|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the new additional resources document, the ring of fangs has been banned. *doffs hat*
This leaves players that may have been built around the item in a position with a lot of their options being far less than optimal. The ROF was a central gear in the watch of just about every unarmed strike build, and some characters may now have options that don't work very well without it. The effect on some characters may extend a fair bit further than the 315 credits.
Weapon focus in basic melee weapons or versatile weapon focus
The raw lethality gear boost
The improved unarmed strike feat
(probably a few more)
The existing rebuild in SFS only lets you go back one level, while most of these options would have been selected at level 2 or 3.
Please remember to recycle your rings in a bite proof container
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As wholeheartedly as I celebrate the removal of RoF, I would also like to see characters that relied heavily on the assumption of that item existing have a chance to make use of options that they would have had to choose back at level 1 or 2, if they weren't leaning on that item.
|
The existing rebuild in SFS only lets you go back one level, while most of these options would have been selected at level 2 or 3.
Please remember to recycle your rings in a bite proof container
The mnemonic editor lets you change the last two levels, actually.
Nanites boon as well for Unarmed
...I'm not sure I follow what you are referring to here?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nanites boon as well for Unarmed...I'm not sure I follow what you are referring to here?
The Nanite Corruption RSP boon gives +2 damage to a natural weapon, which the ring counted as. There is also a downside to the corruption which costs fame and a feat to negate if you want to keep the bonus.
Now PCs (like me) are stuck potentially with a sizable penalty and no natural attack with which to get a bonus in.
|
|
Nanites boon as well for Unarmed...I'm not sure I follow what you are referring to here?The Nanite Corruption RSP boon gives +2 damage to a natural weapon, which the ring counted as. There is also a downside to the corruption which costs fame and a feat to negate if you want to keep the bonus.
Now PCs (like me) are stuck potentially with a sizable penalty and no natural attack with which to get a bonus in.
Ah ha, thank you for that info. The few times I've won RSP player boons I've given them away to newer players without even reading them.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively, grandfather it in for those who already purchased it?
Out of curiosity, what was the deal with the ring of fangs and banning it? Was it the double your level to dmg? Could the ring have been just balanced with a campaign clarification that it only adds your level once?
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Alternatively, grandfather it in for those who already purchased it?
Out of curiosity, what was the deal with the ring of fangs and banning it? Was it the double your level to dmg? Could the ring have been just balanced with a campaign clarification that it only adds your level once?
If it only added your level once it would have been pointless, because weapon specialization already does that. (Unarmed strikes are classified as simple weapons, so all classes give you proficiency -> specialization.)
There's no other item in the game that gives a level-scaling bonus as you go up in level without having to re-invest, so it's a bit of a run around the WBL system.
It rather undermines the coolness of playing a race with natural weapons if the ring gives you a better natural weapon for a tiny amount of money. Especially now that there are quite a lot of class options to gain better unarmed strikes.
It creates some really ugly combinations with things such as the operative's Death Strike exploit.
We needed more rules clarifying the interaction with shields.
If Qi Adept had become legal, it would have been a weird and nasty combo.
Basically, every new unarmed strike option has to be vetted to see if it's not OP in combination with the ring of fangs.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was dismayed when I read Thurston's announcement, but the "offer" to sell back my 315 credit item for full value just... stung.
My Ysoki Soldier was built around biting. He famously chewed through a scenario where technological weapons weren't allowed. His jokes were always tooth related. Without a Natural Weapon of his own he not only doesn't function, his whole concept ceases.
• Gloom Gunner Archetype
• Weapon Focus
• Raw Lethality Gear Boost
• Lack of other offensive gear
• Lunge and Cleave lose their hilarity
• Even Ysoki was specifically picked for this
He'll either need a rebuild or a shredder. And either way, I'm going to miss playing him =(
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I was dismayed when I read Thurston's announcement, but the "offer" to sell back my 315 credit item for full value just... stung.
