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


Pathfinder Society

651 to 697 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Why is a question I cannot answer.
It erodes a characters identity if the rebuilds are too easy.

Alternately it strengthens a character's identity because you can use new cooler options that better fit your vision and concept than the ones available when you built and advanced said character

Not everyone has the benefits of playing PFS often enough to create and advance a new character when the option of your dreams becomes available

Liberty's Edge 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Why is a question I cannot answer.
It erodes a characters identity if the rebuilds are too easy.

Alternately it strengthens a character's identity because you can use new cooler options that better fit your vision and concept than the ones available when you built and advanced said character

Not everyone has the benefits of playing PFS often enough to create and advance a new character when the option of your dreams becomes available

THIS! So much this.

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can only RE rerun the same scenario once , ever, so i don't see why it matters if you can refresh your stars once, once per year once per decade or once a month.

Because people haven't read or don't understand the rule and are playing the same scenario over and over again.

I have to admit I had to read that part of the guide a second time to understand it.

Scarab Sages 5/5

graywulfe wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Why is a question I cannot answer.
It erodes a characters identity if the rebuilds are too easy.

Alternately it strengthens a character's identity because you can use new cooler options that better fit your vision and concept than the ones available when you built and advanced said character

Not everyone has the benefits of playing PFS often enough to create and advance a new character when the option of your dreams becomes available

THIS! So much this.

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.

For every character this would be the case and actually used that way (which I applaud), there are, in my estimation (which might be flawed based on my own personal assumptions,) far more players that would use free, anytime rebuilds as part of their build plans to eke even more power out of their characters. The rules technically allow for options to be chosen for all levels at 7th level, that could not be chosen as you leveled.

Grand Lodge 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:

This is another conflict still solved by just allowing the material to remain legal alongside the brand new material. It's not like the design team makes that decision. A new version of the archetype being created does not mean you MUST retire the old option.

Paizo can maximize the value to the customer of the products they have sold by keeping the old one legal, legalize options players can use from their newest material, and have an ending result of the most content available as possible for the campaign by including both options.

The problem with this is that system mastery is already a monumental task for GM's. A player can focus their knowledge to the type of characters they want to play. A GM needs at least a passing familiarity with most available options. Expecting GM's to keep multiple published versions of the same thing straight is adding a fair bit of work for some volunteer fun. Discouraging people from GMing is bad for the campaign.

The same is even more true for designers/developers.

Having a big sandbox to play in is fun. Being expected to be able to track every grain of sand is not.

3/5

I'd still love to see a full-rebuild chronicle of some sort.

Ideally it would be similar to Expanded Narrative (the GM-replay chronicle), but also have an option for players to play a certain # of scenarios to unlock the option to do a rebuild as well. (OK, actually ideally it would be something other than just play scenarios, but that's getting into a weirder grey area of player volunteerism that's not directly GM'ing, which PFS has very limited options for.)

example:

May be used in CORE or Standard or SFS independently, credits do not cross and chronicle will specify campaign type (or not if there is a desire to mix campaigns):

GM <X> games over 1 year ~ 1 character full rebuild
GM <X+50%> more games in that year ; alternatively GM <x> games without applying a chronicle (including GM'ing games you have previously GM'd for credit) in that year ~ 2nd character full rebuild

Play <Y> games ~ 1 character full rebuild.
Play <Y x2> games ; alternatively bring a new player to the society - play <y> games with a new player's -001 or -701 character who is applying their first xp ~ 2nd character full rebuild.

The same character may not be rebuilt more than once within a <z> year period (probably 2 or 3) using this boon, even between GM & player credits.

The Exchange 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nobody expects anyone to know everything.

There are currently 251 legal additional resource books.

Paizo makes money by producing more content.

There will always be new content and removing a few things is inconsequential from a system mastery perspective.

To be honest it makes it all the more confusing when things you once previously knew and understood, because they were legal for over half a decade, are removed from play or errataed.

The errata part can be especially confusing sometimes because they don't even print the entire feature being changed in the document. You have to Frankenstein the pieces that say "replace this part with this new text" and also "add this limitation".


7 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Why is a question I cannot answer.
It erodes a characters identity if the rebuilds are too easy.

