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


Pathfinder Society

401 to 450 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Rhode Island—Lincoln aka Upaynao

Wraith235 wrote:

Saw 80 New posts and thought we had gotten a ruling

a lot of what is being Glazed over is the track record of the design team over the last few years - and yes many of us are ignoring the fact of what they have done to add to this issue

ARG alternate racial favored class bonus Nerf
Jingasa and much of the Ultimate Equipment Errata
Early Access to prestige classes for Plane touched characters
Ultimate Magic Archetype Nerfs
Ultimate Combat Archtype Nerfs
Adventurers Guide Nerfs
Statments that their softcover lines dont get as much editing and review love as the hardbacks

the list goes on and on .. its not just 1 thing that has undermined the credibility of the Company ... its everything .... its watching the bridge get made from lego's in Still motion photography ...
most people are going to see 1 thing that affects them directly and go "Well %$^& that Im done" few of us are going to see all the issues that have caused we the Consumers to become disillusioned with the Company

Heck I would be welling to bet Dollars to Donuts thats how the company sees it as well

Yes this is a living campaign
Yes we expect changes
yes inevitably some of the softcover books we bought will be made worthless after the fact - hopefully Months and not years
No I do not believe there is a catchall answer because in the end we are only human
Yes I understand that the thing right now is to do blanket balance passes

but really Heavy handed change one after another after another is Not the way to Keep people playing your game
Look at the MMO Market ... games that undergo this usually pay the price on their bottom line ... granted we aren't talking SWG:NGE Level changes here ... but they are starting to add up

all in all I think what the community is asking for is transparency and Speed ...
and ya its only been a month since the fan got hit with the turd cannon
but we've been having repeat instances of 3+ Month delays on content being cleared vs/ not cleared .. which is another nail of...

Not to take away from the jist of your argument, but some things mentioned here do not originate with the campaign or the coordinators. The early access into prestige classes for example was something that originated with the design team. In the spirit of displaying a better argument for folks out there like myself could you go through those issues and separate those originating with the design team and those originating with the organised play team? Also, if I may make a petty request: could you not make video game comparisons? I feel like the tabletop industry is a very different beast from the video game industry, and when you use examples mixing the two I take your argument less seriously. And I feel like there's a point you are making there that deserves to be understood.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It didn't originate with the design team. It started because I asked to not make Evangelist an exception to the SLA rule in PFS after it had been legal for some time. You can still see this rule in Additional Resources.

The person who designed Evangelist hated the SLA rule and wouldn't budge on the issue. Paizo staff aren't going to argue with their own coworker over the topic if they don't even feel particularly passionate about the topic anyway.

The hammer came down on SLA directly from a PFS discussion and then the issue was deflected to the design team.

I would say that was the beginning of the design philosophy shift that we have seen the past few years now.

Silver Crusade

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

Huh, from what I saw the SLA ruling had to to do with Mystic Theurge shenanigans, I don't ever remember Evangelists getting mentioned.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gregory Rebelo wrote:
Not to take away from the jist of your argument, but some things mentioned here do not originate with the campaign or the coordinators. The early access into prestige classes for example was something that originated with the design team. In the spirit of displaying a better argument for folks out there like myself could you go through those issues and separate those originating with the design team and those originating with the organised play team? Also, if I may make a petty request: could you not make video game comparisons? I feel like the tabletop industry is a very different beast from the video game industry, and when you use examples mixing the two I take your argument less seriously. And I feel like there's a point you are making there that deserves to be understood.

you actually have highlighted the argument ... the majority of things I mentioned was in fact from the design team's hands with only the delays in AR and the lack of transparency on how and why things are being done the way they are falling at PFS Coordinators feet

and note I did not include the Tiefling / Aasimar thing because lets face it ... there was abuse ... and no matter how you shake that tree ... there was gonna be - when you take a product away from people the knee jerk reaction is to of course stockpile - RL instance of this is as soon as you threaten to take peoples guns away .... sporting goods stores have a run on them

and yes ... the table top industry is a VERY Different beast from the MMO Market that is true ... but the reason I used them as an example is that there are simply So many more instances of where MMO's have gone down this path to self ruination and Consumer alienation than I can come up with for table tops
Ask your friends how many of them trust Companies that have pulled this many times in the past and gauge the results

