Handling of changing rules: Why has it been getting harsher?


Pathfinder Society

501 to 550 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 4/5

Ragoz wrote:
Sorry Toz, I don't know if you mean take additional rapid shot attacks per barrel or are agreeing gunslingers do half as many attacks as they use to pre-errata.

The second one. I never played my pistolero before the change, but she works just fine with a single barreled gun.

Scarab Sages 5/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
shaventalz wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Ragoz wrote:


You can't rapid shot and also fire both barrels of a double-barreled pistol at once because rapid is made as part of a full-attack and double-barreled attacking at once is a standard action.

I'm not sure what your edit question means but the items and features are allowed by additional resources. The errata to the weapons mean you do less attacks per full-attack than you would have prior to the change.

Im talking about the Dragoon guns which people were saying was too good? and was going to be banned. You can rapid shot those til the cows come home.

A couple points:

1) Dragoon firearms are distinct from the double-barreled firearms originally mentioned.
2) If by "til the cows come home" you mean "for maybe 1 full round every other round", then yes. 3-shot clips.
3) Are you talking Rapid Shot (the feat), or rapidly shooting (normal attacks as per BAB)? Because Rapid Shot (the feat) requires a full-attack action, meaning you have no Move action left with which to reload. You'd have to reload on your next turn.
No the original point was that they nerfed firearms into oblivion because you couldn't rapid shot them. The question marks were primarily because I always thought the gunslinger was a bad class where you had to jump through ridiculous hurdles to get decent damage off of and resulted in the most goofiest and hilariously bad rational for errata I have ever seen.

You'll have to be a bit more descriptive here. Because as far as I can see, a pistol still works the same as it always has. If you get Rapid Reload you can make a full attack, including rapid shot and haste, with your single pistol, get Deadly Aim and Dex to damage, and be pretty darned effective.

Muskets require rapid reload and the musket master archetype to do the same.

So please let me know what got nerfed about firearms that has you and Ragoz saying that gunslingers are all but unplayable now?

The Exchange 3/5

TOZ wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
Sorry Toz, I don't know if you mean take additional rapid shot attacks per barrel or are agreeing gunslingers do half as many attacks as they use to pre-errata.
The second one. I never played my pistolero before the change, but she works just fine with a single barreled gun.

That's great the the character works for you. My only experience of how the changes has impacted the campaign are how I have only seen Musket Masters since implementing the change. I also saw that they still had an uphill battle to deal with the drawbacks of firearms to even attempt to reach parity with a simple high strength power attacking 2-handed character.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I don't see a need for parity. They already have the advantage of range.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
Sorry Toz, I don't know if you mean take additional rapid shot attacks per barrel or are agreeing gunslingers do half as many attacks as they use to pre-errata.
The second one. I never played my pistolero before the change, but she works just fine with a single barreled gun.
That's great the the character works for you. My only experience of how the changes has impacted the campaign are how I have only seen Musket Masters since implementing the change. I also saw that they still had an uphill battle to deal with the drawbacks of firearms to even attempt to reach parity with a simple high strength power attacking 2-handed character.

Gunslingers are at least on par with a standard Fighter Archer in that a single firearm (pistol or musket) can be shot the same number of times. Except gunslingers can hit touch AC, and they can get Dex to damage, which fighter archers cannot do typically.

The Exchange 3/5

We all know the numbers whether it be how many attacks, range, damage, to hit, etc.

We can at least agree there isn't a need for parity.

My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

We could allow full-rebuilds when changes must be made and not taking character options out of context of their build.

We could allow the old content to remain legal as well as make the new content available if Paizo wanted to maximize relevant content and make customers satisfied with their purchase.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

3/5

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

PFS is one of the only types of Pathfinder that requires purchase of a product in order to use its rules element for a character (the only other type I can think of would be the newer online games which have the plug-ins for it). Every home game I've heard of allows players to use web resources.

Just because you may purchase (or as you are showing as a VC, get for free, I guess) PF product for reasons other than PFS it doesn't mean the rest of us do. Some of us ONLY make PF purchases for PFS.

Silver Crusade 1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

You miss a vital point Mark.