Having previously legal options removed from your character also erodes character identity.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
River of Sticks wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Why is a question I cannot answer.
It erodes a characters identity if the rebuilds are too easy.
Having previously legal options removed from your character also erodes character identity.

If you get a lynchpin pulled out from under you, yes.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Ragoz wrote:

Nobody expects anyone to know everything.

There are currently 251 legal additional resource books.

Paizo makes money by producing more content.

There will always be new content and removing a few things is inconsequential from a system mastery perspective.

To be honest it makes it all the more confusing when things you once previously knew and understood, because they were legal for over half a decade, are removed from play or errataed.

The errata part can be especially confusing sometimes because they don't even print the entire feature being changed in the document. You have to Frankenstein the pieces that say "replace this part with this new text" and also "add this limitation".

I agree with every individual statement you have made here but the 4th sentence.

However, I still feel that having multiple legal versions of the same thing increases the workload for GM's, designers/developers, and organizers. IMO, the increase in workload is a bigger negative than the positive of keeping absolutely every option open.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Ragoz wrote:

This is another conflict still solved by just allowing the material to remain legal alongside the brand new material. It's not like the design team makes that decision. A new version of the archetype being created does not mean you MUST retire the old option.

Paizo can maximize the value to the customer of the products they have sold by keeping the old one legal, legalize options players can use from their newest material, and have an ending result of the most content available as possible for the campaign by including both options.

The problem with this is that system mastery is already a monumental task for GM's. A player can focus their knowledge to the type of characters they want to play. A GM needs at least a passing familiarity with most available options. Expecting GM's to keep multiple published versions of the same thing straight is adding a fair bit of work for some volunteer fun. Discouraging people from GMing is bad for the campaign.

The same is even more true for designers/developers.

Having a big sandbox to play in is fun. Being expected to be able to track every grain of sand is not.

To me, this sounds like a good arguement for not allowing the new version to be legal.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Scribbling Rambler wrote:


However, I still feel that having multiple legal versions of the same thing increases the workload for GM's, designers/developers, and organizers. IMO, the increase in workload is a bigger negative than the positive of keeping absolutely every option open.

They could just change the name if thats a concern rather than making people redo their characters...

Silver Crusade

DM Beckett wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Ragoz wrote:

This is another conflict still solved by just allowing the material to remain legal alongside the brand new material. It's not like the design team makes that decision. A new version of the archetype being created does not mean you MUST retire the old option.

Paizo can maximize the value to the customer of the products they have sold by keeping the old one legal, legalize options players can use from their newest material, and have an ending result of the most content available as possible for the campaign by including both options.

The problem with this is that system mastery is already a monumental task for GM's. A player can focus their knowledge to the type of characters they want to play. A GM needs at least a passing familiarity with most available options. Expecting GM's to keep multiple published versions of the same thing straight is adding a fair bit of work for some volunteer fun. Discouraging people from GMing is bad for the campaign.

The same is even more true for designers/developers.

Having a big sandbox to play in is fun. Being expected to be able to track every grain of sand is not.

To me, this sounds like a good arguement for not allowing the new version to be legal.

By that reasoning nothing new should ever be made legal.

1/5

Rysky wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Ragoz wrote:

This is another conflict still solved by just allowing the material to remain legal alongside the brand new material. It's not like the design team makes that decision. A new version of the archetype being created does not mean you MUST retire the old option.

Paizo can maximize the value to the customer of the products they have sold by keeping the old one legal, legalize options players can use from their newest material, and have an ending result of the most content available as possible for the campaign by including both options.

The problem with this is that system mastery is already a monumental task for GM's. A player can focus their knowledge to the type of characters they want to play. A GM needs at least a passing familiarity with most available options. Expecting GM's to keep multiple published versions of the same thing straight is adding a fair bit of work for some volunteer fun. Discouraging people from GMing is bad for the campaign.

The same is even more true for designers/developers.

Having a big sandbox to play in is fun. Being expected to be able to track every grain of sand is not.

To me, this sounds like a good arguement for not allowing the new version to be legal.
By that reasoning nothing new should ever be made legal.