Sure I suppose I could have used 4th ed. as the example that drove its player base away but debating using a vehicle I truly care nothing about (D&D 4th ed. +) ends up not conveying the same feeling and I really could care less about 4th ed or even 5th ed for that matter

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

No more open playtests, no more RPG SuperStar. I do not see collaborative democracy in the future of Paizo or PFS, but I might be wrong

Silver Crusade

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

Yeah, the Vigilante playtest burnt that bridge to the f+!#ing ground and then some -_-

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Yeah, the Vigilante playtest burnt that bridge to the f+$+ing ground and then some -_-

??? Don't have to respond in the thread, but I am curious to hear other opinions on this?

The Exchange

Rysky wrote:
Huh, from what I saw the SLA ruling had to to do with Mystic Theurge shenanigans, I don't ever remember Evangelists getting mentioned.

Evangelist and SLA history in PFS for those who are interested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Yeah, the Vigilante playtest burnt that bridge to the f+$+ing ground and then some -_-
??? Don't have to respond in the thread, but I am curious to hear other opinions on this?

I too would be interested but pm or start another thread because derail from beyond on that I'm sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Yeah, the Vigilante playtest burnt that bridge to the f+$+ing ground and then some -_-
??? Don't have to respond in the thread, but I am curious to hear other opinions on this?

It was taken over by theory crafters who verbally abused anyone with a dissenting opinion or who actually play tested it (including the design team).

Edit: And please don't think of it as a dig against theory crafting, it is not, this particular group was the issue, not theory crafting.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My ideal response:

No grandfathering for character builds that are being made illegal for play. Instead allow full rebuilds of their character at their given level.

Pathfinder, especially PFS, is about optimization where even the smallest part of your build has weight. A change could topple the whole thing so players should have freedom to try something new.

Grandfathering classes just causes confusion and more imbalance. Once its illegal it should be actoss the board.

The only exception is race. Race because that's something relatively minor to impacting gameplay. Race boons are also far more common than class boons. Races can come and go and frankly I dont care if players stockpile 100 of them before they become illegal. Thats 100 tables made for PFS.

Some players may be annoyed the book they purchased is now "useless" but thats something I see as unavoidable for the betterment of PFS.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 aka GreySector

8 people marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:
Pathfinder, especially PFS, is about optimization...

IMO optimization is not required for success in PFS, and in my experience the more you optimize in PFS the less interesting the campaign becomes.

EDIT

That is to say there is a point of diminishing returns with optimization (you want to be effective without being overpowered, which can be a hard line to walk). If you can roflstomp everything with almost no effort then what is the point of playing?

Sovereign Court

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

Especially if the rest of the table doesn't want a single hyperoptimized character to dominate the adventure. (Not all optimized characters, etc.)

Not everyone is here to race to the top/get on that level/etc.

1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

With regards to optimization:

It's basically impossible to have a character at a "good" level of optimization without ignoring some of his capabilities, regardless of where you draw the line. Scenario challenge levels are all over the place; not only between, say, seasons 0 and 4, but even inside the same season. That OP character that just sat down may have taken <overpowered option> because they were the only survivor of a near-TPK two levels ago.

Lantern Lodge

Michael Eshleman wrote:
IMO optimization is not required for success in PFS

I should state optimization doesnt mean munchkin cheese builds but it does mean pulling all the best components that are PFS legal and using it to make your character work.

But it is absolutely a big part of Pathfinder as a whole. The Pathfinder system is one of the crunchiest on the market right now. If people want a game where you can sit down and play with little effort into optimizing your character build that simply isnt Pathfinder. PFS highlights this when you will be underperforming compared to a majority of the players. Dungeon World or to a lesser extent 5e are better for that.