My Ysoki Soldier was built around biting. He famously chewed through a scenario where technological weapons weren't allowed. His jokes were always tooth related. Without a Natural Weapon of his own he not only doesn't function, his whole concept ceases.
• Gloom Gunner Archetype
• Weapon Focus
• Raw Lethality Gear Boost
• Lack of other offensive gear
• Lunge and Cleave lose their hilarity
• Even Ysoki was specifically picked for thisHe'll either need a rebuild or a shredder. And either way, I'm going to miss playing him =(
So you would prefer a rebuild option that allowed you to take the natural weapon alternate racial on page 28 of SCOM?
|
I mean, it does suck, don’t get me wrong. Maybe they’ll come up with a stopgap? Instead of grousing, let’s come brainstorm a few ideas that could make characters viable while still addressing the issue that the ‘ring of fangs was too powerful.’ That way if a member of the design team reads this thread, they’ll have ideas.
1)Introduce a magic item in the guide for organized play that is Ring-of-fangs-like. Make it level 3, make it more reasonably priced (say 1000 credits) and have it give you lethal damage for unarmed strike +(levelx1.5). Maybe make it a reward for the exo-guardians?
2) Introduce cyber ware or BioWare that gives you a natural attack similar to the Vesk but with the archaic property?
3)Introduce a feat that makes unarmed strikes deal levelx1.5 to damage, that has unarmed strike as a prerequisite.
|
|
So you would prefer a rebuild option that allowed you to take the natural weapon alternate racial on page 28 of SCOM?I was dismayed when I read Thurston's announcement, but the "offer" to sell back my 315 credit item for full value just... stung.
My Ysoki Soldier was built around biting. He famously chewed through a scenario where technological weapons weren't allowed. His jokes were always tooth related. Without a Natural Weapon of his own he not only doesn't function, his whole concept ceases.
• Gloom Gunner Archetype
• Weapon Focus
• Raw Lethality Gear Boost
• Lack of other offensive gear
• Lunge and Cleave lose their hilarity
• Even Ysoki was specifically picked for thisHe'll either need a rebuild or a shredder. And either way, I'm going to miss playing him =(
Totally didn't even notice that was a thing. Thank you!
That would work for my particular character perfectly ^_^
EDIT: Raw Lethality would also need to be swapped out, but if we're allowed to rebuild anyways, then I would.
|
|
So you would prefer a rebuild option that allowed you to take the natural weapon alternate racial on page 28 of SCOM?I was dismayed when I read Thurston's announcement, but the "offer" to sell back my 315 credit item for full value just... stung.
My Ysoki Soldier was built around biting. He famously chewed through a scenario where technological weapons weren't allowed. His jokes were always tooth related. Without a Natural Weapon of his own he not only doesn't function, his whole concept ceases.
• Gloom Gunner Archetype
• Weapon Focus
• Raw Lethality Gear Boost
• Lack of other offensive gear
• Lunge and Cleave lose their hilarity
• Even Ysoki was specifically picked for thisHe'll either need a rebuild or a shredder. And either way, I'm going to miss playing him =(
That wouldn't help those of us who don't have a Natural Weapon option.
Honestly, I don't care about the x2 damage. It could do levelx1.5 like a Natural Weapon and it would still be very good (frankly that would be better overall because it wouldn't invalidate natural weapons races). Heck, I would take it even if it was levelx1 damage like normal specialization but still be a lethal bite attack and it wouldn't ruin my build.
|
|
So, is there any option to get a bite attack back (on a soldier)? It's not a core part of my build stat wise, but was very much part of the character feeling. With a gill sheath, personal mutation boon for a swim speed, and ring of fangs, I was describing my Ysoki as 90% rat, 10% shark. I'm up to level 8, so rebuilding first level racial options isn't an option.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
Aesthetic Warrior could be used to get a lethal unarmed attack which could be described as biting for a lot of characters that don't have a racial option, with a rebuild allowed. That would still not have the balance mess of the ring, and avoid the rules tangle where people argue about the interactions of the ring with every single unarmed option that is released. (The previous official answer we got would rule out people trying to stack shields with them handily, but basically everything else would be in the air.)