Yup! Which is why "one more legal class significantly adds to GM workload" doesn't really work as an argument for either point of view.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
By that reasoning nothing new should ever be made legal.

No, just nothing new with the same name.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
By that reasoning nothing new should ever be made legal.
No, just nothing new with the same name.

It's not new as in different, it's new as in it's an update. The Lore Warden is not two completely different archetypes the way the various Dervish Dancers are.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
By that reasoning nothing new should ever be made legal.
No, just nothing new with the same name.
It's not new as in different, it's new as in it's an update. The Lore Warden is not two completely different archetypes the way the various Dervish Dancers are.

Then by that logic what you get is "don't "update" stuff" ,not don't release anything new. Or "don't "update" stuff that isn't broken".

Argue for or against that as you will, but no new material is not a logical consequence of that position.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the folks who are in favor of easy, any-time rebuilds:

Other organized play campaigns have tried this. And players would convert their human fighters into dwarf clerics for an adventure, and then back again, if that's what the party needed.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
By that reasoning nothing new should ever be made legal.
No, just nothing new with the same name.
It's not new as in different, it's new as in it's an update. The Lore Warden is not two completely different archetypes the way the various Dervish Dancers are.

Then by that logic what you get is "don't "update" stuff" ,not don't release anything new. Or "don't "update" stuff that isn't broken".

Argue for or against that as you will, but no new material is not a logical consequence of that position.

Um yea it was, the poster before them said having two things would make it harder on GMs to keep track of things and they said that's a good argument for not allowing the new one. They were in fact arguing against allowing the new version. Which is easily extendable to not allowing anything new or updated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:

To the folks who are in favor of easy, any-time rebuilds:

Other organized play campaigns have tried this. And players would convert their human fighters into dwarf clerics for an adventure, and then back again, if that's what the party needed.

FWIW, 5e Adventurers League has unlimited rebuilds before you hit 5th level. In theory it should result in that sort of nonsense (or the similar "play first level as some sort of super tough to kill monster and then rebuild into the 'dies to a gust of wind' wizard you wanted in the first place" type strategy), but in practice I haven't seen it terribly often. Most people get invested in their character, and the case where something does get rebuilt tends to be more like "Ugh, I thought this would be fun but it turns out it's terrible, I want to try something else instead", which actually keeps people invested in the campaign and lets them be more adventurous with their builds, since they don't think they're going to waste the effort if they turn out to not like the character. The sort of people who abuse the rules like that also tend to be the people who don't mind bending/breaking them anyway, so having something be against the rules doesn't necessarily stop them.

(Note that I have a number of complaints about 5e AL, it's part of why I'm here in the first place, but the unlimited rebuilds before level 5 bit actually isn't one of them.)

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

ie, the OmniCharacter

It's a reference I'm making to Battletech, where there is a class of 'Mech that can completely swap it's combat load-out between scenarios, effectively turning some of the designs from 'scout' to 'light brawler' to 'light ranged platform', etc. In a game of robot combat it's not that bad.

In PFS, where anyone may sit down to a table and go "Huh. Haven't tried a Spiritualist yet, I'll just respec a bit while we're getting started.", it is not conducive to speedier tables, among other things.

I'd go so far as to say "Free Rebuilds if any class aspect changed of those class levels and any subsequent levels based on that class dependency" might be an option, without creating an OmniCharacter situation?

That way you don't have folks doing the incredibly asinine thing of diving to get one thing due for new material at an advanced level when they have already put say, eight or nine levels of play into a character expecting a 'free total rebuild'.

This also helps alleviate some of the burden on the most devoted and focused of players who have spent their money over the years only to suddenly have a rug yanked out from under their feet.

It's bad enough that they're losing part of their character, but this would at least anesthetize the situation?

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

To the folks who are in favor of easy, any-time rebuilds:

Other organized play campaigns have tried this. And players would convert their human fighters into dwarf clerics for an adventure, and then back again, if that's what the party needed.

People who are more interested in gaming the system than in role-playing will always find a way to do so no matter how many rules you put in place to stop them. Meanwhile those of us who would not are punished as if we would...

Scarab Sages 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

To the folks who are in favor of easy, any-time rebuilds:

Other organized play campaigns have tried this. And players would convert their human fighters into dwarf clerics for an adventure, and then back again, if that's what the party needed.

