Handling Adventurer's Guide Updates


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee ***** Organized Play Lead Developer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a continuation of a recent thread reposted to get more visibility.

We have a preliminary write-up of how we're handling rules updates, including more permissive options for rebuilding in cases where the baseline rules update policy would be insufficient.

If there is a special dispensation that you believe is necessary based on the recent Additional Resources update, let me know here. Based on the history of rules update threads, it would be helpful to stick to the specifics of how the issue affects your character. It's harder to build policy around broad statements of disapproval.

For example:
What Changed: The Galtan guillotine-savant slayer archetype
What's the problem: The gratuitous coup ability changed from an attack action to a standard action, which throws off my Vital Strike build.
What I'd like to see: Just retraining my slayer levels doesn't really correct things. I also need to retrain my Vital Strike feats and offload this +1 vorpal scythe.

Note: I am aware of the thread requesting that one or more options be grandfathered. Let's keep grandfathering concerns there, not here.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

While many of my characters took numeric hits (some hit points or + to maneuvers), and the change to the Clear Spindle is significant, none of my actual builds are broken by it. I do have one problem implementing the changes though.

What Changed: Mammoth Hide now uses the 14665gp version instead of the 8165gp version.
What's the problem: I don't currently have enough funds to make up the price difference between the armors.
What I'd like to see: Let me keep the old version until I have enough funds to buy the new version. I'm level 10, so it should only take a game or two.

Silver Crusade ***** ⦵⦵

James Anderson wrote:
What I'd like to see: Let me keep the old version until I have enough funds to buy the new version. I'm level 10, so it should only take a game or two.

^ I wouldn't mind this as well for my large-sized Adamantine Bastard Sword wielder.

Level 5 with virtually no gold, but could probably earn enough in 1-2 adventures.

*

Reposted from its original location:
What Changed: Maneuver Training only applies to one or two maneuvers for most of a character's PFS life.
What's the problem: My trip+disarm Lore Warden dipped another class to get Improved Grapple as an option. Now that suddenly loses 2-4 points of attack bonus, making it much less likely to succeed on much of anything he's been fighting.
What I'd like to see: I need to retrain that other class level along with Lore Warden; either choosing another option it provided or just dropping the archetype completely.

*****

Quote:
The following character options have received updates since they appeared in earlier publications, and characters must use these updated versions (pending the Pathfinder Rules Document update): brand of conformity, brand of hobbling, brand of tracking, Eagle Knight dress uniform, enlightened bloodrager, golden eagle epaulets, Golden Legionnaire, hellknight barding, lore warden, mammoth hide, Mounted Blade, Pathfinder savant, Qadiran horselord, Ritual Mask, shackle, Steel Falcon, talonstrike sword, Tribal Hunter, Tribal Scars, and wayfinder resonance. Earlier sources in which these rules originally appeared remain a legal source for accessing these updated character options.

Suppress Charms and Compulsions has also changed but is not in this list, are we required to use the new version once it hits the PRD.

Dark Archive ***

I've never had to previously engage in the errata based rebuild rules save the cases where we were allowed to "sell back" items, so if I've missed something please let me know (and link your source!)

What Changed: The Tempest Druid (AG pg. 183) now has an Alignment Requirement (Chaotic Neutral), where none existed before (per its Inner Sea Magic printing, pg 41).

What's the problem: The current Role-playing Guild Guide only allows limited rebuilds due to changes in a class/PrC/archetype to an ability-score-dependent feature or weapon/armor proficiency. There are a host of corner cases for the aforementioned changes this does not cover:

  • Gear with an alignment requirement (i.e. Axiomatic Weapons)
  • Feats with an alignment requirement, if not a Deity requirement that does not allow one to worship them while Chaotic Neutral. (i.e. Deific Obedience [Irori])
  • Characters multiclassed into another class with an alignment requirement (i.e. My Tempest Druid/Unchained Monk*)

*This is the only listed example that impacts me, but in thinking on the issue I realized the Feat/Gear conundrum is present as well. Before anyone even tries: I absolutely have a role-play oriented basis for this and it fit with printed material pre-AG. No, I'm not discussing it in this thread. Sure, you can ask via PM.