Silver Crusade

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

That is just blatantly false

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
IMO optimization is not required for success in PFS

I should state optimization doesnt mean munchkin cheese builds but it does mean pulling all the best components that are PFS legal and using it to make your character work.

But it is absolutely a big part of Pathfinder as a whole. The Pathfinder system is one of the crunchiest on the market right now. If people want a game where you can sit down and play with little effort into optimizing your character build that simply isnt Pathfinder. PFS highlights this when you will be underperforming compared to a majority of the players. Dungeon World or to a lesser extent 5e are better for that.

I think the disconnect is the way people define the word "optimize". Some use it as an epithet (it means those who create the cheezy crazy builds) while others feel its just making sure your character is capable and well-rounded.

For the record, I use the term "over-optimized" to refer to the crazy cheesy builds. Because I do use a certain level of optimization for my characters, because I want them to be excellent at things they are good at. But I'm comfortable with a reasonable chance of failure too, because that's when I get to creatively problem-solve, which is something I really enjoy doing.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
For the record, I use the term "over-optimized" to refer to the crazy cheesy builds. Because I do use a certain level of optimization for my characters, because I want them to be excellent at things they are good at. But I'm comfortable with a reasonable chance of failure too, because that's when I get to creatively problem-solve, which is something I really enjoy doing.

This. That's why I used "hyperoptimized" up there.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I find that characters do not need all the best components to work in PFS. You can build with 'okay' options and make it through most adventures will only a modicum of work.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm often asks the right questions--

I'll continue.

My Ideal Response from Campaign Leadership

Mine come from a conversation I had this weekend with store coordinators like myself and a couple venture officers. All of the complaints came down to "This person or that person said that would never happen again" followed by us debating when Pathfinder 2.0 would come out because Starfinder is obviously a stealth playtest (Consensus, 2019 or 2020).

Which underlies the problem of the Campaign management. They've got a credibility problem that is increasing because of a legacy of broken promises, less outreach by Paizo (fewer open playtests, the end of RPG Superstar) and finally the apparent overturning of established precedent with little to no explaination (Lore Warden). Yes, these are not all directly tied to the PFS, but they are symptoms of the same problem I believe.

I also suspect that over time, being asked to look at every piece of minutia can get tiring and hearing from whiny players and perhaps worries about the bottom line.

What they should do?

Come clean. Explain you desicions and openly and forcefully address these problems. Since I suspect part of the problem is the workload, hire some people to deal with these "PR" issues. But be honest.

My Ideal Response from the Player and GM Community

Campaign leadership feels that PFS players have abused their trust on some level. I know not everyone here is guilty and some examples are highly subjective as in "Look, I only did ten Aasimars. Mike Brock said it was okay!"
It wasn't okay. And because of that I had no lead time to do a third chained summoner (which most everyone is okay with) because they feared a simular "run".
Then the process was repeated again and it got "tighter" the next time and finally there was a percieved to be an overreaction (Lore Warden).

What we have to do is realise we've (collectively, I know I'm perfect in my modest opinion) fed the paranoia. What we can do? When we see someone acting entitled, ask them, is it worth it? Talk about the history with new players so they understand the "why" of why things are do your part to prevent petty crap from hitting the desk of our campaign organizers. Keep our arguments civil. Don't call people liars or assume bad faith unless you have a real good reason to, and even then let them hang themselves rather than cutting people down.

Basically, be excellent to each other.

Community & Digital Content Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking for review.

Community & Digital Content Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Unlocking and removed a few of the back-and-forth posts/negatively charged personal insults. We understand that rules changes, banning of rules elements for OP, or clarifications/FAQ resolutions will cause a level of disagreement among the community. However, calling out others as "liars" and drudging up years old implementation of campaign changes as a means to argue with each other is not helpful and does not move the conversation forward in a productive way. When engaging in debate, we expect participants to focus on the idea or central topic of discussion and not on the individual posters or their post history.