Or carry two builds and choose depending on need.

Scarab Sages 5/5

graywulfe wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

To the folks who are in favor of easy, any-time rebuilds:

Other organized play campaigns have tried this. And players would convert their human fighters into dwarf clerics for an adventure, and then back again, if that's what the party needed.

People who are more interested in gaming the system than in role-playing will always find a way to do so no matter how many rules you put in place to stop them. Meanwhile those of us who would not are punished as if we would...

But just because there are a group of well-meaning players who would not take advantage of such a rule, does not mean that it should be made legal and super easy for people to exploit such a rule.

With how often loopholes get exploited to create ridiculously powerful characters, do you think it would take long before this sort of thing became the rule rather than the exception?

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The staff has been very good about listening when people have said that a rebuild goes beyond plug and play. The general rebuild rules plus specific exceptions when "hey, your change borked my character" is fine.

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

I generally do not favor unlimited rebuilds, but I can see why someone might want to rebuild their character based upon errata or developer clarification or new versions of that [game element] being released.

PFS operates on the honor system. We have no idea right now if a player would alter his or her character between games. We just trust that our players don't. I think that is the right model.

But, I think we need to see why these [game elements] get changed in the first place. If it is because that [game element] is unbalanced, to the extent that it is no longer permitted, then I think the solution varies. If it's an item, just refund the item's full value. If it's a feat or spell, just let them retrain that out. If it's an entirely new version of the class (and no, I don't accept that the change of a single feat makes it a new version of the class), then let them rebuild the whole character.

But, I think some sort of codified, better developed guidelines for full rebuilds be put in place, so it doesn't vary each time this happens.

And, with all of that said, I'd rather allow players a full rebuild before I'd want to have unlimited replay (which isn't the issue here, but I include to show how far I'd be willing to go to avoid the inclusion of unlimited replay.)

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:


But, I think we need to see why these [game elements] get changed in the first place. If it is because that [game element] is unbalanced, to the extent that it is no longer permitted, then I think the solution varies.

well the CRB is unbalanced

significantly

you can make what Tallow calls ridiculously overpowered builds with just the CRB, no loopholes needed

given that, why would anyone suspect any particular option printed later might eventually get nerfsmashed

there's just no way to predict what will or won't strike some developer's fancy(or opportune publishing moment, whatever) to "adjust" later on, there are a multitude of powerful things no one has blinked at yet

don't punish a player for what the adjusted thing of the moment is, if you're going to change printed material, the character affected should be able to adjust as well. It shouldn't even be a discussion, it should just be.

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

plaidwandering wrote:

well the CRB is unbalanced

significantly

you can make what Tallow calls ridiculously overpowered builds with just the CRB, no loopholes needed

given that, why would anyone suspect any particular option printed later might eventually get nerfsmashed

there's just no way to predict what will or won't strike some developer's fancy(or opportune publishing moment, whatever) to "adjust" later on, there are a multitude of powerful things no one has blinked at yet

don't punish a player for what the adjusted thing of the moment is, if you're going to change printed material, the character affected should be able to adjust as well. It shouldn't even be a discussion, it should just be.

If the sum of your post is that you want to have unlimited rebuilds any time something changes, we just simply aren't going to agree on that. If your point is something else, then I have missed it and would ask you to tell me (or maybe it was posted upthread, but honestly, I've read so much I don't remember.)

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure why the word unlimited keeps coming up.

Who's asking for unlimited? It's strictly tied to altering existing printed material that affects a character. That's a 1 for 1 situation.

5/5 **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Now that retraining has been a thing for a while, why can't we consider retraining when there are changes to a class?

There could be different costs based on the degree of class feature that was changed.

If a class is banned - like Vivisectionist = retrain at no cost
Less severe class change = retrain at reduced cost
Lesser class change = retrain at higher cost, but less than full

Just throwing ideas out there...

Scarab Sages 5/5

plaidwandering wrote:

I'm not sure why the word unlimited keeps coming up.

Who's asking for unlimited? It's strictly tied to altering existing printed material that affects a character. That's a 1 for 1 situation.