At present, the character MUST change alignment at PRD update to become legal or they lose their druid powers.

In the case of multiclassing, you've got a character that must choose between losing Druid powers or losing powers/being unable to progress further in their second class (in this case, I'd become an ex-monk and just have to figure it out from there).

What I'd like to see: There needs to be an addendum for what to do when errata includes an alignment requirement change. While the Tempest Druid change is the first time I know of this happening, it's a pretty tough situation to be in with current RAW. I would like this to allow the PC to retrain impacted feats, sell back gear with an alignment requirement of some kind, and retrain affected class levels/archetypes/etc.

EDIT: Clarified some language in "The problem".

Liberty's Edge Venture-Agent, Online

PC affected: Unchained Rogue (Scout) 5/Fighter (Lore Warden) 2

What Changed: Skill over Strength not only doesn't grant Combat Expertise at level 2, it now takes away the 2nd level bonus feat.

What's the problem: I took the first level of Fighter to pick up Mobility earlier than I could as a rogue. I took the second level because I actually wanted Combat Expertise for the defense bonus. The extra bonus feat was just that, a bonus. I also liked that I got more skill points than a normal fighter. I took Accomplished Sneak Attacker at level 7 to keep up my Sneak Attack dice.

If I only retrain 1 level of Lore Warden, Accomplished Sneak Attacker only gives me a benefit every other level. (At rogue 7/Fighter 1, it would do nothing. At rogue 8/Fighter 1 it would, etc.)

What I'd like to see: Retrain both fighter levels to rogue, retrain Accomplished Sneak Attacker to Mobility because it no longer does anything for me.

Silver Crusade ****

I just checked the season 8 Guide, and the section on how to deal with errata doesn't even mention errata to equipment. If we don't like an item being nerfed, are we allowed to sell it back for full price?

Since I don't have the book, I don't know if I'll want to do that with my clear spindle ioun stones yet, but it'll be good to know in advance how to handle that.

*

Fromper wrote:

I just checked the season 8 Guide, and the section on how to deal with errata doesn't even mention errata to equipment. If we don't like an item being nerfed, are we allowed to sell it back for full price?

Since I don't have the book, I don't know if I'll want to do that with my clear spindle ioun stones yet, but it'll be good to know in advance how to handle that.

In the season 7 Guide, there was a section about how you had to sell back equipment that got more expensive, but nothing about if it was nerfed into uselessness. Before that, I think the directive was that you could sell an item back if its price raised (but no other times). Season 8, as you've noted, has some pretty major holes in its handling of errata.

Thankfully, that hole isn't a problem here. According to the AG's AR update: "Modified gear—including ioun stones whose resonance powers changed—can be sold back at its full market price"

**

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

PC affected: Fighter 10 (Lore Warden) /sentinel 3 (Erastil)

What Changed: It now takes away the 2nd level bonus feat.

What's the problem: I lose a feat. So now i need to change my feat progression while I need to keep the deific obedience.

Also. I don't this is included in the guide.

What I'd like to see: Retrain the archétype while rebulding the skill tree.

Grand Lodge **

What Changed: Clear Spindle Ioun Stone
What's the problem: I already had an Ioun Stone that fit for my character. I bought an Ebon Wayfinder (18000g) so I could also drop in a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone. I don't have a specific desire for a second different resonant power and could very much use that 18000g to shore up my defenses.
What I'd like to see: I would also like to be able to sell back Ebon Wayfinder.

*

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

PC Impacted Part 1: Oracle 1/Fighter 1 (Lore Warden)

What changed?Skill over Strength not only doesn't grant Combat Expertise at level 2, it now takes away the 2nd level bonus feat.

What's the problem? Was attempting to build a multi-classed utility character capable of handling many different combat manuever needs while using a fighter archetype. The subsequent replacement is insufficient for those needs.