The rules of the PFS campaign require ownership of all source material for your characters. Therefore, players whose only opportunity to play Pathfinder is the organised play campaign are buying product for the express and singular purpose of using it in PFS.

For these people, rewrites do invalidate their purchases.

Paizo has made it a requirement to own their publications in order to take part in the organised play campaign. Nothing wrong with that, it's fair enough. But then Paizo has rewritten content, so that what was bought for the purpose of using in PFS can no longer be used in PFS. Whilst ownership of the older material allows use of the new, replacement material, the replacement material is not what was wanted.

You're right that materials are not published solely for PFS. That's why it's important that the Campaign Leadership team makes the right decisions when it comes to implementing new or revised content, grandfathering, or leaving things as they are.

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

TimD wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

PFS is one of the only types of Pathfinder that requires purchase of a product in order to use its rules element for a character (the only other type I can think of would be the newer online games which have the plug-ins for it). Every home game I've heard of allows players to use web resources.

Just because you may purchase (or as you are showing as a VC, get for free, I guess) PF product for reasons other than PFS it doesn't mean the rest of us do. Some of us ONLY make PF purchases for PFS.

I bought a LOT of Pathfiner product before I ever became a Venture-Officer, and will continue to do when I'm no longer one. The books have more use than just PFS.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
TimD wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

PFS is one of the only types of Pathfinder that requires purchase of a product in order to use its rules element for a character (the only other type I can think of would be the newer online games which have the plug-ins for it). Every home game I've heard of allows players to use web resources.

Just because you may purchase (or as you are showing as a VC, get for free, I guess) PF product for reasons other than PFS it doesn't mean the rest of us do. Some of us ONLY make PF purchases for PFS.

I bought a LOT of Pathfiner product before I ever became a Venture-Officer, and will continue to do when I'm no longer one. The books have more use than just PFS.

EDIT: never mind - we're proving the internet arguing meme here.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some back and forth bickering.

Liberty's Edge

Angry Wiggles wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I think the move away from public participation has deeper roots

When you account for both the amount of workforce involved in getting Starfinder off of the ground successfully, as well as the issues they've had with Pathfinder Online. Take into account other, smaller things which people tend to complain about, such as additional resources, and even the contents of this thread, and it tends to paint a picture. It makes sense that the first things that they would cut in order to balance the load would be projects like public playtests and RPG Superstar. While those most definitely provide a benefit, it's less tangible and direct of a benefit than creating new products and product lines.

RPG Superstar isn't just an investment in your own company, it's an investment in the health of the industry. One which may pay off wonderfully, or may not pay off at all, but tends to have decent returns in terms of community good will, at least for the first few rounds. It does however, take a lot of work to do. It makes sense to cut when either time or workforce fall short, so as to free up those resources for elsewhere.

Public Playtests require a lot of time and work invested in order to monitor the playtest and respond to feedback provided by the community, before we even get into moderating the response threads. All to get a relatively small boost in satisfaction for the given product. Certainly desirable when the opportunity is present, but if you don't have the time to dedicate to it, it makes sense to cut this as well and simply edit with past playtest responses in mind.

My theory is that there has been a somewhat gradual move away from public participation for a rather simple reason, Paizo simply does not have the time for it right now, what with other major products needing more attention. These things have been set down one at a time with the full intention of coming back to them when the time was right and they had the ability again. When you view it from this...

I agree with most of what you wrote here. I just believe that what really helped Paizo differentiate itself was that reaching out to the community of potential players and GMs (hence customers) through both RPGSS and the open playtest of PFRPG alpha and beta

I also believe that seeing this special relationship with its audience as no longer needed or not worth it compared to other more classical company choices is a mistake

1/5

Well when the playtests were around I found it quite hard to keep up with the threads. Well paizo staff have to write the books not be on the forums all the time. Also I have sometimes had the rules for the playtest version in my head and not the final book as a GM and not using it as a player and thinking I know the rules I don't look it up while at the table.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

Why would anyone in recent years buy the PFS Field Guide that was published 6 years ago if not for its player options ?

And more accurately for being allowed to use said options when building a PFS character ?

