| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really surprised by how many people are trying to move mountains to validate the idea that half of quick alchemy doing nothing at all is a legitimate and sound interpretation of the rules. "English is a contextual language" yeah, and in context one of these interpretations is clearly absurd and incorrect.
Genuinely wild.
Do you all hate alchemists that much?
Agreed. I find it very strange because a few years ago we had Arcane Caascade, which didn't work. What it actually did was in no way ambiguous. What was intended was also in no way ambiguous. We just collectively all house ruled it so that this core class feature actually worked and moved on (which was good because it took over 2 years to get errata).
I'm not sure why there is resistance to doing that here. It's obvious that a core class feature is intended to actually do something, otherwise why waste book space on it? It would have been better had they not used the same term in different ways, but it still seems pretty clear what is intended.
(I feel the same about the Oracle Bones Curse, except I can't actually divine what that one is intending to do. Just that its current wording is far more complicated than necessary for what it it RAW does, which suggests that it was trying to do something more.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still need rectification due to how a Kineticist simply cannot use mythic rules...Just a small reminder that Blasts are Impulses. A lot of people seem to forget that. But this can muddy wordings in possible solutions for the mythic problem.Mystic Kineticist
Errata those rules to include Blasts and Impulses... or add feats that treat those as Strikes and Spells, respectively.
Kineticists can use them fine. Possibly as many as 80% of mythic feats don’t involve strikes or casting spells and those that are particularly powerful are extremely limited by mythic point expenditure. They excel with the class DC abilities.
Kineticists can use them fine. Possibly as many as 80% of mythic feats don’t involve strikes or casting spells and those that are particularly powerful are extremely limited by mythic point expenditure. They excel with the class DC abilities.Still need rectification due to how a Kineticist simply cannot use mythic rules...Just a small reminder that Blasts are Impulses. A lot of people seem to forget that. But this can muddy wordings in possible solutions for the mythic problem.Mystic Kineticist
Errata those rules to include Blasts and Impulses... or add feats that treat those as Strikes and Spells, respectively.
People feel as if that is not the same aw being able to Kinetic Blast or Impulse using Mythic Proficiency on either Striking or your Class DC. To some people it lacks that fantasy and to that I have to agree with since we are planning a Mythic campaign one of the characters dropped Kineticist since so far to them they feel like their own self contained bubble which in a non-mythic game, single-classed, no free-archetype you can't go wrong with Kineticist. AKA a vacuum!
Speaking of errata, alter Mythic Rules so that Kineticist, Magus via Spellstrike and Summoner's Eidolon can all benefit from the offensive part of Mythic. I.E Striking or Casting portion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely appreciate definitive clarification on how the Gunslinger Alchemy feats work now. Preferably before the Remaster Rebuild expires in PFS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely appreciate definitive clarification on how the Gunslinger Alchemy feats work now. Preferably before the Remaster Rebuild expires in PFS.
If the way Paizo handled the oracle Remaster transition in PFS was any indication, you're in for a whole lotta' disappointment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely appreciate definitive clarification on how the Gunslinger Alchemy feats work now. Preferably before the Remaster Rebuild expires in PFS.If the way Paizo handled the oracle Remaster transition in PFS was any indication, you're in for a whole lotta' disappointment.
Not everyone was disappointed: I was pleasantly surprised they improved it. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone was disappointed: I was pleasantly surprised they improved it. ;)I would definitely appreciate definitive clarification on how the Gunslinger Alchemy feats work now. Preferably before the Remaster Rebuild expires in PFS.If the way Paizo handled the oracle Remaster transition in PFS was any indication, you're in for a whole lotta' disappointment.
I'm not talking about how it was changed. I'm talking about how the transition was handled.
Essentially, people who didn't want to move to the new oracle were FORCED to move to the new oracle because the errata for the old oracle made them non-functional. What's more, the window PFS offered to make the change was impossible for many oracle players, which meant they couldn't swap to the new oracle or be left with a functional old oracle.
It hit a lot of nerves.
(I may be oversimplifying the situation from poor memory, but that's the gist of it as I understand it.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find Paizo's work often ends up in an uncanny valley where it isn't messy enough to have a Palladium-like charm but lacks the polish that larger players in the market can afford.
