Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Not a false equivalence. And your declaration of such makes me hesitant to consider the rest of your post.
Okay, now you're just trolling. You seriously consider these two option equivalent:
You originally had access to just A."Hey, now you get to choose between A OR B"
and
"Hey, you get BOTH A AND B"?
If you fail to see a difference between increasing power directly by giving people -more- things without removing anything in exchange, and presenting people with new options with the cost of needing to trade something for them, I can't help you.
"I don't like being presented with facts so I'm not gonna read the rest of your post". XD
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that were PFS to adopt this option, it would have to start with re-evaluating ALL archetypes. As stated previously, these have not been evaluated for balance/etc with this option in mind.
Plus, it is clear that there are some very powerful CRB options available, such as Champion for free Lay on Hands, but I am sure there are other equally potent options for archetypes as well.
While some folks might use the free archetypes for color and to fill out holes in their characters' designs, it is my opinion (based on 10 years of Organized Play) that many, if not most, will choose power options.
Without this option in play, you can still use ALL of the sanctioned archetypes available (though some may require ACP to gain access). This option would not open up any new archetypes, as you could only choose those already available for play. But, as Blake's Tiger says:
And we run the risk of losing access to sanctioned archetypes when they find an interaction they don’t like.
we would likely lose options, as there are choices that when taken together WILL create more powerful characters, without a doubt.
I am all for using Free Archetypes in home games (and do so in 2 APs that I am running). I just think that they are more of an "expert mode" option that requires more discussion with the GM than is possible in Organized Play.
|
|
Allow me to clarify my point: If OP were to repeat the sanctioning process on the X existing archetypes that are legal under the Core rule with Free Archetype now in mind, we might come out with X-Y archetypes being legal. All those people who were enjoying the archetypes included in subset Y lose access to those archetypes.
Why would that happen? Seems like unfounded paranoia.
|
|
I will say that were PFS to adopt this option, it would have to start with re-evaluating ALL archetypes. As stated previously, these have not been evaluated for balance/etc with this option in mind.
Plus, it is clear that there are some very powerful CRB options available, such as Champion for free Lay on Hands, but I am sure there are other equally potent options for archetypes as well.
While some folks might use the free archetypes for color and to fill out holes in their characters' designs, it is my opinion (based on 10 years of Organized Play) that many, if not most, will choose power options.
Without this option in play, you can still use ALL of the sanctioned archetypes available (though some may require ACP to gain access). This option would not open up any new archetypes, as you could only choose those already available for play. But, as Blake's Tiger says:
And we run the risk of losing access to sanctioned archetypes when they find an interaction they don’t like.we would likely lose options, as there are choices that when taken together WILL create more powerful characters, without a doubt.
I am all for using Free Archetypes in home games (and do so in 2 APs that I am running). I just think that they are more of an "expert mode" option that requires more discussion with the GM than is possible in Organized Play.
I've yet to see any examples of any of these "power options" that are particularly powerful and especially not so that they counterbalance the improved experience of allowing it. Once again, everyone is saying "THere MIGHT be negatives, therefore we should discard all the documented positives."
|
|
Not a false equivalence. And your declaration of such makes me hesitant to consider the rest of your post.Okay, now you're just trolling. You seriously consider these two option equivalent:
You originally had access to just A.
"Hey, now you get to choose between A OR B"
and
"Hey, you get BOTH A AND B"?If you fail to see a difference between increasing power directly by giving people -more- things without removing anything in exchange, and presenting people with new options with the cost of needing to trade something for them, I can't help you.
"I don't like being presented with facts so I'm not gonna read the rest of your post". XD
Except that all the options are still limited. If you get quickdraw and power attack, you still can't use them both at the same time. But by having both available to me I have increased the amount of FUN that I am having. That is good. This is a good thing. If you want to phrase that as a power increase, then explain why it is one detrimental to how the game is played given that these options are still gated. No one seems to be too bothered that spellcasters have more than one spell of a given level, but if a martial character ends up with another feat to use at a given level, that's just too far? I don't see it.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that all the options are still limited. If you get quickdraw and power attack, you still can't use them both at the same time. But by having both available to me I have increased the amount of FUN that I am having. That is good. This is a good thing. If you want to phrase that as a power increase, then explain why it is one detrimental to how the game is played given that these options are still gated. No one seems to be too bothered that spellcasters have more than one spell of a given level, but if a martial character ends up with another feat to use at a given level, that's just too far? I don't see it.
Here's an example of a simple, clear, power boost that could be detrimental. Lots of players take Blessed One or Medic. Instantly the amount of healing available skyrockets, this directly effects the difficulty of scenarios and adds extra variables into balancing encounters for writers. It also has the possible effect of making those who have put their main focus into healing before this potentially feel like they wasted their time and aren't needed.
|
I've yet to see any examples of any of these "power options" that are particularly powerful and especially not so that they counterbalance the improved experience of allowing it. Once again, everyone is saying "THere MIGHT be negatives, therefore we should discard all the documented positives."
No, lots of people have said that there ARE negatives and quite a few examples have been given. The fact that you don't see these examples as particularly problematic does NOT alter the fact that many examples of what others see as problematic HAVE been given.
|
|
Except that all the options are still limited. If you get quickdraw and power attack, you still can't use them both at the same time.
It might well be possible to create a NEW fun and balanced game by starting with PF2 and then giving more options at all levels. But that would be PF3 (or maybe PF2.5). And would need all new PFS scenarios to be written for it.
But by having both available to me I have increased the amount of FUN that I am having. That is good.
Not if your fun comes at the cost of MY fun it isn't (when I am either the GM or another player). Its NOT all about you. Especially PFS, which is often the gateway in for brand new players.
Right now, one of the things that I like about PF2 is how incredibly more balanced it is across character classes, across player levels of expertise, and across levels than any other form of D&D I've ever played (and I've played a LOT of different versions).
What you're proposing would require rebalancing the game. At the very least, it means new players would be at a significantly greater disadvantage than they currently are AND it means that the difficulty of existing scenarios would need to be tweaked.
Its a fine rule for a home game. In a home game the players and GM can help each other build their characters, the GM can adjust difficulties, etc. But its just not a good fit for PFS
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OP has given their answer, so all this discussion is academic. However, giving the benefit of the doubt to the opposition argument, I'll make another attempt to shed light on the complexity of such a change from a different direction.
1. All the pregens would need to be rewritten.
2. Every new PF player being introduced to PFS needs to, once they hit level 2, not merely know what the feat choices are for their class as is the current default, but know every available archetype, figure out which ones they have access to based on both source ownership and sanctioning, and understand the downstream consequences for their choice on their build. As was implied above, this significantly increases the complexity of the game for new players.
And I'll reiterate this from earlier because I can't help myself:
If OP did change their mind and decide to do this, they need to re-sanction everything with Free Archetype Variant in mind. So all the new products get shelved for, exceedingly optimistically, 6 months before they start sanctioning backlogged current material and new material again.