I know I did buy it for that express purpose when it came out those 6 years ago and I think I was not alone in this

When these options are invalidated, that book becomes useless to me. Yet I do not believe that I will be entitled to a refund

FWIW, I think the sales of the PFS Field Guide are likely to take a big nosedive

Liberty's Edge

doctor_wu wrote:
Well when the playtests were around I found it quite hard to keep up with the threads. Well paizo staff have to write the books not be on the forums all the time. Also I have sometimes had the rules for the playtest version in my head and not the final book as a GM and not using it as a player and thinking I know the rules I don't look it up while at the table.

The public playtests were only part of the process. There were phases of closed doors design and development both before and after them

Which were the reasons for changes you could not know of BTW ;-)

But it was a great, though now lost, opportunity to renew the love and passion and interest of the customer base

3/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

Why would anyone in recent years buy the PFS Field Guide that was published 6 years ago if not for its player options ?

And more accurately for being allowed to use said options when building a PFS character ?

I know I did buy it for that express purpose when it came out those 6 years ago and I think I was not alone in this

When these options are invalidated, that book becomes useless to me. Yet I do not believe that I will be entitled to a refund

FWIW, I think the sales of the PFS Field Guide are likely to take a big nosedive

I really wouldn't recommend that book ever though. A large chunk of options were banned years ago which might have played a role in most of the reasons why you would buy the book are in the Adventure Guide.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Now that the goodly chunk of the PFS Field Guide is pretty much useless to me, trying to look forward in a positive light and adding the AG to the Wishlist for 'maybe, someday, if I have enough money and motivation' category.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

Why would anyone in recent years buy the PFS Field Guide that was published 6 years ago if not for its player options ?

And more accurately for being allowed to use said options when building a PFS character ?

I know I did buy it for that express purpose when it came out those 6 years ago and I think I was not alone in this

When these options are invalidated, that book becomes useless to me. Yet I do not believe that I will be entitled to a refund

FWIW, I think the sales of the PFS Field Guide are likely to take a big nosedive

There are more than one option in the Field Guide.

You are assuming that sales of this option are significant enough that a nosedive will be significant.

Scarab Sages 5/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

Why would anyone in recent years buy the PFS Field Guide that was published 6 years ago if not for its player options ?

And more accurately for being allowed to use said options when building a PFS character ?

I know I did buy it for that express purpose when it came out those 6 years ago and I think I was not alone in this

When these options are invalidated, that book becomes useless to me. Yet I do not believe that I will be entitled to a refund

FWIW, I think the sales of the PFS Field Guide are likely to take a big nosedive

I really wouldn't recommend that book ever though. A large chunk of options were banned years ago which might have played a role in most of the reasons why you would buy the book are in the Adventure Guide.

What parts of the book were banned? As far as I know most of the book that was previously legal is still legal.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Now that the goodly chunk of the PFS Field Guide is pretty much useless to me, trying to look forward in a positive light and adding the AG to the Wishlist for 'maybe, someday, if I have enough money and motivation' category.

Really only one option has been changed, and you don't need to buy the AG if you own the Field Guide. John has already stated that if you own the previous book, the PRD is good enough to deal with the changes.

Liberty's Edge

Tallow wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

Why would anyone in recent years buy the PFS Field Guide that was published 6 years ago if not for its player options ?

And more accurately for being allowed to use said options when building a PFS character ?

I know I did buy it for that express purpose when it came out those 6 years ago and I think I was not alone in this

When these options are invalidated, that book becomes useless to me. Yet I do not believe that I will be entitled to a refund

FWIW, I think the sales of the PFS Field Guide are likely to take a big nosedive

There are more than one option in the Field Guide.

You are assuming that sales of this option are significant enough that a nosedive will be significant.

Which options left untouched are attractive enough to PFS players that they will buy the Field Guide just so they can use them ?

And I would like real options used on real builds, not theorycrafting

I do not think there are that many popular options left in it now, but I might be mistaken

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Tallow wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

Why would anyone in recent years buy the PFS Field Guide that was published 6 years ago if not for its player options ?

And more accurately for being allowed to use said options when building a PFS character ?