Feedback on this thread indicates the community would appreciate foreknowledge of the PRD update for Adventurer's Guide. As a result, when we have a release date for the PRD, we will announce the date in advance, as well as how the update will affect the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild and the implementation timeline for any changes.

The Exchange 5/5

thank you Chris...

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Excellent, I think that will alleviate a lot of concerns for those significantly impacted by the changes.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Alberta—Grand Prairie aka DM Livgin

Since this thread is still going and I don't know where else to put this: the Lore Warden put me in a creative rut when it came to character building. It felt that the lore warden was always the right choice for making a character that was a good fit for the Pathfinder Society, which is a credit to the author, but instead of weighing the pros and cons of any specific archetype I was rationalizing why not to take the lore warden. Please don't hate on me, but I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard it was on the way out.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
kaisc006 wrote:
Pathfinder, especially PFS, is about optimization where even the smallest part of your build has weight.

For me, it is really not. Neither one.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Missouri—Cape Girardeau

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Eshleman wrote:


If you can roflstomp everything with almost no effort then what is the point of playing?

The GM gives you your chronicle after the first encounter, congratulates you on "winning" pathfinder, and turns to the rest of the table saying "Shall we continue?"

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
That is just blatantly false

Well, it's half true.

Just about anyone can sit down and make a good, viable two handed fighter. Its pretty intuitive. Big guy lots of armor big sword good to go.

Some people want to make something harder, a two weapon fighter. Which runs into a lot of problems with the move or attack dichotomy, or running into something with hardness 10 at level 3 and not being able to hurt it.

Some options are a lot harder to make work than others. In pathfinder those differences are pretty vast compared to a lot of other systems.

Sovereign Court

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

The issue here, I think, is baseline. You can be a perfectly serviceable two-weapon fighter without a significant degree of optimization.

Will you occasionally struggle with something (rare) like hardness? Maybe. I don't think that makes your character useless. And moving to attack is something just about every character runs into. If it weren't an intended part of the game, getting around it wouldn't be limited to a specific vigilante talent or totem chain.

When we get into "if you're not Power Attack Falchion Guy or Beast Totem Barbarian, you don't belong in PFS", I don't think the system is the problem.

Shadow Lodge

There are many degrees of difference, though, and even beyond that, there is a pretty significant difference in how depowered different characters can be by simple things like needing to move. Ranged characters generally do not, while those that rely in area affects are not hindered much. The Two-Hander may (or may not) suffer a small decrease in power from moving and attacking, while the Dual Wielder has their potential nearly cut in half, (and maybe more).

Sovereign Court

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

For one round. And when "can't move and full attack" has been part of the game since the turn of the century, it hardly seems like something to declare characters "too weak" over.

EDIT: Actually, 3.0 let you use haste to get around it. And then they changed the spell so that it no longer worked that way. Almost like it was an intended part of the system...

Sovereign Court

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

Basically, if "character built in line with the system's expectations" is "too weak" for PFS, there's a problem here. It might be the threats posed by scenarios (power level of S4, robots in S6). It might be experienced community members' expectations. It could be plenty of things. But it's a problem.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

The issue here, I think, is baseline. You can be a perfectly serviceable two-weapon fighter without a significant degree of optimization.

Will you occasionally struggle with something (rare) like hardness?

Hardness, DR/ ha ha! elemental, DR adamantine, and DR obscure alchemical metal you don't have are not rare. They are damn near omnipresent in PFS. If you cannot muscle through it, you are probably hosed. Damage is one area you can't help much with smart play. You have the math or you don't.

Quote:
If it weren't an intended part of the game, getting around it wouldn't be limited to a specific vigilante talent or totem chain.

... or by using a longbow. Or being a pounce kitty/raptor of death. Or an unchained monk with Lu Kang's flying kick.