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
So you would prefer a rebuild option that allowed you to take the natural weapon alternate racial on page 28 of SCOM?I was dismayed when I read Thurston's announcement, but the "offer" to sell back my 315 credit item for full value just... stung.
My Ysoki Soldier was built around biting. He famously chewed through a scenario where technological weapons weren't allowed. His jokes were always tooth related. Without a Natural Weapon of his own he not only doesn't function, his whole concept ceases.
• Gloom Gunner Archetype
• Weapon Focus
• Raw Lethality Gear Boost
• Lack of other offensive gear
• Lunge and Cleave lose their hilarity
• Even Ysoki was specifically picked for thisHe'll either need a rebuild or a shredder. And either way, I'm going to miss playing him =(
That wouldn't help those of us who don't have a Natural Weapon option.
Honestly, I don't care about the x2 damage. It could do levelx1.5 like a Natural Weapon and it would still be very good (frankly that would be better overall because it wouldn't invalidate natural weapons races). Heck, I would take it even if it was levelx1 damage like normal specialization but still be a lethal bite attack and it wouldn't ruin my build.
So basically you would want something like a "ring of hard knocks" that allow your unarmed strike damage to deal lethal damage and not counts as archaic?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
t rather undermines the coolness of playing a race with natural weapons if the ring gives you a better natural weapon for a tiny amount of money. Especially now that there are quite a lot of class options to gain better unarmed strikes.
The clarification took care of this I think. Without a natural weapon or some other investment you'd be stuck with an archaic weapon.
We needed more rules clarifying the interaction with shields.
No. We did not. People are going to try to rules lawyer anything, especially when there's a mechanical advantage involved, but the clarifications spelled out what was clear in the item: you are biting people. If you hit people with a shield, you are not biting people.
|
|
So basically you would want something like a "ring of hard knocks" that allow your unarmed strike damage to deal lethal damage and not counts as archaic?
I still want it to count as Archaic, so A) i didn't waste Raw Lethality and B) it doesn't replace Natural Weapons for those that took a race with it.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I still want it to count as Archaic, so A) i didn't waste Raw Lethality and B) it doesn't replace Natural Weapons for those that took a race with it.
So basically you would want something like a "ring of hard knocks" that allow your unarmed strike damage to deal lethal damage and not counts as archaic?
Good point, personally I think that some level of augmentations could also solve the issue since Archaic reduces damage by a set amount, it would be reasonable to find a good level for an augmentation that does something like implanting super dense bones from some alien creature or something similar.
|
|
So Thursty made a ruling in the GM forum that Nanite Corruption could be used with regular unarmed strikes.
So I guess, after all my investments, my unarmed strike "bite" does IUS dice + my level nonlethal Bludgeoning damage + Str + 2 Piercing damage (is that nanite damage lethal if the core attack isn't?)
I was doing IUS + 2xlevel + Str + 2 Lethal Piercing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The things that sting are the overall theme of the character I've made and have at level 10 now. He's finally fully unlocked the possessed augmentation, hes got the nanite corruption, raw lethality, melee striker, improved unarmed strike, step up and strike and a ton of other things. I spent my SRO boon on making Atom from Real Steel, a rock em sock em robot.
If I could rebuild into either a vanguard or just slap aesthetic warrior on him then the loss of 5 damage per hit isnt nearly as bad. But to go down from 2d6+33 to 2d6+23 was just... ouch.
I can spend the gencon GM boon rebuild if necessary, but a LOT of people can't, and their characters are now locked into being no fun to play.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively, grandfather it in for those who already purchased it?