I know I did buy it for that express purpose when it came out those 6 years ago and I think I was not alone in this

When these options are invalidated, that book becomes useless to me. Yet I do not believe that I will be entitled to a refund

FWIW, I think the sales of the PFS Field Guide are likely to take a big nosedive

There are more than one option in the Field Guide.

You are assuming that sales of this option are significant enough that a nosedive will be significant.

Which options left untouched are attractive enough to PFS players that they will buy the Field Guide just so they can use them ?

And I would like real options used on real builds, not theorycrafting

I do not think there are that many popular options left in it now, but I might be mistaken

I've got a Scroll Scholar wizard myself, even though it's not that great of an archetype (especially when getting out of it after 5th to go Cyphermage.)

Agile weapons.

Air Crystals are useful (but not worth purchasing the book for.) Ghost Salt weapon blanch for archers. Um... Shining Wayfinder? Maybe?

There's also one option that I hesitate even to bring up, fearing the nerfbat. However... Dueling weapon. Given what's happening to everything that boosts CMB, it's even more useful than previously (and is probably on someone's hitlist.)

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Tallow wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

Why would anyone in recent years buy the PFS Field Guide that was published 6 years ago if not for its player options ?

And more accurately for being allowed to use said options when building a PFS character ?

I know I did buy it for that express purpose when it came out those 6 years ago and I think I was not alone in this

When these options are invalidated, that book becomes useless to me. Yet I do not believe that I will be entitled to a refund

FWIW, I think the sales of the PFS Field Guide are likely to take a big nosedive

There are more than one option in the Field Guide.

You are assuming that sales of this option are significant enough that a nosedive will be significant.

Which options left untouched are attractive enough to PFS players that they will buy the Field Guide just so they can use them ?

And I would like real options used on real builds, not theorycrafting

I do not think there are that many popular options left in it now, but I might be mistaken

Personally, I bought the Field Guide for all the vanities. Not much in the way of build options, but it is a significant portion of the book.

There are also some magic weapon abilities that are pretty cool. (i.e. Dueling)

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not think there are that many popular options left in it now, but I might be mistaken

After a brief skim:

Ghost salt blanch
Dweomer's Essence
Aram Zey's Focus
Lipstitch
All of the Vanities.

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I bought it for the vanities. Ghost salt blanch was seasoning.

The grenadier archetype for alchemists is pretty fun as well.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am happy then that my purchase was not entirely useless :-)

Though I do not care much for the vanities

I will just need to create a PFS character one day that actually uses one of those other options

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Friend, I tell ya, by the time they look at you and say "Yeah, you're Seeker material" you'll have so much prestige you'll branch out into multiple ventures just to avoid boredom.

~Primary Owner of Veteran Caravan Services and Freedom Property Management and Consulting

Scarab Sages 5/5

KingOfAnything wrote:

I bought it for the vanities. Ghost salt blanch was seasoning.

The grenadier archetype for alchemists is pretty fun as well.

I always thought it would be fun to play as well.

But I played with one player who optimized it to the max, used it with a hybridization funnel and then would shoot arrows with cone bombs and 3 different alchemical items mixed with the arrow to cause the badguy to incur 3 different debuffing conditions...

The Exchange 5/5

The Raven Black wrote:
Tallow wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My problem stems from how despite there being no reason for parity to exist in Pathfinder we are still going through several years of mechanically ruined characters, tens to hundreds of dollars of books purchases being invalidated, and can't take steps to making changes more palatable.

Those purchases aren't invalidated. They are still perfectly good for virtually every other game of Pathfinder, with the exception of PFS. These books are written for PFRPG. Campaign Leadership finds ways to incorporate them. Sometimes those ways later become problematic.

But to say those purchases are invalidated is a canard. Let's try to avoid such hyperbole, please.

Why would anyone in recent years buy the PFS Field Guide that was published 6 years ago if not for its player options ?

And more accurately for being allowed to use said options when building a PFS character ?

I know I did buy it for that express purpose when it came out those 6 years ago and I think I was not alone in this

When these options are invalidated, that book becomes useless to me. Yet I do not believe that I will be entitled to a refund

FWIW, I think the sales of the PFS Field Guide are likely to take a big nosedive

There are more than one option in the Field Guide.