I think the designers intended more full attacks to happen than I see happening.

Quote:
When we get into "if you're not Power Attack Falchion Guy or Beast Totem Barbarian, you don't belong in PFS", I don't think the system is the problem.

Both "if you're not Power Attack Falchion Guy or Beast Totem Barbarian, you don't belong in PFS" and "I'll be perfectly fine two weapon fighting what can go wrong" can be problems. (Albeit, one is a much more serious personal problem one can be a skill problem) Two weapon fighting can be good enough for pfs... with a modicum of system mastery. High strength ranger with a two handed weapon back up. Orc with a double axe. If valeros winds up as your only fighter in the wrong scenario you are in trouble.

Options and optimization haven't increased the power bar, it's made a lot of different options a heck of a lot more viable. You don't need to be a combat monster OR a whiz with traps now you're both. You're not a socialite or a caster now everyone at the party AND the laws of physics do what you want because you're so pretty.

What's really ticking people off is that This keystone was pretty neccesary to make some builds work (lorewarden to get some feat chains inside reasonable PFS levels) are getting nerfed but actual game breaking abilities remain in play (slumber hex happy witch anyone?)

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel it is more common the people who don't bring a certain level of optimization get frustrated when their own character's comparative shortcomings rather than other people looking down or excluding them.

It's the people who reread their character sheet a few times for a couple minutes when it got to their turn before giving up and saying "I can't do anything" that get frustrated with the situation. The person casting combat winning spells or doing 100+ dpr full-attacks isn't going to be concerned about your character but might be concerned about the player themselves.

It feels bad when everyone isn't having fun but the middle of combat isn't where other people can always help that person beyond making sure they don't die and turning it into an even worse night.

Relating it all back to the topic.. I don't know. Core rulebook is OP. Static modifiers to numeric scores are OP. This content we are replacing is not OP. The old versions which have existed for years could even easily be legal along with the new versions. But then again I've always been an advocate for letting people use as much content as feasibly possible in this campaign because most people here are mature enough adults to decide for themselves who they would like to play games with or without.

Replacing this content is unnecessary and there is a long list of reasons growing from several years of changes that I suspect is impacting Paizo's business.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Ragoz wrote:

I feel it is more common the people who don't bring a certain level of optimization get frustrated when their own character's comparative shortcomings rather than other people looking down or excluding them.

It's the people who reread their character sheet a few times for a couple minutes when it got to their turn before giving up and saying "I can't do anything" that get frustrated with the situation. The person casting combat winning spells or doing 100+ dpr full-attacks isn't going to be concerned about your character but might be concerned about the player themselves.

It feels bad when everyone isn't having fun but the middle of combat isn't where other people can always help that person beyond making sure they don't die and turning it into an even worse night.

This is valid too. Just wanted to make sure it didn't look like I was letting this go by.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
... or by using a longbow. Or being a pounce kitty/raptor of death. Or an unchained monk with Lu Kang's flying kick.

So they didn't intend for melee weapon users to exist? Why did they print Two-Weapon Fighting in the first place, if they expected only druids and archers to exist?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hardness, DR/ ha ha! elemental, DR adamantine, and DR obscure alchemical metal you don't have are not rare. They are damn near omnipresent in PFS. If you cannot muscle through it, you are probably hosed. Damage is one area you can't help much with smart play. You have the math or you don't.

For the record, I consider "getting material weapons when possible" to be an assumption, rather than optimization. That's part of my baseline.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Both "if you're not Power Attack Falchion Guy or Beast Totem Barbarian, you don't belong in PFS" and "I'll be perfectly fine two weapon fighting what can go wrong" can be problems. (Albeit, one is a much more serious personal problem one can be a skill problem)

Very true. I know I sound quite accusatory... it's a rough day, and there's too much going on for me to focus entirely on making my statements as presentable as I would like. :/


What's wrong with Falchions...