What I'd like to see:Completely ignoring the new version of the Archetype, but allowing it to be used as 'source' material for the older version. If the road can go to future editions, why can it not also hearken back to past editions that were more viable/solid?

PC Impacted Part 2: Oracle 1/Fighter 1 (Lore Warden)

What changed? Scholastic now grants additional class skills (Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, Spellcraft) in addition to its previous effects, but loses Appraise (an Int Skill previously in-class)

What's the problem? This character is attempting to build up Appraise to be a better merchant.

What I'd like to see: The original wording from the original archetype, or failing that, Appraise added to the list of skills learned by the archetype

***** Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

Please note that the following is a theoretical character character, specifically built to be impossible with the change.
As a note it took me significantly longer than expected to come up with a reasonable looking example although there are numerous ways to make this happen by choosing several feat heavy prestige classes to go straight into and there are also characters who's only extra feat they can give up is something vital to their basic functioning like weapon finesse.

What Changed: Lore Warden Fighter Archetype

What's the problem: Loss of second level bonus feat makes it impossible for the character to qualify for their prestige classes.

Theo Reticule is an Elven Lore Warden 2/ Paladin 3 / Shadow Dancer 1 / Sentinel 1

Feat Progression:
1: Lore Warden 1: Dodge/Mobility
2: Lore Warden 2: Combat Expertise/Combat Reflexes
3: Paladin 1: Weapon Focus
4: Paladin 2:
5: Paladin 3: Deific Obedience
6: Shadow Dancer 1:
7: Sentinel 1: ??

With the loss of the second level combat feat it becomes impossible for the character to both qualify for Shadow Dancer at level 6 and Sentinel at level 7

What I'd like to see: Total rebuild for Lore Wardens

Example of a not impossible to lose feat but crippling example:

1: Lore Warden 1: Improved Initiative / Deceitful
2: Lore Warden 2: Combat Expertise / Weapon Finesse
3: Rogue 1: Accomplished Sneak Attacker
4: Bard 1:
5: Bard 2: Skill Focus (Perform)
6: Bard 3:
7: Lion Blade: ???

The only feat the character can possibly give up is Weapon Finesse.

Character's feats often fit together like clockwork to form a precision instrument. Simply taking one out can have catastrophic effects.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

PC Impacted: Lore Warden 8

What changed?:
1. Scholastic changed.
2. Expertise at 2nd level is removed.
3. Maneuver Mastery at 3d level is removed.
4. Know Thy Enemy at 7th level is removed.
5. Skill over strength was added at 2nd level.
6. Sword Secrets added at 3d and every 4th level thereafter.

What's the problem?
1. Losing appraise as a class skill
2+5a Losing the bonus combat feat without replacement.
2+5b Losing Bravery 1 (gained at 6th level per the rules of archetypes instead of gaining bravery 2 at that level)
3. Losing +4 CMB/CMD, no substitute.
4+6. Picking up Know Thy Enemy as a sword secret turns it into a much weaker version. It's now an insight bonus instead of a competence bonus which only lasts for a number of rounds equal to half lorewarden class levels instead of until switched or end of encounter.

What I'd like to see
Grandfathering of the Lorewarden or a complete rebuild from ground up, with full refund on equipment (except expended consumables/wands/ammunition) to buy new equipment fitting the new character.

The Exchange *

Firstly, thanks for looking into this John.

Here's the situation with my Lore Warden.

PC Impacted Bloodrager 1 / Brawler (snakebite striker) 1 / Druid (kraken caller) 2 / Fighter (lore warden) 1.

This PC is intended to go to Druid 4 and Fighter 5. If played in seeker levels he will go to Druid 8 and Fighter 10.

As some other posters have said, in this thread and the grandfather request thread, lore warden builds are often finely oiled machines. Malachi here is one such. He is intended to be a martial kraken caller, using his secondary tentacle attacks to deliver dirty tricks.