Please no. It is nearly impossible to know if a character was built before the grandfather chock struck midnight or not. Plus, if they have decided that the item is inappropriate for play then its inappropriate for everyone, not just those unfortunate enough to be late to the party. Even a complete rebuild is better than grandfathering.
|
|
That's hard to implement. Even though my particular character could be minimally rebuilt by swapping out a race trait, say I wasn't me:
• Choosing Ysoki was "directly related" to the RoF
• 10 pts into Strength was "directly related" to the RoF
• Choosing Engineering as a backup skill for out of combat use was "directly related" to the RoF
• Picking heavy armor to mitigate my low Dexterity was "directly related" to the RoF
• Choosing items to store in my Cheek Pouches because of being Ysoki was "directly related" to the RoF
Lots of people are allured to Starfinder because of the "intricately built timepiece" sort of character creation it offers. Taking out one cog often means affecting unrelated functions.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I could rebuild into either a vanguard or just slap aesthetic warrior on him then the loss of 5 damage per hit isnt nearly as bad. But to go down from 2d6+33 to 2d6+23 was just... ouch.
Personally, I do not feel a difference of +23 vs +33 to damage is important enough to justify a complete rebuild, assuming of course that is the only meaningful difference between the builds. But, I admit as time has passes, I have become more amenable to the plight of players who's character's options were banned. IMO, we should have a standard rule such that if something that was legal becomes banned, you are granted a complete rebuild. This practice would hurt exactly no one without said banned item, and would lessen the stress on those that do. It really is a simple rule to add with all upside and zero downside.
Let's be honest, those that would cheat and take advantage of the rule are already the players who freely rebuild their characters between games anyway and just don't care about the integrity of the program. So why punish the majority of good players to try (and fail) to corral the bad ones?
[edit] BTW, I have only ever had one character affected by a banned option and I was not stressed by the "fix" so I really don't have a horse in this race other than my compulsion to try and look out for the health of the community.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we should have much more liberal rules for rebuilds in general, and then we don't have to have a bespoke rebuild discussion every time something like this happens. So I'm in favor of RoF rebuilds, I just think it should be broader.
Why should we have more liberal rules for rebuilds?
- It's friendly towards new players who just pick stuff up at every level as they learn the game, or who make beginner mistakes at character creation that they don't manage to fix at level 1.
- It allows anyone to focus more on picking up stuff that feels appropriate as their character grows through the campaign, instead of having to plan everything in advance at character creation.
- It makes it possible to incorporate cool stuff from new books. You don't have to build a new character for it. This is both fun for players and helpful to Paizo's sales. Like, say, a certain manual that just got sanctioned.
Rebuttal to some stock arguments against rebuilds
- It encourages powergaming by taking high-prerequisite feats with retrained low-level slots. This is a legacy of PF1 rebuilding which was built on fighter combat feat retraining, that baked it in from the start. This time we can avoid that error. Just say that whatever the result of rebuilding has to be a character that you could have also developed organically playing the character normally.
- Gaming is about making choices and sticking with them. Oh come on, is this a paid job or something? Gaming is about having fun, and don't tell other people not to badwrongfun. If a rebuild makes a character with "troubles" fun again, that's wonderful.
- We already have the mnemonic editor. And it doesn't work. If for example at level 5 you discover that your soldier style really doesn't do what you thought it would do, it's too late to change. It's far too restrictive. The editor doesn't work and it's time to find something better.
|
|
I've never been in favor of rebuilds because the player chose poorly or because some cooler option became available in a later release. If you made a good-faith character using the rules and then outside of your control, something was banned or errata'd, then I believe out of fairness you should grant them a rebuild. Not a petty and often arbitrary, "you can rebuild this and this and this, but not this or this or this," but a complete rebuild. At the end of the day its YOUR (Paizo's) fault their character is now illegal, not theirs. You owe them the benefit of the doubt.