They're good enough for Morgan Freeman.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Ragoz wrote:
But then again I've always been an advocate for letting people use as much content as feasibly possible in this campaign because most people here are mature enough adults to decide for themselves who they would like to play games with or without.

A quick note on this. I know people for whom their choices are "play PFS with this one specific group" or "don't play Pathfinder at all". Choices aren't always plentiful, unfortunately.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
... or by using a longbow. Or being a pounce kitty/raptor of death. Or an unchained monk with Lu Kang's flying kick.
So they didn't intend for melee weapon users to exist? Why did they print Two-Weapon Fighting in the first place, if they expected only druids and archers to exist?

They intended for them to exist. It just doesn't work out nearly as intended (in so far as i can determine the intent from the cost in feats they make you pump into it) Archery, pounce, and full attack options wind up as near necessities for relevance at higher levels.

Quote:
For the record, I consider "getting material weapons when possible" to be an assumption, rather than optimization. That's part of my baseline.

Right, but the two weapon fighter needs to get TWO of them. Which means on occasion one of his weapons isn't working nearly as well.

Sovereign Court

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

Another note, while I'm babbling on and on (and one that ties back to the thread's actual topic): I think optimization is also key to what's going on in the thread, and to the responses from some users.

Lore warden was too powerful... when compared to the base CRB fighter. That's a class that many people here don't think is good enough to be usable. (I won't comment one way or the other on that.) It doesn't take into account the benefits the fighter has received from options like advanced armor training, which the lore warden forsakes (forsook?), or the increased utility of bravery with more recent options. It looks at the game as a collection of every option that was ever printed, which the developers don't necessarily consider to be the only way to play. Our perspective is different.

I think old lore warden was probably fine (though I've never seen one in action, so your mileage may vary). And I certainly don't think there was a conspiracy to see it depowered - if there were, it probably would have happened far longer ago.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Falchion Fred wrote:
What's wrong with Falchions...

Nuthin'.

The Exchange

I understand choices for play groups aren't always there but in the context of this thread I simply believe content legal for over 6 years is tolerable enough by most players that it can remain legal even when a new version of it is published.

It is even the most agreeable solution at least when it comes to not wasting both Paizo's and player's time, money, and emotional investment. Maybe my current idea can make use of the old Lion Blade but that doesn't mean I can't use the new one in the future if it made sense. No space-time paradox is going to destroy everything if both options are legal. It is very possible for two different options with the same name to coexist.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Archery, pounce, and full attack options wind up as near necessities for relevance at higher levels.

This doesn't match my experiences with high level play. But I'm used to home games and the CR system, not the spectrum of high-level PFS experiences.

I will say, having run most of the Waking Rune arc for PCs who would be considered low-optimization by forum standards, that I don't believe it's necessary in PFS.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Ragoz wrote:
I understand choices for play groups aren't always there but in the context of this thread I simply believe content legal for over 6 years is tolerable enough by most players that it can remain legal even when a new version of it is published.

I don't necessarily disagree. More of a comment on the statement in general.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:


I will say, having run most of the Waking Rune arc for PCs who would be considered low-optimization by forum standards, that I don't believe it's necessary in PFS.

For a group who's party was made together to cover the basic food groups, knew each other, and could cover up for each others strengths and weaknesses right?

The metagame for pathfinder society is different. Sometimes the random bag of mixed nuts you get on a mission doesn't have a healer except the rogue with a wand of cure light wounds. Sometimes the two handed fighter can't pick up the slack for the two weapon fighter because its you and 4 healers. Sometimes someone with a level 11 insisted on going up with their friend when their friend has a kyra pregen...

You need to be able to kick it up a notch when that happens and that is 90% your build not your play. Hence people building characters that can survive without arcane support that become engines of mass desctruction when they have it: because they HAVE to build for times when they don't have it.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You need to be able to kick it up a notch when that happens and that is 90% your build not your play. Hence people building characters that can survive without arcane support that become engines of mass desctruction when they have it: because they HAVE to build for times when they don't have it.