What might look like a multiclass monstrosity on paper is actually a fluid, dynamic character with a detailed backstory. Lore Warden training represents Master Farabellus and the Pathfinder Society turning a former pirate into a martial scholar and "respectable businessman" - at least as far as the Exchange goes.

What changed?
New lore warden loses the bonus feat at level 2, and greatly reduces the manoeuvre bonuses compared to old lore warden.

What's the problem?
This is a problem because it pushes back the acquisition of the dirty trick feat line, and makes those manoeuvres less accurate.

I am faced with trying to retain the mechanical focus on dirty trick manoeuvres at the expense of losing Malachi's story. He can no longer be the rough-edged villain-turned-hero, redeemed and educated by the Pathfinder Society, if I want to keep the mechanical focus. The alternative classes would be Brawler and Barbarian (untamed rager archetype). Neither lends itself to the story I have been telling with this PC.

What I'd like to see.
Honestly, there's no escaping it: I'd like grandfathering. The next best alternative is a full rebuild, but that's a choice between inferior mechanical options and abandoning Malachi's "redemption through education" story. Even if I rebuilt into Brawler or Barbarian, I'd still lose mechanical effectiveness. :(

***

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Taking a different (unpopular) approach here.

What Changed?
Paizo printed a book that changed many old established rules.

What's the problem?
PFS feels the need to incorporate all these new, untested, rules into the organized play program.

What I'd like to see.
Don't use Adventurer's Guide in PFS. Yes there are things I'd like to see (you can always include them on chronicle sheets), but as a whole, just don't use the book. There are too many unpopular rule changes. It's not worth it.

Why this makes sense?
Most people will not buy the book and will not see or understand the changes. Paizo has been changing many rules recently and players are getting frustrated. We don't need the extra grief. But especially, don't implement anything until after GenCon. Players don't want to sit down at the table and have a GM tell them that their PC now needs a rebuild.

Just My Thoughts

***** ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What Changed: The Lore Warden

What's the problem: Current rules only allow you to ditch the archetype and become a standard fighter leaving whats supposed to be a skilled and knowledgable combatant without skill points.

What I'd like to see: in the event the solution that shall not be named is not implemented, let people retrain out of the fighter class entirely.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

What Changed: The Lore Warden

What's the problem: Current rules only allow you to ditch the archetype and become a standard fighter leaving whats supposed to be a skilled and knowledgable combatant without skill points.

What I'd like to see: in the event the solution that shall not be named is not implemented, let people retrain out of the fighter class entirely.

I don't have a Lore Warden but have theorycrafted plenty of them.

The builds always become finely-tuned engines. Carefully chosen ability scores and very particular choices of when to multiclass to pick a feat path towards something magnificent.

The change to the Lore Warden is guaranteed to break such builds, simply by messing with its feat path.

So I think the fairest option would be allowing full rebuild. The changes really are that fundamental.

Dark Archive ***** ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South aka schattenstern

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that a full rebuild is needed to solve these issues. Also, there is the unprecedented fact, that this will mess with archetype-stacking (because you now replace other features)

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Savannah aka KitsuneWarlock

PC Impacted: Far-Strike Monk 1/Divine Hunter Paladin 1/Lore Warden Fighter 2 (Planning on continuing lore warden, maybe one more level in monk)

My PC uses throwing axes to trip.

What Changed: Lore Warden

What's the Problem: Combat Expertise now taking up the second level bonus feat pushes all my feats back a level and not having access to combat expertise's defense actually hurts my ac given I wear light armor and have no wisdom despite my monk levels because thrown weapons have to balance strength ans dex until we can purchase a belt of hurling at level 8... And I needed 13 int for combat expertise.

What I'd Like to See if I were talking to a home game GM? Grandfather the or give us a trait that functions as combat expertise for the prerequisite of a single improved line similiar to the trait that functions as iron will for obtain familiar... Or give the new lore warden their 2nd level combat feat now that a dip doesn't give you "complete" combat expertise... Or give lore warden combat expertise at level 2 instead of the awkward delay.

