming out.
Like I agree that the PDT meant for these reprints here to be corrections to the other versions, and that PFS should implement them as corrections, pretending that it's errata for the original source. And that that's the very likely thing they are going to do.
|
|
This way madness lies.In PFS the way to not nerf stuff changed in other books is to have both be legal. Nothing in Adventure's Guide says it's supposed to replace the old versions. So the way to not nerf stuff in PFS is to not have the new stuff that has the same name and similar mechanics overwrite the old stuff that should still be legal.
Lore warden HAS NOT actually changed, just there's another lore warden that is similar. Nothing requires PFS to not allow both.
Now if Adventure's Guide said that the stuff here was supposed to be an update for any material in it or something then PFS should remove the old and there's not much for them to do about it. But as it stands, PFS can just allow both and still be following unaltered PF rules.
*Note this is different then when a book gets errata'd to actually change the class and then propagating the change into other books that also had the stats for that (like jingasa). They should still do that.
Unless the PDT state that it's supposed to be a replacement there's no reason to assume it's a replacement. We've had this before in PFS that two archetypes or items with the same name but different stuff in different books come out and both are legal. We didn't ban the rogue when the updated rogue came out.
So PFS doesn't HAVE to replace stuff since the core line hasn't replaced them. And not replacing stuff would be the only way for them to not "nerf" already existing stuff.
Not saying that I think they shouldn't replace the stuff, just that if we want PFS to not nerf existing stuff it would be by not removing it when it's not required to be removed.
Things with the same or similar names that didn't replace a previous thing, was not because they wanted to allow two things with the same name to exist, but rather because those two things were essentially different things, just with the same or similar name.
There is no precedent here.
|
|
And the ioun stone not having constant protection but being able to activate the spell is "essentially different things".
The lore warden getting lots of stuff change is still similar goal, but different enough that it could just be a different archetype aiming for the same niche.
Etc...
Like there's cases for lots that they are essentially different things, some stronger than others, but enough that it's difficult to justify that they all are obvious.
|
Contributor
|
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.
Definitely. I've been thrown me into the dungeons for less. :-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah it is. You're playing a game where the reasonable expectation is that mechanics change. Why are you buying a book for a single feat when mechanics change?
Because to use that one feat I have to purchase the whole "X of Golarion" DLC for $19.99, I cannot simply purchase the "Use a polearm as a polevault implement for a +4 to a distance jump" feat for $1.99
|
|
And the ioun stone not having constant protection but being able to activate the spell is "essentially different things".
The lore warden getting lots of stuff change is still similar goal, but different enough that it could just be a different archetype aiming for the same niche.
Etc...
Like there's cases for lots that they are essentially different things, some stronger than others, but enough that it's difficult to justify that they all are obvious.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on what defines different in this context.
|
|
We are going to have to agree to disagree on what defines different in this context.And the ioun stone not having constant protection but being able to activate the spell is "essentially different things".
The lore warden getting lots of stuff change is still similar goal, but different enough that it could just be a different archetype aiming for the same niche.
Etc...
Like there's cases for lots that they are essentially different things, some stronger than others, but enough that it's difficult to justify that they all are obvious.
And once we do the door is opened to say that both should be allowed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing both is, in the case of the Lore Warden at least, a viable proposition that offers protection from the nerf bat. I would welcome that.
Ha ha! Nothing can protect you from me! I'm unstoppable!
Ozzy. . .
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I've said my piece and made my point about my purchases from Paizo being exclusively for PFS legality reasons, I do want to emphasize what a chilling effect I think that this habit of print, nerf, and replace will have on casual players. Specifically players who don't expend the time and effort that most of us here on the boards do to follow Paizo/ PFS constantly and rely on the many guides and advice that are out there to help them make decisions both in what to purchase and how to make their characters. They make their purchases for the characters that they have to play when their life gives them time to play. Telling someone who is only able to play a few times a year that extensive rebuilding of their characters is needed before they can play, all of the years of advice they can find is now invalid, and the guides to trying to find something fun to play in the onslaught of "Mathfinder" rules options are now worse than outdated - they are going to provide misinformation based on "old rules" is only going to drive casual players, and therefore new players, from further from the hobby.