I'll admit that I've only been playing PF for a little over a year after a considerable break from the world of tabletop RPGs. However, I've never seen this sort of dire situation. I have seen cases where one character that has 2+ levels on the others does save everyone's butt (usually in level 1-5 scenarios), but that's due to level difference rather than optimization.

Rather than observing OP characters as being needed for the rare situation described above, I've generally seen them trivializing encounters or overshadowing the efforts of other, often newer, players.

To the degree that nerfing helps reduce the number of OP characters and discourages obsessive optimization, I think that's overall a good thing for PFS in general.

Shadow Lodge

Kalindlara wrote:
For one round. And when "can't move and full attack" has been part of the game since the turn of the century, it hardly seems like something to declare characters "too weak" over.

But, one of those characters is going to be suffer significantly more drawbacks for movement, which is something that's going to happen very frequently. Keep in mind, for a Fighter, or Fighter-type, that's a pretty significant potential performance disparity fairly often in play.

Kalindlara wrote:
Basically, if "character built in line with the system's expectations" is "too weak" for PFS, there's a problem here. It might be the threats posed by scenarios (power level of S4, robots in S6). It might be experienced community members' expectations. It could be plenty of things. But it's a problem.

Well, it depends on what expectations you are talking about, I think. You contrast something to Season 4 and 6 as if they are opposite, but I would argue that Season 4 and 6, (and others) very much have set those system expectations for many people. That isn't a bad think, though some folks may not like the level of difficulty. I personally do, but it's a matter of preference.

Ragoz wrote:

I understand choices for play groups aren't always there but in the context of this thread I simply believe content legal for over 6 years is tolerable enough by most players that it can remain legal even when a new version of it is published.

It is even the most agreeable solution at least when it comes to not wasting both Paizo's and player's time, money, and emotional investment. Maybe my current idea can make use of the old Lion Blade but that doesn't mean I can't use the new one in the future if it made sense. No space-time paradox is going to destroy everything if both options are legal. It is very possible for two different options with the same name to coexist.

I agree, this would likely be the best option. I also would not be opposed to some things like the Jingasa (as an example), being looked at again for a better, third option. Original was too good for too cheap. Second is largely worthless. Perhaps a Luck bonus with a 1/day only drop to 0 HP on a crit instead of dying, (or 1 HP for Undead or whatever).

Kalindlara wrote:
This doesn't match my experiences with high level play. But I'm used to home games and the CR system, not the spectrum of high-level PFS experiences.

It really depends. Saying "the CR System" though doesn't say much. It's a basic guideline, but one that PFS Scenarios use, (I believe). APs are written with the assumption of 15 Point Buy and Pregens, but also heavily empower the characters towards many of the risks they will face by granting gear that will come up often or when needed.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

For a group who's party was made together to cover the basic food groups, knew each other, and could cover up for each others strengths and weaknesses right?

The metagame for pathfinder society is different. Sometimes the random bag of mixed nuts you get on a mission doesn't have a healer except the rogue with a wand of cure light wounds. Sometimes the two handed fighter can't pick up the slack for the two weapon fighter because its you and 4 healers. Sometimes someone with a level 11 insisted on going up with their friend when their friend has a kyra pregen...

You need to be able to kick it up a notch when that happens and that is 90% your build not your play. Hence people building characters that can survive without arcane support that become engines of mass desctruction when they have it: because they HAVE to build for times when they don't have it.

Another pretty large aspect of this to consider is that there is a great deal more randomness in the PFS setting. One scenario you might encounter nothing but incorporeal undead, and the next lightning elementals. Generally speaking, in a home game, module, or AP, there are a lot more trends, so basic planning towards those (Giant Bane and Favored Enemy Giant for Giant Slayer), and it's more typical in an ongoing home game the party typically has much more time to prepare <before it's too late> than you do in PFS scenarios, where it's less feasible to buy an expensive item for just the one scenario.

401 to 450 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