OTOH, if you failed to research your character or give any consideration for future expansion, that's called a learning curve. Its healthy to realize you didn't take the optimum path. No character has ever been rendered unplayable because the player chose sub-optimal options along the way, unless they totally ignored the options available to them. Bad judgement is not a justification for rebuilds. If so, we might as well allow players to completely rebuild between every session if they discover some option is better. I'm sure there are players who would prefer that system, but I'm not one of them, and while my experience is only anecdotal and not universal, I know it would not be preferred by the majority of those I've crossed paths with. YMMV.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like to add on in support of Lau's points that both versions of PFS have more robust retraining options than SFS does. If a more comprehensive system existed for Starfinder like it does in Paizo's other RPGs (beyond the mnemonic editor), this conversation could have been rendered moot.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been in favor of rebuilds because the player chose poorly or because some cooler option became available in a later release.
(...)
OTOH, if you failed to research your character or give any consideration for future expansion, that's called a learning curve. Its healthy to realize you didn't take the optimum path.
I don't agree with the assumption that this is "healthy" or that "learning curve is good". This isn't school where we're told to learn a lot. This isn't church where we're told to be diligent and hard-working. This isn't a job where you deserve a promotion if you happened to make good choices and performed well this quarter. This is a game we play for fun.
Bad judgement is not a justification for rebuilds. If so, we might as well allow players to completely rebuild between every session if they discover some option is better.
I'll go further. I don't think we need any justification for rebuilds beyond "it's my character and I'd enjoy it more if I got to rebuild". It doesn't have to be about power level or new shiny. If you decide after five levels that you dislike prepared spellcasting and would rather be a sorcerer, but you like your character's storyline so far, turn him into a sorcerer.
I'm sure there are players who would prefer that system, but I'm not one of them, and while my experience is only anecdotal and not universal, I know it would not be preferred by the majority of those I've crossed paths with. YMMV.
But nobody's forcing you to rebuild all the time. You're projecting your idea of what you would like to do onto what you'll allow other people to do.
---
My previous experience with the downside of no-rebuilds is a campaign with some players that did want to try out the new shiny every time. So every couple of sessions, they came with a new character. It hugely disrupted the campaign because any narrative attached to their characters was constantly broken off.
On the other hand, while playing Dead Suns in book three we decided that our party wasn't working out, and I took my character and kept him the same person but with a drastically new build. The story stayed intact, the party felt the same, but we were having much more fun.
I think the same applies to SFS. It's not at all good for a local lodge if people keep throwing away old characters because a new book comes out and they're not allowed to use it with their old character. You're going to end up with a lot of low level characters and players running out of low level scenarios to play. Meanwhile other people are frustrated because they can never muster high level parties because other people keep starting over at level 1.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As grandfathering was mentioned, have to say I'm not a fan of that. I have many grandfathered characters in PF1 and I'm still not a fan of doing that. It creates uneven opportunities for players.
However, still have to give full support to a full rebuild for those affected by this. Yes, there has to be some good faith behind it (If you just bought the item but don't really use it just to get a rebuild... do you really need a rebuild?), but that's unavoidable for RPGs in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a case to be made that the Ring of Fangs was such an obvious sin against good game design that everyone who chose to use it deserves their misery now that it's banned, and that Paizo is probably doomed to some unfortunate karma for publishing it and ever allowing it as a SFS option.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a case to be made that the Ring of Fangs was such an obvious sin against good game design that everyone who chose to use it deserves their misery now that it's banned, and that Paizo is probably doomed to some unfortunate karma for publishing it and ever allowing it as a SFS option.
Not a very good case. As bad as that item is, the sane goal here is to remove a broken item for the health of the campaign, not to punish players who used it.
I think there's a case to be made that the Ring of Fangs was such an obvious sin against good game design that everyone who chose to use it deserves their misery now that it's banned, and that Paizo is probably doomed to some unfortunate karma for publishing it and ever allowing it as a SFS option.Not a very good case. As bad as that item is, the sane goal here is to remove a broken item for the health of the campaign, not to punish players who used it.