There are a couple folks asking for unlimited rebuilds.

I agree that full rebuilds for the Lorewarden change is warranted based on how much the changes can potentially affect a character.

3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
waltero wrote:

Now that retraining has been a thing for a while, why can't we consider retraining when there are changes to a class?

There could be different costs based on the degree of class feature that was changed.

If a class is banned - like Vivisectionist = retrain at no cost
Less severe class change = retrain at reduced cost
Lesser class change = retrain at higher cost, but less than full

Just throwing ideas out there...

more ways to punish players because the company decided to alter something

look, you'd never accept another company coming into your home and altering the features of something you'd owned for a while would you? let alone pay them more to try and reuse the changed thing in a way that works for you...

we somehow accept that they need the right to change things like the lorewarden whenever deemed necessary for the good of the campaign (a frankly futile proposition, the ship sailed on balanced with the CRB) but if they feel they have to alter something, don't punish the consumer

P.S. statement of disclosure, no conflict of interest, I have no lore warden and have never made use of a spindle, I've just always thought their way of handling print changes extremely customer UNfriendly

Scarab Sages 5/5

plaidwandering wrote:
waltero wrote:

Now that retraining has been a thing for a while, why can't we consider retraining when there are changes to a class?

There could be different costs based on the degree of class feature that was changed.

If a class is banned - like Vivisectionist = retrain at no cost
Less severe class change = retrain at reduced cost
Lesser class change = retrain at higher cost, but less than full

Just throwing ideas out there...

more ways to punish players because the company decided to alter something

look, you'd never accept another company coming into your home and altering the features of something you'd owned for a while would you? let alone pay them more to try and reuse the changed thing in a way that works for you...

we somehow accept that they need the right to change things like the lorewarden whenever deemed necessary for the good of the campaign (a frankly futile proposition, the ship sailed on balanced with the CRB) but if they feel they have to alter something, don't punish the consumer

P.S. statement of disclosure, no conflict of interest, I have no lore warden and have never made use of a spindle, I've just always thought their way of handling print changes extremely customer UNfriendly

I am unsure if you are referring to cost in a real monetary sense, or you are getting really incensed over the idea of paying a additional gp and pp cost in character for retrains per the Ultimate Campaign?

1/5 5/5

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


I am unsure if you are referring to cost in a real monetary sense, or you are getting really incensed over the idea of paying a additional gp and pp cost in character for retrains per the Ultimate Campaign?

I suspect the latter is the sticking point, as the former is accounted for by Campaign Leadership already.

Before the 'Well, everyone is well above WBL' crowd chimes in, not everyone has those resources available when a rebuild NEEDS to happen, and sometimes by the time enough are amassed, the goal-posts have moved even further down the field.

EDIT:

For example, someone who is facing a rebuild at L4 doesn't have the Prestige to cover the full costs, or even the partial costs for something that was *completely beyond their control*.

Now they have to sell off all their gear and hope that at 50% they MIGHT be able to MAYBE mitigate some of the loss, which is a worse hit than *dying* these days.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was going to say "nobody's arguing for full rebuilds", but some people have. I'm not there - I like continuity - when there aren't any rule changes happening.

In this particular situation I think a full rebuild is appropriate because the archetype got changed quite deeply. The simple-looking change of losing a feat at level 2 is going to have deep-seated consequences, and I think everyone will agree the new version just isn't as good at the same things the old version was.

The scale of the rebuild should be proportional to the change of the "thing", and in this case the change was quite big.

I thought the old version was so good at maneuvers it distracted from the "learned warrior" idea, but the new version is just clunky at both. I don't like the old version and I don't like the new version. The investigator has also made it partially redundant as smart warrior, and I think the malleability of the brawler can fill the gap left on the maneuver side.

1/5 5/5

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

However, moving forward if it was codified "If things are changed good/ill/indifferent" then *that particular aspect and any subsequent dependent items* being allowed to rebuild for free would eliminate a good chunk of concern and actually potentially encourage people to purchase more new product, knowing they won't be *completely* hosed from older versions.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

graywulfe wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

To the folks who are in favor of easy, any-time rebuilds:

Other organized play campaigns have tried this. And players would convert their human fighters into dwarf clerics for an adventure, and then back again, if that's what the party needed.

