Handling Adventurer's Guide Updates


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:

Here's the crux of it.

Lore wardens lost a feat. It's not just that "lore wardens are a finely oiled machine" that other people above have been saying. It's simply that characters are now losing a feat. Effectively, we've been told "push your feat progression back 1 or 2 levels". Now there's a choice involved. For my lore warden, it means that the feat I was looking forward to getting for my level 11 "capstone" no longer exists in my character's playable future.

This is exactly the sort of thing people describing characters as a machine or a watch mean when we make the comparison. You popped that gear out now nothing else will make the whole thing work except that exact gear.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Those are absurd examples, because you aren't being told to change to a whole new class, you're having to change your archetype on your class to a different version on the same class.

Skilled Tim the smart swordsman is still Skilled Time the smart swordsman.

Scarab Sages 5/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.

What Changed: Tribal Scars feat
What's the problem: The feat used to grant +6 HP and some other things, now it just grants other things. I needed that +6 HP to continue my quest of having the most health points. Without it, I go from 499 raging HPs to 493 HPs, with is a paltry sum.
What I'd like to see: Allow only me to keep the old version of this feat, given that I am a powerful Jarl. It will help solidify my position as the leader of my people. Allow everyone else to retrain it for free.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

*shrugs*

Absolutely no one is being told to throw their characters into the trash. Absolutely no one.

I'm done, I'm out.

Shadow Lodge

What Changed: Lore Warden Archetype
What's the problem: Loss of Second Level Bonus Feat Resulting in 2 Seeker level character and several other lower level characters that became invalid post level 2 due to feat dependencies. Change in Skill points. and change in class skills list
What I'd like to see: Grandfather existing Lore Wardens to Field Guide Version. (Character must have been played as a level 2 Lore Warden before GenCon 2017.) or full rebuilds available to all Lore Wardens

Liberty's Edge 3/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Thank you Wraith235 for returning the thread to what it is intended to do. Give actual examples and suggests to minimize the impact.

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed additional posts and back and forth resulting from them. If you take issue with a moderator decision, take it to Website Feedback or community@paizo.com—do not derail the thread with it. Please also refer to our Community Guidelines before posting.

1/5

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed additional posts and back and forth resulting from them. If you take issue with a moderator decision, take it to Website Feedback or community@paizo.com—do not derail the thread with it. Please also refer to our Community Guidelines before posting.

Um... a good chunk of the deleted posts were not related to moderator decisions. They were related to "does this kill PCs?", which this thread is supposed to be about.

Granted, this post might be about a moderator decision. Hm.

Community & Digital Content Director

Posts that quote removed posts are also removed. You can find this in the FAQ for our Community Guidelines.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

Here's the crux of it.

Lore wardens lost a feat. It's not just that "lore wardens are a finely oiled machine" that other people above have been saying. It's simply that characters are now losing a feat. Effectively, we've been told "push your feat progression back 1 or 2 levels". Now there's a choice involved. For my lore warden, it means that the feat I was looking forward to getting for my level 11 "capstone" no longer exists in my character's playable future.

This is exactly the sort of thing people describing characters as a machine or a watch mean when we make the comparison. You popped that gear out now nothing else will make the whole thing work except that exact gear.

The problem with comparing machinery to a character build is that very often if one gear pops out and destroys the machine its probably just a poorly built and running machine.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

Here's the crux of it.

Lore wardens lost a feat. It's not just that "lore wardens are a finely oiled machine" that other people above have been saying. It's simply that characters are now losing a feat. Effectively, we've been told "push your feat progression back 1 or 2 levels". Now there's a choice involved. For my lore warden, it means that the feat I was looking forward to getting for my level 11 "capstone" no longer exists in my character's playable future.

This is exactly the sort of thing people describing characters as a machine or a watch mean when we make the comparison. You popped that gear out now nothing else will make the whole thing work except that exact gear.
The problem with comparing machinery to a character build is that very often if one gear pops out and destroys the machine its probably just a poorly built and running machine.

True. And sometimes, you don't have the tools to make anything except a fragile machine if you want it to perform a certain task.

I mean, sure, there are ugly patches I can throw in there. Hand-notched gears with the original teeth filed off. Duct tape covering the holes. But now it squeaks every time I use setting #2, and one swing arm just doesn't move anymore.