Right, that's the goal. The "punishment" is the foreseeable results of using a broken and silly option. If nuclear disarmament ever happens no one is going to take seriously any nations claims that they deserve some compensation in new biological weapons.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, that's the goal. The "punishment" is the foreseeable results of using a broken and silly option. If nuclear disarmament ever happens no one is going to take seriously any nations claims that they deserve some compensation in new biological weapons.I think there's a case to be made that the Ring of Fangs was such an obvious sin against good game design that everyone who chose to use it deserves their misery now that it's banned, and that Paizo is probably doomed to some unfortunate karma for publishing it and ever allowing it as a SFS option.Not a very good case. As bad as that item is, the sane goal here is to remove a broken item for the health of the campaign, not to punish players who used it.
It was a legal option that was intentionally sanctioned by Paizo for use in SFS. Not sure how this argument stands.
Comparing this to nukes seems a bit extreme. The consequences are way different lol.
Right, that's the goal. The "punishment" is the foreseeable results of using a broken and silly option. If nuclear disarmament ever happens no one is going to take seriously any nations claims that they deserve some compensation in new biological weapons.I think there's a case to be made that the Ring of Fangs was such an obvious sin against good game design that everyone who chose to use it deserves their misery now that it's banned, and that Paizo is probably doomed to some unfortunate karma for publishing it and ever allowing it as a SFS option.Not a very good case. As bad as that item is, the sane goal here is to remove a broken item for the health of the campaign, not to punish players who used it.It was a legal option that was intentionally sanctioned by Paizo for use in SFS. Not sure how this argument stands.
Comparing this to nukes seems a bit extreme. The consequences are way different lol.
I'm arguing from a moral point of view, not a rules point of view. I feel Ring of Fangs users should feel shame at their past build choices and face up to their sins, not pretend they are victims and ask for redress. What redress have they offered other SFS players who avoided the temptations of evil but had to tolerate the corruption at their tables?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're assuming a lot here:
- That the person using the item realized it was broken when they got it, which is not always the case: not everyone has the mind of a game designer
- That the person had ill intentions
- That every character that built around this item was completely for busting wide open the system
- That people "suffered" at the hands of these characters
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm arguing from a moral point of view, not a rules point of view. I feel Ring of Fangs users should feel shame at their past build choices and face up to their sins, not pretend they are victims and ask for redress. What redress have they offered other SFS players who avoided the temptations of evil but had to tolerate the corruption at their tables?
I presume from this and previous posts you're being facetious, which really isn't very useful.
If not, take a break, get some fresh air and reconsider your perspective.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realized that it was broken immediately.
I also waited to use it until Joe Pasini made a thoughtful ruling on it that limited potential shenanigans.
The ring was the only way I could find at the time to get a lethal bite attack on a SRO soldier, so I reluctantly took the available option, devoting a feat and a gear boost to make it work.
If there was a "bite your face off" augmentation I'd be happy with that instead.
|
While I personally would love to see optimizers have to lay in this bed that they have made for taking options that get banned...
I also understand that those sentiments are not conducive or fair on the whole, and not all users were optimizers. It was legal, now it is not. Entire builds could easily have been built completely off the mechanics of this one item. Therefore a complete rebuild seems overly sensible.
As for more liberal retraining option for SFS, I do not support it. While I understand the argument that..fun. This is organized play. There has to be some sort of structure for consistency. For the same reason that RoF got banned, so must there be a conservative retraining system. This is not a home game. There are tradeoffs to being a part of a global living campaign. More rules. Less than all options. Home games have a rebuild luxury that organized play does not.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am also in favor of more liberal rebuild options in SFS. I know several players locally that felt disappointed with their healer mystics, but were too high level to retrain them.
(One of them was delightfully surprised by a chronicle option that helped him make his character meaningful again; but the other two did not play at that session and missed out.)
I would like for there to just be a more liberal retraining option in SFS -- not just for ring of fangs, but for other situations as well. I would love for this to be a boon that you could purchase with reputation from the guide.
Hmm
PS I have no healer mystics, no ring of fangs characters and no characters that currently need a retrain. I just want to help my players that I GM find a way to make their characters work again.