The PFS team DOES have the ability to fix this. While the Paizo devs can change what they want in general Pathfinder Rules, the Campaign Clarifications Document can be used to allow additional materials and rules to be added as expansions on rather than exclusions of prior product. Whether or not they choose to do so is the question that I think this thread is partly trying to address.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I've said my piece and made my point about my purchases from Paizo being exclusively for PFS legality reasons, I do want to emphasize what a chilling effect I think that this habit of print, nerf, and replace will have on casual players. Specifically players who don't expend the time and effort that most of us here on the boards do to follow Paizo/ PFS constantly and rely on the many guides and advice that are out there to help them make decisions both in what to purchase and how to make their characters. They make their purchases for the characters that they have to play when their life gives them time to play. Telling someone who is only able to play a few times a year that extensive rebuilding of their characters is needed before they can play, all of the years of advice they can find is now invalid, and the guides to trying to find something fun to play in the onslaught of "Mathfinder" rules options are now worse than outdated - they are going to provide misinformation based on "old rules" is only going to drive casual players, and therefore new players, from further from the hobby.
The PFS team DOES have the ability to fix this. While the Paizo devs can change what they want in general Pathfinder Rules, the Campaign Clarifications Document can be used to allow additional materials and rules to be added as expansions on rather than exclusions of prior product. Whether or not they choose to do so is the question that I think this thread is partly trying to address.
This would be a significant change of precedence that the campaign has set, that it follows Pathfinder rules as closely as possible, making actual changes to the rules based on rules specific to organized play (no magic item crafting feats, etc.)
I for one think it would have even more of a chilling effect, if I have to download several hundred pages of clarifications and new home brew rules sets just to play the organized play campaign.
|
|
several hundred pages is probably a bit of a stretch eh?
people hate showing up and being told their character has to be changed
I'm going to guess there's a not insignificant number of people who just give up after this, I've seen it multiple times.
stuff that needs to be changed, needs it to be addressed fast
waiting years, especially several years does give legitimate reason to distrust the reliability of what you learned, built characters toward, and purchased.
Is it a stretch? With all of the re-writing of rules people want the campaign to do, from how to handle item slots for animal companions and wands for familiars to adding crafting rules and specific rules for how to upgrade named magic items we could have 10 to 20 pages right there. Then things that probably need to be rewritten, like the mounted combat rules would take another 4 or 5 pages.
Eventually, we end up with a game that does not resemble the actual game Pathfinder that we all came to play, because all these pet-peeve rules get changed to assuage the vocal minority (lowest-common denominator). Is that perhaps hyperbole? Probably, because I trust that John, Tonya, Linda, Thursty, and others would not allow that to happen.
But once the seal is broken, where does it stop? I prefer to stick as closely to the written rules as possible and not have the campaign rewrite entire rules sets because it might cause frustration for someone in very specific and rare circumstances.
And that means, despite what Thomas Hutchins says above, that when an item changes, it isn't a different item. Its the same item but with a change. When you have two different archetypes named the same thing, and both are allowed in the game, its because those two archetypes are actually different things. They either apply to different base classes or are completely different theme and set of ability changes.
I would not mind if they grandfathered in Lore Warden, just all new ones after XX/XX/2017 get made with the Adventurer's Guide. I do not think grandfathering in any of the item changes is a good idea, however.
|
|
This would be a significant change of precedence that the campaign has set
Off the top of my head Boots of the Earth (limited to once per day in PFS only)... Bonded Mind Teamwork Feats (and their interactions with Inquisitors in PFS)... Item Mastery Feats (using only one class' Fort bonus in PFS)...
Yeah, I think significant change is a bit of a stretch. PFS already changes the rules - and even I'll admit it's often for the better where clarifications are needed such as where rules text is missing.
Ostensibly the reason we need a copy of the books we are bringing is to show the GM how the ability/ item/ whatchamacallit actually works. So long as the player is providing the source material with the rules in question clearly cited I don't see that any different than the differing flavors of Dueling Weapons... it certainly wouldn't make the GM print more.
And that means, despite what Thomas Hutchins says above, that when an item changes, it isn't a different item. Its the same item but with a change.
Um... Dueling Property & Dueling Property indicate a different precedent.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're legal?Especially clarifications that are not reflected in character gen software due to not being official game rules.On this topic... it's worth noting that Hero Lab won't let me build a functional unchained eldritch scoundrel.