Besides, this gear was working fine for nearly four years before I started using it - it seemed pretty reliable. How was I to know that the core of my machine would be recalled six years after release?

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

Here's the crux of it.

Lore wardens lost a feat. It's not just that "lore wardens are a finely oiled machine" that other people above have been saying. It's simply that characters are now losing a feat. Effectively, we've been told "push your feat progression back 1 or 2 levels". Now there's a choice involved. For my lore warden, it means that the feat I was looking forward to getting for my level 11 "capstone" no longer exists in my character's playable future.

This is exactly the sort of thing people describing characters as a machine or a watch mean when we make the comparison. You popped that gear out now nothing else will make the whole thing work except that exact gear.
The problem with comparing machinery to a character build is that very often if one gear pops out and destroys the machine its probably just a poorly built and running machine.

right, cause if you remove the one gear that connects the hand to the rest or the watch it was a poorly made watch. If I remove the radiator cap from a car and it overheats it was a poorly built car. Remove the one gear that links the steering wheel to the tires and now you can't steer, but that's just a poorly built car.

Most things made don't have backup systems that are otherwise redundant unless they anticipate likely need of a backup system.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
The problem with comparing machinery to a character build is that very often if one gear pops out and destroys the machine its probably just a poorly built and running machine.

As Thomas pointed out, most machines won't work if you just randomly pull a piece out of them. It's only those machines that have pieces popping out at random on a regular basis that should be called poorly built.

So your analogy isn't saying that these PCs are poorly built. Your analogy pretty much says that Paizo is poorly built, because it keeps randomly popping pieces out of people's PCs.

1/5

Also, I hate to keep harping on it, but...
Guide 9.0 still doesn't have any language in it that would allow anything other than either a full rebuild or no rebuild at all.

I realize that this thread is mostly for "special dispensation that [the player] believes is necessary", but "how do I handle the Adventurer's Guide update if no special dispensation is given" is still a question.

Thus:
What Changed: Several existing archetypes are about to be made illegal, and replaced with new versions. The Additional Resources update for the Adventurer's Guide added the line "characters are expected to update to use the new rules or rebuild as laid out in Chapter 2 of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide."

What's the problem: As of today, the only rebuild options given in chapter 2 for class-based changes are for proficiency loss and for "ability-score-dependent features". That second one is somewhat ill-defined, and at last notice the change to Lore Warden's Scholastic (for example) didn't count. Thus, the Guide wouldn't allow any rebuild - not even to change the old archetype out for the new one (where possible).
We have one source requiring rebuilds, and another source forbidding them.
It's possible that the wording in the AR allows a special rebuild by swapping the affected archetype out only for the new one, but differing archetype footprints between the old and new sources makes that more involved than just swapping numbers.

What I'd like to see:
1) A clarification of intent in the AR.
2) A revision to the Guide to include errata that aren't ability-score-dependent. This should include what happens if a class/archetype/PRC is removed from legality.
3) A clarification in the Guide as to what exactly the phrase "ability score dependent" means, with both positive and negative examples.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

The Character: Vad DesChamps, Once-human, now-Oread Fighter (Lore Warden) 5 Low Templar 5

What Changed: Lore Warden Archetype (and minorly, the dusty rose prism ioun stone)

What's the problem: Vad's primary concern in a fight is his beautiful face. Combat Expertise being moved from level 2 to level 6 means either he would need to take more levels of fighter (delaying prestige class levels) or reassign his stats (to qualify with an INT prerequisite). The loss of the 2nd level bonus feat pushes most of his "fight without getting hurt" feat progression (Dodge, Mobility, Pointblank Shot, Shot on the Run, Parting Shot) back a level, and likely costs him the one "flavor" feat he currently has (Celestial Obedience). Considering the Low Templar prestige class requires two other feats (Weapon Focus, Mounted Combat), there isn't really the ability to fit Combat Expertise back in (even if I could re-arrange the ability scores to allow it).