You are assuming that sales of this option are significant enough that a nosedive will be significant.

Which options left untouched are attractive enough to PFS players that they will buy the Field Guide just so they can use them ?

And I would like real options used on real builds, not theorycrafting

I do not think there are that many popular options left in it now, but I might be mistaken

I am ... speechless. There are SO MANY things I use in this one book. I have close to 40 PCs now, and the only ones that don't use this for SOMETHING are my CORE characters.

Jade Wayfinder enhancement - 2PP to get a +1 on almost any skill check.

Messenger Wayfinder enhancement - a bit steep at 5PP, but a still about the only way to get unlimited use of the message spell.

So many Vanities...

Several of the spells...

Trapspingers Gloves...several other of the Magic items...

Agile weapon enhancement...

Adventuring Kits (most of my PCs start with the Pathfinders Kit).

(Posting this as my Grenadier Alchemist)...

And GOODNESS!!!! Master of Trade is from this book!

edit: wait... was your post meant as sarcasm Raven? If so, I missed it, sorry!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand that there is a marked difference between PFS play and PFRPG play. What frustrates me is when there is a difficulty with an option in PFS play, so the entire PFRPG has to change (nerf/errata/etc) so that PFS problem is dealt with. If they are two different games, treat them like two different games. If they are not two different games, stop making a distinction between them.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

chances are pretty good that if PFS play is having a problem with something it's affecting home games as well. If a DM feels that something worked fine before, PFS doesn't send flying raptors to their house to make sure they're playing by the new rules or anything.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

No, it just gets harder to use character tools to manage them when options disappear.

5/5 5/55/55/5

TOZ wrote:
No, it just gets harder to use character tools to manage them when options disappear.

score one for dead tree!

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
River of Sticks wrote:
I understand that there is a marked difference between PFS play and PFRPG play. What frustrates me is when there is a difficulty with an option in PFS play, so the entire PFRPG has to change (nerf/errata/etc) so that PFS problem is dealt with. If they are two different games, treat them like two different games. If they are not two different games, stop making a distinction between them.

I think the paradigm is different. Its not that they are the same or different games.

The PFRPG line of product is produced by Paizo for the general public to consume and create their own games from. Some folks play APs, some folks play their own home brew campaigns. Some folks play one-offs.

Think of PFS as its own "home-brew" campaign. Its just that a different department of Paizo publishes this separate campaign. It is, however, based on the same game, and has a precedent of incorporating any changes the product line makes.

And no, the entire PFRPG did not have to change to support issues and problems in PFS. After 10 years, the designers of the game will make changes they see as necessary based on 10 years of feedback. Some of which is from their own campaigns they run in house and at each of their own homes. Do they use feedback from PFS? They'd be silly not to, considering that 60,000+ people play the game. That's a pretty big group of feedback to let them know how appropriate some options are.

So there is certainly a synergistic relationship between Pathfinder and PFS, but it isn't like the PFS team tells the PDT what to do or vice versa.

Also, keep in mind, that a current member of the PDT was at one time a very prominent PFS player, GM, and VL. And so by default, their opinions on game balance are likely going to be informed by their experiences with PFS.

Liberty's Edge

There also GMs that use PFS-allowed as the basis for their home game because they like the style or they feel that PFS will be better at uprooting unbalanced options than the individual GM ever will

Scarab Sages 5/5

Yes. But that doesn't change the paradigm.

Lantern Lodge

I always viewed PFS as the "RAW" version of Pathfinder. Yes it updates its FAQ far more frequently than the official ones but that's due to Paizos policy of publishing FAQs only with reprints. I do find that policy odd in the age of the internet and The SRD but dont see that as a reason to consider PFS a seperate homebrew game. Its just an advantage PFS has for being largely voulunteer based.

The official team uses PFS as the area for playtesting new material, spotlighting their current adventure paths, etc. They publish boons on pathfinder tales and other product lines. I would argue PFS is the driving force behind their continued success.

Most of the bans PFS has made I agree with. I think people are mainly upset because they are nerfing the lore warden of all things. CM builds are notoriously weak and if anything make the rest of the party shine because they're the ones who are ultimately killing the bad guys.