I'm aware that none of these fixes are going to or even necessarily should happen. A full rebuild would help immensely though.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

What Changed: Lore Warden Maneuver Mastery
What's the problem: Part of the reason my -1 took a 3rd level of Lore Warden instead of Rogue was the flat bonus to CMB/D. With the change to a menu of select-able options, he has a bunch of options that aren't of use to him. The brawler maneuver training just isn't what I would have leveled him into.
What I'd like to see: Given his Seeker status and unlikelihood of playing him much more, he can probably stick with the updated rules. An ability to retrain levels would bring him back in line with expectations, but I don't find it necessary.

Grand Lodge **

6 people marked this as a favorite.

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 character that I've been playing for ~2 years is simply dead. No amount of retraining will be able to turn him into what he already was (or was close to being).

When I make a character, I don't just come up with a backstory. I plan out every mechanical aspect to the max. At the big level, I know what classes I'm taking and how those abilities will work together. I know what feats I'm taking at what level. I know where each skill point is going. I know what purchases I'm making and how they affect my character's effectiveness.

This change to the Lore Warden isn't about whether or not the new one is more or less effective, it's about a house of cards I built and someone took a card out of the middle and said "oh, here's a different card, now put it back together." At that point I'm just going to pick up all the cards and put them back in the box and walk away.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

What Changed: The Lore Warden gains "Swords Secret"
What's the problem: I know this may sound petty, but I invested a lot into the flavor of this character, and he uses a Scythe. Not a sword. It doesn't feel the same to have him use "Swords Secret" without the appropriate weapon. Simply changing the weapon won't due either as the scythe plays a significant role in his background, as does much of his other gear.
What I'd like to see: A complete rebuild, gear included, would at least give me the opportunity to keep my XP and Gold. I would also gladly accept grandfathering. Thank you for hearing us out.

Grand Lodge **

Link2000 wrote:

What Changed: The Lore Warden gains "Swords Secret"

What's the problem: I know this may sound petty, but I invested a lot into the flavor of this character, and he uses a Scythe. Not a sword. It doesn't feel the same to have him use "Swords Secret" without the appropriate weapon. Simply changing the weapon won't due either as the scythe plays a significant role in his background, as does much of his other gear.
What I'd like to see: A complete rebuild, gear included, would at least give me the opportunity to keep my XP and Gold. I would also gladly accept grandfathering. Thank you for hearing us out.

You're missing the point. It's not that the weapon is the sword, it's the branch of the society that oversees martial training for initiates. See HERE.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

claudekennilol wrote:
Link2000 wrote:

What Changed: The Lore Warden gains "Swords Secret"

What's the problem: I know this may sound petty, but I invested a lot into the flavor of this character, and he uses a Scythe. Not a sword. It doesn't feel the same to have him use "Swords Secret" without the appropriate weapon. Simply changing the weapon won't due either as the scythe plays a significant role in his background, as does much of his other gear.
What I'd like to see: A complete rebuild, gear included, would at least give me the opportunity to keep my XP and Gold. I would also gladly accept grandfathering. Thank you for hearing us out.
You're missing the point. It's not that the weapon is the sword, it's the branch of the society that oversees martial training for initiates. See HERE.

Even worse as Caspian is more aligned with The Scrolls branch than the Swords. He doesn't even like fighting.

Dark Archive ****

From the new season guide "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"

The most generous interpretation of that would allow a complete rebuild of Lore-Warden's since the bonus feat that was granted allowed you to by-pass ability score requirements. If you had 13 INT though your the feature does not really rely on an ability score.

Silver Crusade ****

Davor Firetusk wrote:

From the new season guide "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"

The most generous interpretation of that would allow a complete rebuild of Lore-Warden's since the bonus feat that was granted allowed you to by-pass ability score requirements. If you had 13 INT though your the feature does not really rely on an ability score.

Old lore wardens used to get all int based skills in class, and the new version doesn't. So that's another ability dependent class feature that changed.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Davor Firetusk wrote:

From the new season guide "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"

The most generous interpretation of that would allow a complete rebuild of Lore-Warden's since the bonus feat that was granted allowed you to by-pass ability score requirements. If you had 13 INT though your the feature does not really rely on an ability score.