What's a minor annoyance: The change in CMB (from both the base class and the ioun stone) lessens the impact of one of his typical ways to influence the flow of combat- -being generally useful at combat maneuvers (previously +18) gave a wider array of tools than the significantly more narrow Maneuver Mastery ability that the new Lore Warden inherits from Brawler (which is lessened further by the decision to split into a prestige class, missing any upscales in the ability). Vad has never done a huge amount of damage- -he only has 14 STR- -maneuvers were one of his methods to lessen the danger to himself (and others!) They likely will continue to be (+15, +1 more on some maneuver of my choice as per Brawler), just less successfully.

1d20 ⇒ 5 Does a 20 fail where a 23 would succeed?

What I'd like to see: Honestly, Vad (and I) can likely live with the changes. I've never felt that this character has dominated a scenario with it's combat prowess. (Library of the Lion, however, was a breeze because Know: Nobility). Grandfathering would be lovely, but consistency means more to me.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Skilled Tim the smart swordsman is still Skilled Time the smart swordsman.

Why thank you :) - even if complimenting my brilliance is a bit off-topic...

I knew I should have had my vigilante identity hidden by more than just an added "e"!

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Also, I hate to keep harping on it, but...

Guide 9.0 still doesn't have any language in it that would allow anything other than either a full rebuild or no rebuild at all.

Eh?

This guide is not able to cover all possibilities with
regard to playtests and errata. Additional topics not
covered in this section are sometimes discussed on forum
posts at paizo.com/pathfndersociety or in Pathfnder
Society blog posts at paizo.com/paizo/blog. Please
consult those sources and apply those changes if any of
your characters are affected by errata or playtest material.

Feats: If a feat changes or is removed from the
dditional Resources list, you have two options: You can switch the old feat for an updated feat of the same
name in another legal source (if available), ignoring any
of a feat's prerequisites that you do not meet, or you can
replace the feat (and any of the old feat’s prerequisite
feats) entirely with another feat for which you meet all
the prerequisites. If any of the feat’s changes directly
reference one or more pieces of equipment you own
(such as the weapon selected for the Weapon Focus feat),
you can sell back that equipment at full market value.

guide page 8-9

There's a whole big page of what you can do if x changes, along with "something weird might come up go see the guide"

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

Also, I hate to keep harping on it, but...

Guide 9.0 still doesn't have any language in it that would allow anything other than either a full rebuild or no rebuild at all.
There's a whole big page of what you can do if x changes, along with "something weird might come up go see the guide"

Correct. And none of them actually apply to the situation where an archetype is banned after a period of legality.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

This guide is not able to cover all possibilities with

regard to playtests and errata. Additional topics not
covered in this section are sometimes discussed on forum
posts at paizo.com/pathfndersociety or in Pathfnder
Society blog posts at paizo.com/paizo/blog. Please
consult those sources and apply those changes if any of
your characters are affected by errata or playtest material.

Saying "I dunno, look around on the boards" is not a very good official stance. Among other things, we've been told that forum posts are not legal rules references.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Feats: If a feat changes or is removed from the

dditional Resources list, you have two options: You can switch the old feat for an updated feat of the same
name in another legal source (if available), ignoring any
of a feat's prerequisites that you do not meet, or you can
replace the feat (and any of the old feat’s prerequisite
feats) entirely with another feat for which you meet all
the prerequisites. If any of the feat’s changes directly
reference one or more pieces of equipment you own
(such as the weapon selected for the Weapon Focus feat),
you can sell back that equipment at full market value.

And this works great - for feats. This is the kind of section I'd like for archetypes, and the kind of thought I'd like put into equipment.

Class Features, Prestige Class Features, and Archetype Abilities wrote:


If an ability-score-dependent feature of a class,
prestige class, or archetype is altered at any time, you can
rebuild your character to its current XP. You can keep the
same equipment, but you can resell any equipment that
augments the altered ability score at its full market price.

If a class, prestige class, or archetype changes in such
a way that you no longer have proficiency with a given
weapon or armor type, you can sell back the affected
equipment—and only the affected equipment—at full
market value. You can also retrain any feats directly
associated with the affected equipment.

There's only two cases covered for any class-based changes. Either an ability-score dependent feature changes, or the proficiency list changes. There are no rules for rebuilds in any other case. Since we have a provisional "that's not ability-dependent" from John Compton, that doesn't trigger. Proficiency lists didn't change, either. Thus, as I pointed out - we both cannot and must rebuild the character for the AG changes in some ill-defined way.