People who are more interested in gaming the system than in role-playing will always find a way to do so no matter how many rules you put in place to stop them. Meanwhile those of us who would not are punished as if we would...

Im pretty sure it's actually the reverse that is the issue, the folks that "roleplay" without regard to the system will find a way, no matter what rules are in place, and those of us that actually do, in good faith eithee both RP and Roll Play, or just Roll Play get punished.

1/5 5/5

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

I have an *amazing* suggestion.

Let's not dive into the morass that is a discussion of play-style and keep it focused on the topic of the original thread and directly related items?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

Re: the GM not being able to keep up with all the options: that ship has long sailed, far, far, away. Players come to the table, and NPCs show up in scenarios, with rules I've never heard of. Between not just all the archetypes, but the huge number of base classes, many of which to a lesser or greater degree introduce new rules, it's become impossible for most of us to feel like we have a complete grasp on the game any more.

I try to roll with it, but it is rather overwhelming.

It's hard to see any argument that "it's too much for the GM to keep up with" in any direction, because it's a drop in the ocean.

5/5 5/55/55/5

rknop wrote:
Re: the GM not being able to keep up with all the options: that ship has long sailed, far, far, away.

Sailed? Try gone to plaid :)

Quote:
I try to roll with it, but it is rather overwhelming.

on the NPC side, they really, really, need to start explaining what all of those things together are supposed to actually DO.

Second Seekers (Roheas) 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I thought the old version was so good at maneuvers it distracted from the "learned warrior" idea, but the new version is just clunky at both. I don't like the old version and I don't like the new version. The investigator has also made it partially redundant as smart warrior, and I think the malleability of the brawler can fill the gap left on the maneuver side.

Lau nailed it.

Lore Warden did NOT seem to me to be Mr. Maneuver King in terms of flavor and seemed to do sort of poorly at being a scholarly warrior.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

on the NPC side, they really, really, need to start explaining what all of those things together are supposed to actually DO.

What drives me crazy is seeing a statblock with some keyworded abilities (class or sometimes subtype) that I have to look up because they're so unusual. At least in the PRD those things are usually click-through.

I feel that there should be an "expansion" level to blocks of stats: minimal (as much keywords as possible), normal (rare keywords are expanded below the statblock) and maximal (full quotation of all keywords, even standard things like construct and undead traits).

PFS statblocks tend more towards minimal than medium sometimes, while we should be between medium and maximal.

A good comparison is the statblocks Iammars/James MacTeague tends to put up for scenarios - expanding just a bit more on rare feats and abilities to help you understand the clever plan behind the build.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, I made the fatal mistake of trying to run Unleashing without seeing what Jen or somebody else had put on PFS shared prep. Even just the consolidation helps, but also sometimes there are essential resources from somebody like Jen who still understands this game and does an amazing amount of unpaid work to help the rest of us reverse engineer what the statblock is trying to say.

I've recently received the Dungeon Fantasy RPG via Kickstarter from Steve Jackson Games. In the book of sample characters that comes with the GM screen, there are small sidebars with build notes that explain what the characters are about. It's very nice. DFRPG is a slightly simplified (mostly just pre-selected) version of GURPS, and reputation aside, character building in GURPS is quite a bit less complicated than Pathfinder nowadays. But, both share the quality that a statblock is a huge list of things where, at least at medium to high levels in Pathfinder, it's really not clear just what things you should look at to figure out the character's schtick, or what it would actually do when playing to its strengths.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
A good comparison is the statblocks Iammars / Jen McTeague tends to put up for scenarios - expanding just a bit more on rare feats and abilities to help you understand the clever plan behind the build.

Lau:
Fixed the name attribution. J. McTeague is Jen now. She was my roommate at GenCon.

I agree that Jen's statblocks rock. What I love about them is that she will often point out odd items, or give explanations of what they do. She'll also include hidden statblocks, like creatures that an NPC might summon. I could not do specials without help from her and PFS Prep.

Hmm

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Rhode Island—Lincoln

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jen is the light at the end of all my Cosmic Captive fueled nightmares.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locked for good this time.

651 to 697 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society