Outside of PFS, yes.
But Hero Lab only allows chained eldritch scoundrels to function, even for non-PFS characters.
Outside of PFS they are.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would be a significant change of precedence that the campaign has setOff the top of my head Boots of the Earth (limited to once per day in PFS only)... Bonded Mind Teamwork Feats (and their interactions with Inquisitors in PFS)... Item Mastery Feats (using only one class' Fort bonus in PFS)...
Yeah, I think significant change is a bit of a stretch. PFS already changes the rules - and even I'll admit it's often for the better where clarifications are needed such as where rules text is missing.
Ostensibly the reason we need a copy of the books we are bringing is to show the GM how the ability/ item/ whatchamacallit actually works. So long as the player is providing the source material with the rules in question clearly cited I don't see that any different than the differing flavors of Dueling Weapons... it certainly wouldn't make the GM print more.
And that means, despite what Thomas Hutchins says above, that when an item changes, it isn't a different item. Its the same item but with a change.Um... Dueling Property & Dueling Property indicate a different precedent.
That example actually fully supports what I'm saying TimD. They are two completely different abilities. One wasn't created that changed the other. The reason they were left in as two distinct abilities with the same name, is because they are completely different from one another and actually different abilities.
That does NOT set the precedent that the Ioun Stone, who's properties have changed, but it is still the same item, suddenly becomes two distinctly different items.
EDIT: I'm not familiar with where the boots or the feats come from. But if they are part of campaign clarifications, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are from splat books. Which is why they are getting campaign clarifications. The alternative is that they would be made illegal for the campaign. A few lines in one document that modifies how a few items work so that they can be included in the campaign is NOT precedence for re-writing entire rules sets.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
several hundred pages is probably a bit of a stretch eh?
people hate showing up and being told their character has to be changed
I'm going to guess there's a not insignificant number of people who just give up after this, I've seen it multiple times.
stuff that needs to be changed, needs it to be addressed fast
waiting years, especially several years does give legitimate reason to distrust the reliability of what you learned, built characters toward, and purchased.
Without naming names or pointing fingers, I was actively involved in a long-running organized play campaign. Due to the system no longer being produced, it fell on us as the leadership of the campaign to examine the rules, assess them, modify them, etc.
*as volunteer work, mind*
As of the last count the 'Player Handbook' for that campaign was clocking in at something like 300 pages. The original 'core' book for the system was... 273 pages, including advertising and blank pages.
In comparison, the PFS vetting system is both slow as molasses and lightning quick, but the disturbing trend I've noticed is that it has a significant tendency to 'break things that aren't broken' and 'overfix things that are broken'.
That being said, it's much 'cleaner' than the above mentioned other organization.
|
|
This would be a significant change of precedence that the campaign has setOff the top of my head Boots of the Earth (limited to once per day in PFS only)... Bonded Mind Teamwork Feats (and their interactions with Inquisitors in PFS)... Item Mastery Feats (using only one class' Fort bonus in PFS)...
Yeah, I think significant change is a bit of a stretch. PFS already changes the rules - and even I'll admit it's often for the better where clarifications are needed such as where rules text is missing.
Ostensibly the reason we need a copy of the books we are bringing is to show the GM how the ability/ item/ whatchamacallit actually works. So long as the player is providing the source material with the rules in question clearly cited I don't see that any different than the differing flavors of Dueling Weapons... it certainly wouldn't make the GM print more.
And that means, despite what Thomas Hutchins says above, that when an item changes, it isn't a different item. Its the same item but with a change.Um... Dueling Property & Dueling Property indicate a different precedent.That example actually fully supports what I'm saying TimD. They are two completely different abilities. One wasn't created that changed the other. The reason they were left in as two distinct abilities with the same name, is because they are completely different from one another and actually different abilities.
That does NOT set the precedent that the Ioun Stone, who's properties have changed, but it is still the same item, suddenly becomes two distinctly different items.
See, YOU say they are CLEARLY supposed to be the same item. But the PDT HASN'T stated that that was their intent. The only statement from them on a similar issue is old and states something like, "Both are fine to use in your game. Things are more options, not forced updates when it's not actual errata."