--------------------------

For the sake of completion:
(spoilered for slight off-topic diversion)

Spoiler:

Equipment wrote:

If the price of an item becomes more

expensive, you must sell back the affected equipment at its
original full market value based on its remaining number
of charges (if any). So long as you have enough gp and
Fame, you can purchase the same item at its updated cost.

Nothing about "my axe is now a squeaky toy hammer," and simply raising the price doesn't seem to be the route Paizo generally takes. I think the last few nerf-fests have had specific wording when it happened giving permission to sell back your Jingasa or what-have-you. I'd prefer that to be a general rule, but understand that it might not fit Paizo's intent.

Favored Class Bonuses: wrote:

If a favored class bonus

changes, you can reassign your entire favored class bonus
at each level to any of the now-legal options.

OK, so technically maybe three class-based changes are handled. Still could use some work, though. Is this supposed to apply only in cases where a FCB was removed from legality? Or is it supposed to apply in cases where Paizo releases a new FCB after you've already taken 10 levels of <class>? Are you intended to be able to go back and reassign your 2-year-old FCB to something that just got legalized?

Spells: wrote:

If the level of a spell changes, you must retrain

the altered spell, replacing it with another spell of its
original spell level. You can also retrain one spell of the
altered spell’s new level, but only in order to learn the
altered spell. You must sell back any potions, scrolls, or
wands that use that spell at their current full market
value based on the spell’s old level and the remaining
number of charges.

Well thought-out and complete. Handles the case where someone accidentally printed Greater Haste as a level 1 spell, or where Lesser Haste accidentally hit a spell list at level 4. Generous with "well of course I would have learned it at that level" (more so than any other section, really.) Keeps someone from having a legacy scroll sitting around.

Traits: wrote:

If a trait changes or is removed from the

Additional Resources list, you can switch the old trait
for an updated of the same name in another legal source
(if available), or you can replace the trait with another
trait for which you meet all the prerequisites.

Again, straightforward and to the point. Very like the feat write-up.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
shaventalz wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

This guide is not able to cover all possibilities with

regard to playtests and errata. Additional topics not
covered in this section are sometimes discussed on forum
posts at paizo.com/pathfndersociety or in Pathfnder
Society blog posts at paizo.com/paizo/blog. Please
consult those sources and apply those changes if any of
your characters are affected by errata or playtest material.
Saying "I dunno, look around on the boards" is not a very good official stance. Among other things, we've been told that forum posts are not legal rules references.

They may not be legal rules references, but official posts from Campaign Staff are considered definitive campaign rulings for PFS.

This is an entirely appropriate way to reference unusual circumstances (which is what all of these are).

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
shaventalz wrote:
we've been told that forum posts are not legal rules references.

Who is this "we", and who told them?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

shaventalz wrote:
Saying "I dunno, look around on the boards" is not a very good official stance. Among other things, we've been told that forum posts are not legal rules references.

You were told that as a forum post....

The guide says that the forum posts ARE a legal source.
The guide explains WHY the forum posts are a legal source.

Trying to argue that the forum post won't work is just making a problem where none exists.

1/5

Nefreet wrote:
shaventalz wrote:
we've been told that forum posts are not legal rules references.
Who is this "we", and who told them?

Wish I could point you to the source. Unfortunately, the search system here is a little bad. You can replace "we" with "several posters including myself", if it helps.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You were told that as a forum post....

The guide says that the forum posts ARE a legal source.
The guide explains WHY the forum posts are a legal source.

Trying to argue that the forum post won't work is just making a problem where none exists.

That's entirely possible. It's also possible that the source in question was specific to rules elements, and not Organized Play stuff. I'm not going to be able to find the forum post in question, though, because the forum search is bad. That's also going to cause problems for someone trying to find the "official" guidance for ArchetypeY changes after a year's absence from PFS.

That's not the immediate concern, though.

The immediate problem is, as of now, there is no guidance/ruling that applies. I am aware of three items dealing with "I don't qualify for X anymore" or "my character doesn't work because archetype Y":
1) The rules explicitly written in Guide 9.0 for archetype changes. These don't apply, for reasons already mentioned (here, for anyone joining late.)
2) The Additional Resources update, which says the character must update but doesn't say how.
3) The line in Guide 9.0 that says look for forum posts. Currently, there are no posts on how to proceed. So this, as of now, also does not apply.