I mainly just don't understand the need to "grandfather" classes. At Gencon this year I was at a table with a grandfathered summoner. Of course his eidolon pounced everything to death and I found it lame. Lame becaus he was playing a class that was rightfully banned. The character's power had to do with him playing a broken class not creative choices the player made.

I also don't understabd their hesitation at not allowing full character rebuilds if any part of their class is changed or buyback at full value for any item that's tweaked. Many rightfully do it anyway. It would also take away most of the sting when you find out something was nerfed for your character.

1/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kaisc006 wrote:


Most of the bans PFS has made I agree with. I think people are mainly upset because they are nerfing the lore warden of all things. CM builds are notoriously weak and if anything make the rest of the party shine because they're the ones who are ultimately killing the bad guys.

I mainly just don't understand the need to "grandfather" classes. At Gencon this year I was at a table with a grandfathered summoner. Of course his eidolon pounced everything to death and I found it lame. Lame becaus he was playing a class that was rightfully banned. The character's power had to do with him playing a broken class not creative choices the player made.

I also don't understabd their hesitation at not allowing full character rebuilds if any part of their class is changed or buyback at full value for any item that's tweaked. Many rightfully do it anyway. It would also take away most of the sting when you find out something was nerfed for your character.

First Paragraph: Can be essentially boiled down to 'Martials aren't supposed to have really awesome things, when they start getting "cool" they need to go back to the chain locker and learn their position in life.' Especially if they aren't contributing a minimum tier of DPS through-put.

Second Paragraph: Original summoner was in APG. Several hardbacks followed with summoner resources. Then people who had faithfully played their class were suddenly warned that they were no longer going to be able to play them (to prevent a rehash of an event with certain races) in their original format. This wasn't just some 'splat' upgrade, this was a hardcover upgrade, and it was the only class in said upgrade that was given the mandatory 'You MUST play the new version after X date'.

Everyone agreed that established characters with history should be allowed to continue their story without having to scrap and/or destroy potentially years of play. Personally, I have not seen the abuse that allegedly occured, and I still can't imagine why it was necessary to nerf the class when other classes SORELY needed *buffing*.

Third Paragraph: There is still a lingering fear from some organized play campaigns in the past that 'free rebuilds' will turn into a 'wealth generation machine' and/or 'The OmniCharacter'.

Okay, so that scenario was good for a Brawler, but I'm about to hit one where I need to have something casty in it...

Personally, I'd prefer that when new material came down, there wasn't even a question of 'free' rebuilds, since it'd happen automagically in say, an MMO.

It'd definitely remove some granularity, though it would also mean that there'd need to be a higher level of trust of the player base. Given past history with a few anecdotal outlier cases, it seems that will be unlikely to happen.

The Exchange 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There wouldn't need to be a higher level of trust. The campaign doesn't track what feat you take, how you distributed skill points, what class you are playing, what archetypes, what race (unless you have a chronicle) etc. They are at the mercy of every player that they will be honest and not change these things already.

When they make you do a restricted rebuild they still have to have complete faith you will follow those rules.

If they let you do a free rebuild it requires less trust because this lowers that baseline down to what a person breaking the rules could do at any time they wanted.

Free rebuilds are the most sensible option for not punishing honest players as well as making the process reasonable.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
First Paragraph: ...

Just to be clear I'm not saying fighters can't have cool things or saying I dislike people who pick those. I'm just stating the fact that it's a sub-optimal choice that didn't need nerfing.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Second Paragraph: ...

They banned the class because it was broken as written and disruptive to soceity play. Keeping it legal for a select few still meant it was disruptive at those tables. They should've been allowed to either switch to the new summoner or have a full character rebuild that's it.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Third Paragraph: ...

Allowing full character rebuilds / sell backs would not give players any more ability to make an "omni-character", switching every scenario, than there currently is. It would still be breaking the rules. Im not sure what a wealth build is but if it's something about not worrying about consumables I think the effect of cheating like that would be minimal... And again there isn't a way to stop it.

As Ragoz said free re-builds are the only sensible option to not punish honest players.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:
CM builds are notoriously weak...