Thus following the ACTUAL RULES of pathfinder they are both legal, as nothing says that it should invalidate the other. So YOU may think it's an errata made in a different book, but it's actually just another take on the same thing.
|
|
See, YOU say they are CLEARLY supposed to be the same item. But the PDT HASN'T stated that that was their intent. The only statement from them on a similar issue is old and states...This would be a significant change of precedence that the campaign has setOff the top of my head Boots of the Earth (limited to once per day in PFS only)... Bonded Mind Teamwork Feats (and their interactions with Inquisitors in PFS)... Item Mastery Feats (using only one class' Fort bonus in PFS)...
Yeah, I think significant change is a bit of a stretch. PFS already changes the rules - and even I'll admit it's often for the better where clarifications are needed such as where rules text is missing.
Ostensibly the reason we need a copy of the books we are bringing is to show the GM how the ability/ item/ whatchamacallit actually works. So long as the player is providing the source material with the rules in question clearly cited I don't see that any different than the differing flavors of Dueling Weapons... it certainly wouldn't make the GM print more.
And that means, despite what Thomas Hutchins says above, that when an item changes, it isn't a different item. Its the same item but with a change.Um... Dueling Property & Dueling Property indicate a different precedent.That example actually fully supports what I'm saying TimD. They are two completely different abilities. One wasn't created that changed the other. The reason they were left in as two distinct abilities with the same name, is because they are completely different from one another and actually different abilities.
That does NOT set the precedent that the Ioun Stone, who's properties have changed, but it is still the same item, suddenly becomes two distinctly different items.
The PDT does not make rulings on splat books. So the Dueling property that comes from the Field Guide isn't something they have included in their own purview. This does bring up another issue though, and its the lack of continuity between different developers at Paizo. There are a lot of parallel projects in the works, and as such, things get named similar things and they don't double check to make sure everything has continuity.
But if you actually look at what the two dueling properties are, they are completely different. Not just one that is slightly different than the other. But completely different properties.
But I'm not going to continue going back and forth with you about this. As I said before, we will have to agree to disagree on what the definition of "different" is, in this context.
|
|
And if you look at the animal soul feat in ACG you'll see that it's completely different as well. Had it been "errata'd" via other book you'd be advocating that they were clearly to separate feats that accidently shared the same name.
If the PDT doesn't state that something is supposed to update or fix something in a different book then it's not. It's just more rules available.
You're the one advocating that PFS enforce a rule that the Pathfinder game doesn't have, that stuff in different books invalidates/updates other books.
If they wanted to update then they should do it as errata as is the correct way, or at least state in the book, blog or somehow that they intend for this to be the new updated version and that the class in a different book should be ignored and forgotten.
Because you're saying to you it's obvious that that's what they want, but you have no support backing up your view.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take a weekend off and come back to this. Golly.
Apologies if my prior statements came across as a personal attack, that was not my intention. I was trying to communicate the following.
I find it silly that a claim could be made that Paizo's product is unreliable when they make continual steps to update and improve it, keeping it as balanced as possible. An unreliable RPG product, in my mind, would be one where the game did not have any updates and, as a result, a handful of incredibly powerful options were primarily selected by players on a regular basis.
Ideally, an RPG could be released that required no updates, and functioned perfectly out of the box. However, such a game is a non-reality in the RPG world--there are far to many moving parts to balance such a beast perfectly before release. Especially with new content every year being added. So we should, as a community, expect balance changes to come out periodically.
Furthermore, as a reminder, in the context of PFS, such updates are explicitly called out on page 8 of the Guide. And as a participant in PFS, we are expected to be familiar with the Guide.
So in summary: these periodic updates are expected within the game, they are again detailed in the Guide, and further rules for applying these changes to our PCs are also included in the Guide.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I'm incredibly glad that (with one or two exceptions) my local PFS scene is nothing like the forums.
Most local PFS scenes are similar but different, there are trends and people are shaped by their experience.
I am pretty "happy" with the players I have trained myself, they try not to make my life as GMs too miserable, and in return, I am quite accommodating to requests (like "I need another XP for that character until tomorrow" which ended up forcing me to prep and run 3 different scenarios within about 30 hours).