The Lore Warden gets Combat Expertise for free, but doesn't get to ignore any prerequisites for follow-up feats, like....

Improved Trip wrote:
Prerequisite: Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Davor Firetusk wrote:

From the new season guide "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"

The most generous interpretation of that would allow a complete rebuild of Lore-Warden's since the bonus feat that was granted allowed you to by-pass ability score requirements. If you had 13 INT though your the feature does not really rely on an ability score.

The Lore Warden gets Combat Expertise for free, but doesn't get to ignore any prerequisites for follow-up feats, like....

Improved Trip wrote:
Prerequisite: Int 13, Combat Expertise.

I think they ment that you ignored the prereqs for Combat Expertise itself.

Stalwart/Improved Stalwart builds could get combat expertise in an easy way with lorewarden.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Epping aka logjones

Davor Firetusk wrote:

From the new season guide "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"

The most generous interpretation of that would allow a complete rebuild of Lore-Warden's since the bonus feat that was granted allowed you to by-pass ability score requirements. If you had 13 INT though your the feature does not really rely on an ability score.

John Compton's already addressed that. He's said he doesn't agree with that interpretation but that Lore Wardens could be up for a special dispensation rebuild prior to the adventurer's guide stuff making it into the PRD.

You can see that here.

*****

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Players impacted: A large proportion of the PFS player group
What has changed: In contrast with every other situation where new material has been published, new material is being forced on established characters.
How was it handled previously: When new material was released, it was typically allowed alongside existing character options, allowing players to choose between options. Often players had the option to retrain from the old option to the new option (for example, the release of Pathfinder Unchained).

In the rare occasions that this was not the case, there were two remedies:


  • Grandfathering of existing characters, as occurred with APG summoners when Pathfinder Unchained was released, or the new Living Monolith prestige class; or
  • A complete, full rebuild of the character, as occurred with the Vivisectionist and the Synthesist Summoner

What's the problem: This change in PFS leadership's policy breaks an underlying contract that has been established over eight years, that a character that has been legally built in good faith will not be adversely affected by new material released by Paizo.

A breach of trust on this level leaves every player feeling worse off.

What I'd like to see: Handling of the new material in the Adventurer's Guide in line with previous new releases of material, and a written commitment that the release of further new material will be handled similarly in the future.

If you wish to discuss this further, John, please hit me up on a PM and I'll be glad to oblige.

*****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course, this gets posted when the team is at GenCon...

Please don't presume to speak for "a large proportion" of anything - even the forums are a *small* proportion of PFS players, and it's hardly universal here either. This isn't data, this is whining. john asked for specific examples, not theorycraft or assumptions that everyone thinks the way you do.

mekkis wrote:
A breach of trust on this level leaves every player feeling worse off.

I don't feel worse. Again, don't presume that you speak for us all, or that you have amazing insight that the rest of us are just unable to see.

*****

What Changed: Lore Warden archetype
What's the problem The changes made to make the Lore Warden a "learned fighter" instead of a Maneuver Master change a lot of existing character builds (three of mine, with various numbers of levels)
What I'd like to see: The biggest issue with the Lore Warden to me is the big bonus to CMB; the other changes aren't as big of a deal. Keeping existing Lore Wardens but removing the Manuever Mastery ability for PFS might be enough of a compromise to avoid needing lots of rebuilds.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Of course, this gets posted when the team is at GenCon...

Please don't presume to speak for "a large proportion" of anything - even the forums are a *small* proportion of PFS players, and it's hardly universal here either. This isn't data, this is whining. john asked for specific examples, not theorycraft or assumptions that everyone thinks the way you do.

mekkis wrote:
A breach of trust on this level leaves every player feeling worse off.
I don't feel worse. Again, don't presume that you speak for us all, or that you have amazing insight that the rest of us are just unable to see.

This.