CM builds are not weak, let alone notoriously so. I've seen CM builds completely obliterate encounters before. One player was trying to pop the head off (yeah, apparently there's a feat for that) a gargantuan statue. Sometimes those builds really strain credulity despite the fact this is a magic game.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:

There wouldn't need to be a higher level of trust. The campaign doesn't track what feat you take, how you distributed skill points, what class you are playing, what archetypes, what race (unless you have a chronicle) etc. They are at the mercy of every player that they will be honest and not change these things already.

When they make you do a restricted rebuild they still have to have complete faith you will follow those rules.

If they let you do a free rebuild it requires less trust because this lowers that baseline down to what a person breaking the rules could do at any time they wanted.

Free rebuilds are the most sensible option for not punishing honest players as well as making the process reasonable.

In the case of the Lorewarden, I will agree with you. After reading through the multiple threads showing how integral some of the Lorewarden choices were for builds and how the changes completely decapitate these characters, I think a complete rebuild is the right way to go.

But I will not agree on every single change. In some cases, you want to enforce the integrity of the character as much as possible. You made a summoner and the summoner changed? Great, you can rebuild into the new summoner, but not into whatever else you want.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

The only one I have ever heard of was the Tripping Monk that gives itself like 5 attacks for free.

I'm sure there are more, but Combat Manuevers just do not keep up. They probably scale worse than Channel Energy.

1/5

I will say that maneuvers generally keep up decently well against smaller creatures and/or non-martial classes. So if you're fighting halflings or wizards, your normal attack bonuses will probably decent (but still not great.)

It's when you start getting into bigger stuff or martials that the CMD scales out of control. Martials NPCs are going to be a few levels higher than the PCs, probably, to give the party a challenge (so they get an automatic advantage in BAB.) Big stuff not only gets size bonuses to CMD, but also gets size bonuses to strength, which add to CMD.

Of course, even when you have enough bonus to land the maneuver fairly reliably, you still have to pay the feat taxes to not get punched in the face trying it. And given the number of high-CR monsters that are bigger than you with higher stats than PCs could dream of...

Scarab Sages 5/5

DM Beckett wrote:

The only one I have ever heard of was the Tripping Monk that gives itself like 5 attacks for free.

I'm sure there are more, but Combat Manuevers just do not keep up. They probably scale worse than Channel Energy.

You speak like this is absolute truth. And yet, anecdotally, I will say I've run into several maneuver builds that are exceptional all the way up to level 19. Fighters, Alchemists, Monks, Brawlers, and more.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

The only one I have ever heard of was the Tripping Monk that gives itself like 5 attacks for free.

I'm sure there are more, but Combat Manuevers just do not keep up. They probably scale worse than Channel Energy.

This just isn't true.

Anecdotal.

I haven't seen them keep up very well outside of a few niche builds that were not overpowered.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Tallow wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

The only one I have ever heard of was the Tripping Monk that gives itself like 5 attacks for free.

I'm sure there are more, but Combat Manuevers just do not keep up. They probably scale worse than Channel Energy.

This just isn't true.

Anecdotal.

I haven't seen them keep up very well outside of a few niche builds that were not overpowered.

Anecdotally, I've seen standard maneuver builds keep up quite well, and the crazy builds dominate at all levels of play.

4/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Any one person's observations are by definition anecdotal... you'd have to have multiple sources of feedback from widely-separated locations to compile actual data on this and remove individual bias and systematic error.

You know, like none of us can, but Paizo does.

Scarab Sages 5/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Any one person's observations are by definition anecdotal... you'd have to have multiple sources of feedback from widely-separated locations to compile actual data on this and remove individual bias and systematic error.

You know, like none of us can, but Paizo does.

Very true. But definitive statements like, "CM builds are notoriously weak...," and ,"I haven't seen them keep up very well outside of a few niche builds that were not overpowered...," or, "I'm sure there are more, but Combat Manuevers just do not keep up. They probably scale worse than Channel Energy...," doesn't help the conversation when they go directly contrary to my own (and presumably others') experience. Because then we end up getting bogged down in a theoretical discussion on whether those definitive statements are true or false.

501 to 550 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Handling of changing rules: Why has it been getting harsher? All Messageboards