Yes, the rebuild isn't strictly required until they update the PRD. Paizo might well post something here tomorrow, detailing how to rebuild. Until then, though, all I can do is point out that they haven't yet done so. I don't want to get into a situation where the rebuild is now mandatory but someone forgot to actually say what to do.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Does the existence of this thread, created by Campaign Leadership in an attempt to garner the opinions of the community on this very issue, mean nothing to you?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shaventalz wrote:


That's not the immediate concern, though.

It's more than a little annoying when I find, copy, paste right out of the guide for PFS a rule saying, point blank, something might get erratad and have to be dealt with, check the boards only to have you say that there's a contradiction because.. reasons. It smacks of manufactured meladrama. Its unnecessary and unproductive.

Quote:
The immediate problem is, as of now, there is no guidance/ruling that applies. I am aware of three items dealing with "I don't qualify for X anymore" or "my character doesn't work because archetype Y":

Which is why there's an entire thread devoted to "your changes broke my character, how are we dealing with this" to come up with custom fixes or to make the argument that the easiest option is grandfathering.

Quote:
I don't want to get into a situation where the rebuild is now mandatory but someone forgot to actually say what to do.

Pencil Eraser. Or delete reprint if you're on one of those new fangled computerized character sheets. If you do it wrong, try again. It's no big deal. I know its an all official and everything game but it's still just a game.

They don't want to get into a siutation where they're locked into either re issuing the guide (which involves the whole layout team) or just being stuck with the surgical hammer as their most nuanced instrument, They need something under their direct control that can respond quickly, and that means the boards.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


They don't want to get into a siutation where they're locked into either re issuing the guide (which involves the whole layout team) or just being stuck with the surgical hammer as their most nuanced instrument, They need something under their direct control that can respond quickly, and that means the boards.

The Guide is a .pdf, isn't it? Wouldn't it be a simple matter of chopping out some of the dated material, not replacing it, and sending it to a printer/re-issuing the .pdf?

Please pardon any naivete on my part.

1/5

Nefreet wrote:
Does the existence of this thread, created by Campaign Leadership in an attempt to garner the opinions of the community on this very issue, mean nothing to you?

It definitely means something to me. It means they want my opinion on what breaks. I see the ambiguity as a break (possibly break-in-progress.) That's why I posted what I did, in the format that was requested.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
It's more than a little annoying when I find, copy, paste right out of the guide for PFS a rule saying, point blank, something might get erratad and have to be dealt with, check the boards only to have you say that there's a contradiction because.. reasons. It smacks of manufactured meladrama. Its unnecessary and unproductive.

I said there is CURRENTLY a contradiction because there is CURRENTLY no ruling on the boards. For the sake of not derailing this thread further, I'm just going to drop it here.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Have patience?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems in short supply.


What would happen if a large enough portion of the player base just...used old Lore Warden?

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
technarken wrote:
What would happen if a large enough portion of the player base just...used old Lore Warden?

So you are saying that there will be a mass mutiny on the leadership of the organized play campaign?

For one, lets assume there are enough Lorewardens in play right now to make this noticeable.

Two, lets assume the subset of lorewarden players who are willing to break the rules is large enough to make things noticeable.

If both those are true (the second can't be true if the first is not, and I highly doubt the first is true, but) then organized play dies. Seriously, the game is predicated on the player base following the rules set forward by the leadership team. And if precedent gets set that the leadership team bows to the will of the player base, no matter how large a portion mutinies, then this will literally become a snowball of death.

If I find someone doing this at a table I'm GMing, I will ask them to play a pregen or leave. I will then notify the local leadership to inform them of a problem player.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
technarken wrote:
What would happen if a large enough portion of the player base just...used old Lore Warden?

Redaction protocols would be engaged, removing them from the temporal continuity.

5/5 ⦵⦵

Tallow wrote:
If both those are true (the second can't be true if the first is not, and I highly doubt the first is true, but) then organized play dies.

We need to do lunch together sometime.

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Handling Adventurer's Guide Updates All Messageboards