Silver Crusade *

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Keeping existing Lore Wardens but removing the Manuever Mastery ability for PFS might be enough of a compromise to avoid needing lots of rebuilds.

Not for me it wouldn't.

I needed 4 things from Lore Warden mechanically: full base attack, manoeuvre mastery, "bonus" combat expertise, and weapon training. I also find the extra skill points for INT skills very desirable. These mechanics, and the way in which they are gained through progression through the class levels, support the evolution of the character through education by the Society. And that fits the essence of the archetype, the "fluff" if you'll forgive the term.

New Lore Warden loses 2 out of the 4 things that I selected the archetype and class for.

***

5 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Of course, this gets posted when the team is at GenCon...

Because of all of the pre-GenCon lead time they gave with their decision?

I know I now dread GenCon because Paizo has picked up the habit of making me regret the amount of $ I've sunk into their PFS campaign for the last several GenCons. If you post bad news just before GenCon every year, you can hardly be surprised when people are still reacting to it during GenCon.

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Please don't presume to speak for "a large proportion" of anything - even the forums are a *small* proportion of PFS players, and it's hardly universal here either. This isn't data, this is whining. john asked for specific examples, not theorycraft or assumptions that everyone thinks the way you do.

mekkis wrote:
A breach of trust on this level leaves every player feeling worse off.
I don't feel worse. Again, don't presume that you speak for us all, or that you have amazing insight that the rest of us are just unable to see.

While the post could have been phrased better, I know that my trust in Paizo/ PFS leadership was damaged by their decision.

Which isn't to say I have no trust, just that I'm very disappointed in the direction that they chose to go. Even if it was predictable with recent "print/seel/nerf/reprint" that has been going on since the ACG Adventure Path SNAFU, I had hoped that we might have a break from it and some faith restored.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TimD wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Of course, this gets posted when the team is at GenCon...

Because of all of the pre-GenCon lead time they gave with their decision?

I know I now dread GenCon because Paizo has picked up the habit of making me regret the amount of $ I've sunk into their PFS campaign for the last several GenCons. If you post bad news just before GenCon every year, you can hardly be surprised when people are still reacting to it during GenCon.

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Please don't presume to speak for "a large proportion" of anything - even the forums are a *small* proportion of PFS players, and it's hardly universal here either. This isn't data, this is whining. john asked for specific examples, not theorycraft or assumptions that everyone thinks the way you do.

mekkis wrote:
A breach of trust on this level leaves every player feeling worse off.
I don't feel worse. Again, don't presume that you speak for us all, or that you have amazing insight that the rest of us are just unable to see.

While the post could have been phrased better, I know that my trust in Paizo/ PFS leadership was damaged by their decision.

Which isn't to say I have no trust, just that I'm very disappointed in the direction that they chose to go. Even if it was predictable with recent "print/seel/nerf/reprint" that has been going on since the ACG Adventure Path SNAFU, I had hoped that we might have a break from it and some faith restored.

We've known about these changes since the book came out last March/April. So not sure how this was a Gen Con surprise.

Grand Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What Changed: Lore Warden Archetype
What's the problem: Loss of Second Level Bonus Feat, Reduction in effectiveness for multiple combat maneuvers. Change in Skill points. Resulting in a Seeker level character that became invalid post level 2 due to feat dependencies.
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.)

Sovereign Court

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

My issue with grandfathering is: why screw over the people who didn't get there in time? That just consigns those who didn't beat the deadline to be second-class players. Just like with summoners, and with aasimar/tieflings.

Either everyone should have access, or nobody should.

I support lenient rebuilds so that the users whose builds are broken can salvage things as best they can. I don't support an unfair system.

Silver Crusade *

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

My issue with grandfathering is: why screw over the people who didn't get there in time? That just consigns those who didn't beat the deadline to be second-class players. Just like with summoners, and with aasimar/tieflings.

Either everyone should have access, or nobody should.

I support lenient rebuilds so that the users whose builds are broken can salvage things as best they can. I don't support an unfair system.