Most fiery forum arguments are just not as troublesome if it means that either a GM has not players or players have no one to GM for them.
|
|
About the 'worst' thing I saw was someone playing a Gunslinger and when I asked them if I could see their Ultimate Combat (to look up an armor I was considering buying for my character) their response was 'I don't have it, I don't need to have it if the PRD is online.'.
Rather than start an argument or a cluster**** I nodded politely, and didn't address it that slot.
Next time we played together, I outright gave them my hard copy of Ultimate Combat so they could play their Gunslinger without issues.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take a weekend off and come back to this. Golly.
Apologies if my prior statements came across as a personal attack, that was not my intention. I was trying to communicate the following.
I find it silly that a claim could be made that Paizo's product is unreliable when they make continual steps to update and improve it, keeping it as balanced as possible. An unreliable RPG product, in my mind, would be one where the game did not have any updates and, as a result, a handful of incredibly powerful options were primarily selected by players on a regular basis.
Ideally, an RPG could be released that required no updates, and functioned perfectly out of the box. However, such a game is a non-reality in the RPG world--there are far to many moving parts to balance such a beast perfectly before release. Especially with new content every year being added. So we should, as a community, expect balance changes to come out periodically.
Furthermore, as a reminder, in the context of PFS, such updates are explicitly called out on page 8 of the Guide. And as a participant in PFS, we are expected to be familiar with the Guide.
So in summary: these periodic updates are expected within the game, they are again detailed in the Guide, and further rules for applying these changes to our PCs are also included in the Guide.
The guide says that errata and FAQs happen, not that new books will have material that is supposed to be an errata but is in a different book. That's why I feel this issue is worse than normal. The original lore warden that's been legal has been untouched, why should it be removed cause some new archetype came out?
|
|
While we could argue what constitutes errata vs. reprints vs. a stealth and inferior 2nd Edition and thoroughly derail this thread, it should probably just be taken to the existing thread that is already addressing the question and let this one focus on what, if anything, the PFS team will due in regards to the nerfs.
|
|
Because it's not a "new" Archetype, it's the Lore Warden, that's been updated, for weal or woe.
And where is the source saying that it's an updated version? That the old lore warden should be forgotten and not used anymore?
It's an archetype that has the same name. Officially not an update.
There are two pact wizards. Is one of those an updated to the other?
There are two dueling, is one of those an updated version?
Like with animal soul's updated version via errata changing the feat from being able to count as animals for stuff to being able to not count as stuff is completely different, thus just cause it's different isn't a solid reason it's NOT an update. Thus we should either assume EVERYTHING with the same name is an update, or that nothing is an update until clarified.
Personally unless PFS gets a DEV comment saying it was intended to be a replacement update they shouldn't be looking at all to remove previously allowed material. It's not a pathfinder rule to replace them, why would PFS be making a rule when they don't need to?
|
|
While we could argue what constitutes errata vs. reprints vs. a stealth and inferior 2nd Edition and thoroughly derail this thread, it should probably just be taken to the existing thread that is already addressing the question and let this one focus on what, if anything, the PFS team will due in regards to the nerfs.
That's the point though. Since this isn't an update to the original source, like an errata would be, nor stated that it's supposed to replace previous material there's no reason to see these as nerfs since they shouldn't have any impact on the original.
Only official updates should force changes on stuff.
Thus PFS team doesn't need to do anything but allow any new material to be legal that they deem to make legal.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm incredibly glad that (with one or two exceptions) my local PFS scene is nothing like the forums.
I think that is true of all of our local scenes actually, even if our "local" scenes are online play-by-post lodges.
The thing that is most wonderful about the PFS General Discussion forum is that it is full of people who are passionate about Organized Play. Alas, that is also the root of why sometimes we argue so much.
:/
We get caught up in these arguments and I think sometimes forget that there are real people behind them. We can disagree with one another's ideas, without getting snippy or tearing each other down.
The fact is that I see both sides: yes, the campaign needs rebalancing, but also sometimes the act of rebalancing is handled with less grace than I like. I wish that rebalancing could happen without going overboard in the opposite direction.
- Playing the game is awesome!
- Waiting for AR updates before purchasing books for PFS is recommended.
- That 'Nerf Bat' is adorable! I want one! Paizo, this is a missed marketing opportunity for a line of plushies.
Hmm