The last part of this is pretty off base. The bigger publishers are notorious for printing error-ridden products. Hasbro and Paradox (both >billion dollar companies) have both at times had to make major sweeping changes to publications and publication strategies to account for errors, and that's not even considering all the things that are just wrong and left that way.
I do agree Paizo is in a bit of an awkward middle ground, but oddly enough 'polish' seems almost inversely related to how much money you can throw at it. Smaller publishers from my experience seem to take more care with the presentation of their initial product and are much more agile when it comes to addressing problems later on.
|
I would definitely appreciate definitive clarification on how the Gunslinger Alchemy feats work now. Preferably before the Remaster Rebuild expires in PFS.Won't you get a Remaster rebuild when Guns & Gears is remastered next February?
Unlikely.
Every character that existed as of early November 2023 was given one free rebuild they could use by the end of 2024. That is the extent of the rebuilds.
Notably, no additional rebuilds were given when PC2 came out. So if you created an Oracle in January -- no rebuild if Oracle no longer worked for you. (Or if you had previoiusly rebuilt your character due to Ancestry or Archetype changes.)
To be clear -- the rebuilds they gave out were quite generous, but you had to be clear on the parameters.
I'm sure they will give out their more usual narrow rebuild when Guns & Gears comes out -- the ability to change individual specific elements that changed (like retraining feats, or selling back changed items at full price)-- but I doubt they'll ever give out blanket rebuilds again.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone was disappointed: I was pleasantly surprised they improved it. ;)I would definitely appreciate definitive clarification on how the Gunslinger Alchemy feats work now. Preferably before the Remaster Rebuild expires in PFS.If the way Paizo handled the oracle Remaster transition in PFS was any indication, you're in for a whole lotta' disappointment.
Not the class, the way it was updated for PFS, which was handled really poorly.
Anyone playing an oracle lost their mystery benefits, but otherwise retained all of the other downsides of the APG oracle, effectively creating a worst possible version of the class and automatically applying it to every active oracle in PFS (except those using mysteries that didn't exist in PC2).
In order to gain the benefits of the PC2 oracle, you had to rebuild your character. However, players were forced to pay for this rebuild using their own in-PFS resource they'd accumulated through playing.
Paizo could have chosen to grandfather in people playing the original oracle, or offer a free rebuild given the huge changes to the class, or both. Instead they chose to essentially punish people for playing an Oracle.
It didn't help that in threads addressing the issue, when Paizo staff responded it was largely to mock people having issues.
Extraordinary malice or extraordinary incompetence. Neither a good look, and largely irrelevant to whether you think the PC2 oracle is good or bad.
I'm not expecting something grand. But Munitions Machinist doesn't do anything any more now that advanced alchemy level isn't a thing, and we've just had to assume munitions crafter gives you the multiclass advanced alchemy but only for bombs and alchemical ammunition.
Not the class, the way it was updated for PFS, which was handled really poorly.
Yeah, I was unaware of those issues and just read it as an issue with having to update in general. I'm ignorant of PFS issues unless they come up in a non-PFS thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like them to rework vehicle passenger numbers. By the rules, a galley can only take 6 passengers on top of 20 rowers and 1 pilot.
A real galley can hold hundreds of people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like them to rework vehicle passenger numbers. By the rules, a galley can only take 6 passengers on top of 20 rowers and 1 pilot.
A real galley can hold hundreds of people.
The number of passengers is most likely the number of passenger cabins with the rest being cargo: there is nothing preventing someone from filling the 1,000 Bulk cargo carry of a galley with people, it's just that they are making the trip in the cargo section. It's like having as 2 seat pickup: it can have a pilot and 1 passenger even though more people could fit in the bed of the truck.
The number of passengers is most likely the number of passenger cabins with the rest being cargo: there is nothing preventing someone from filling the 1,000 Bulk cargo carry of a galley with people, it's just that they are making the trip in the cargo section. It's like having as 2 seat pickup: it can have a pilot and 1 passenger even though more people could fit in the bed of the truck.I would like them to rework vehicle passenger numbers. By the rules, a galley can only take 6 passengers on top of 20 rowers and 1 pilot.
A real galley can hold hundreds of people.
The rowers on real gallies were roughly 100, sometimes closer to 200.
Passengers are INSTEAD of cargo:
"Passengers The number of passengers the vehicle is typically configured to carry, if any, when the vehicle isn't carrying cargo. The number might be reduced if the vehicle is carrying cargo, at the GM's discretion."