Why "screw over" anybody?

We didn't ask for these changes.

Scarab Sages *****

supervillan wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

My issue with grandfathering is: why screw over the people who didn't get there in time? That just consigns those who didn't beat the deadline to be second-class players. Just like with summoners, and with aasimar/tieflings.

Either everyone should have access, or nobody should.

I support lenient rebuilds so that the users whose builds are broken can salvage things as best they can. I don't support an unfair system.

Why "screw over" anybody?

We didn't ask for these changes.

Doesn't matter if you asked for them or not. The Designers of the game decided these were necessary changes. Just on that alone, PFS should adopt the changes to as closely as possible stick to the game that the Designers have created.

Silver Crusade *

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
supervillan wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

My issue with grandfathering is: why screw over the people who didn't get there in time? That just consigns those who didn't beat the deadline to be second-class players. Just like with summoners, and with aasimar/tieflings.

Either everyone should have access, or nobody should.

I support lenient rebuilds so that the users whose builds are broken can salvage things as best they can. I don't support an unfair system.

Why "screw over" anybody?

We didn't ask for these changes.

Doesn't matter if you asked for them or not. The Designers of the game decided these were necessary changes. Just on that alone, PFS should adopt the changes to as closely as possible stick to the game that the Designers have created.

It might not matter to you. It matters to me.

I do not have the same attitude towards "The Designers" that you do. Playing this game is not a privilege granted to me by Designers, whose whims I must obey. I am a player, a GM, and I am a customer.

I believe that for an organised play campaign to be healthy and successful the needs and the wishes of the players, GMs, and customers need to be listened to.

***

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
We've known about these changes since the book came out last March/April. So not sure how this was a Gen Con surprise.

We've known about the book, not the decision. There are Monks and UC Monks, Rogues and UC Rogues, as well as a host of archetypes that share the same name. The existence of one did not necessarily preclude the allowance of the other.

Kalindlara wrote:

My issue with grandfathering is: why screw over the people who didn't get there in time? That just consigns those who didn't beat the deadline to be second-class players. Just like with summoners, and with aasimar/tieflings.

Either everyone should have access, or nobody should.

Concur in part (concur on UC Summoners - aasimars & tieflings are still available via boons, so it's not QUITE as in-your-face).

So point of curiosity, does your view on "access" mean you are opposed to race boons?

Tallow wrote:
The Designers of the game decided these were necessary changes. Just on that alone, PFS should adopt the changes to as closely as possible stick to the game that the Designers have created.

They also decided that boots of the earth are usable at will and that Item Crafting Feats should exist for PCs. Should we now count on you to petition for allowing Item Crafting in PFS since that's what the designers were necessary inclusions in the game?

PFS should be no more bound to follow these new rules than those rules and very few (as you seem to wanted to be counted as in this direction) of us prefer to pay for them to have an inconsistent design philosophy (and yes, a year and a half is "inconsistent"). Given that I still can't build an item crafting character in PFS, it seems that at least on some levels they agree.

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
The Designers of the game decided these were necessary changes. Just on that alone, PFS should adopt the changes to as closely as possible stick to the game that the Designers have created.

The designers of the game have never made a blanket statement that new material updates old.

The only time that this has been the case has been through errata.

This decision lies totally in the hands of the campaign leadership.

Dark Archive ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Could we please move requests/discussion to ignore AG entirely and/or how it was all a mistake to another thread? These aren't at all productive here.

Community & Digital Content Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. It is totally unhelpful to refer to other posters as actually "evil" because of their views on grandfathering options in an organized play campaign.

*** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

TimD wrote:

We've known about the book, not the decision. There are Monks and UC Monks, Rogues and UC Rogues, as well as a host of archetypes that share the same name. The existence of one did not necessarily preclude the allowance of the other.

The problem is that you had a really good guess about Unchained classes given that they actively state the classes are incompatible which while rare did occur this update too. Also, Paizo being bad at names shouldn't be used to support an argument.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Handling Adventurer's Guide Updates All Messageboards