It is very silly.
I would definitely appreciate definitive clarification on how the Gunslinger Alchemy feats work now. Preferably before the Remaster Rebuild expires in PFS.
I kind of doubt it'll happen until Guns & Gears gets updated, unless its to say "use the old version of Advanced Alchemy until Guns & Gears gets updated." Trying to us the new version right now results in both a severe nerf in available items and Munitions Machinist doing nothing.
It's clearly a nonsensical outcome to try to do that, so you pretty much have to use the old version for now. A PFS clarification would be nice, though... but yeah, after the way PFS treated Oracle players, my expectations are not high.
It didn't help that in threads addressing the issue, when Paizo staff responded it was largely to mock people having issues.I'm going to need sources to back this statement mate. That's quite the extraordinary claim there.
While not directly relevant, as an example, we were told that, to address our complaints with the Wizard class in the Remaster (another problematic result of the Remaster), to change our definition of what a Wizard is. It might not have been intended to be mockery, but I can understand people interpreting it that way.
As for whether Paizo has addressed similar complaints for the Oracle, I can't say, but I do know something similar was done with the Wizard class in the Remaster, so the idea that Paizo has never done this or anything similar to this isn't entirely unfounded.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It didn't help that in threads addressing the issue, when Paizo staff responded it was largely to mock people having issues.I'm going to need sources to back this statement mate. That's quite the extraordinary claim there.
He's referring to this.
Paizo nine months before PC2: You get one rebuild on characters played no later than now.
Players who didn't see it or started PFS in the subsequent nine months and started a PC2 class (Alchemist or Oracle) completely wrecked by PC2: Wait, my character is ruined and I can't afford to fix it.
Paizo: Sounds like a you problem.
Many players, affected, and unaffected: What problem is this restriction even trying to solve?
Paizo: Shut up and give me money, it's GenCon time and you'll all forget this soon enough.
It worked, well played.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Ninja'd by Xenocrat, who provided an actual link, as well.
It didn't help that in threads addressing the issue, when Paizo staff responded it was largely to mock people having issues.I'm going to need sources to back this statement mate. That's quite the extraordinary claim there.
This is not how I would have described their response.
But from memory, when people complained about not getting an Oracle rebuild, staff response was something like "We told you what our rebuild policy was. It hasn't changed. It's not our problem if you misunderstood it and assumed there would be additional rebuilds granted after PC2 because we never said or implied that."
They got terse and blunt. There were statements made that could be interpreted as mocking, if you wanted to, but I personally interpreted as exasperated.
That said, I stopped following the thread after a bit. It is possible it devolved.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It didn't help that in threads addressing the issue, when Paizo staff responded it was largely to mock people having issues.I'm going to need sources to back this statement mate. That's quite the extraordinary claim there.
I don't know what Squiggit was talking about specifically, but there was a certain amount of flippancy and "too bad, so sad" when it came to PFS Oracles being forced to use the new Mysteries even if they were in a situation where they weren't getting a free rebuild (effectively putting them into a half-remaster state that doesn't work properly and would be a nightmare for a GM). This comment in particular didn't come off very well:
We made it very clear when we first posted the Remaster Guidelines that characters would not be granted a second rebuild. Players who elected to build characters using classes slated for a remaster should have been aware that they would not be granted a rebuild.
Level 1 characters may still freely rebuild as usual. Higher-level characters will require a purchased rebuild.
The idea that a player making a character after PC1 came out should have known that they wouldn't get a rebuild for a PC2 class AND that the class would change so drastically is frankly ridiculous.
The whole situation was bizarre since it would have been easy to say "if its a PC2 character made before PC2 came out and you haven't used a rebuild yet, you get one." Done. That's what PC1 characters got. But they insisted on using the PC1 cutoff date as the cutoff for PC2 despite it coming out 7 months later, and when it was pointed out that in the case of Oracle it created a "how is a GM supposed to figure out how this half-remaster class actually functions?" situation, their response was "you should have known before you created the character."
(It's also worth noting that other guidance says that if your character existed before the book came out you were allowed to use the old class chassis and not update it, but that doesn't actually work in practice when they drastically rewrite how your subclasses work and then label that as errata so you must use it.)
Never forget.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Xenocrat, who provided an actual link, as well.
It didn't help that in threads addressing the issue, when Paizo staff responded it was largely to mock people having issues.I'm going to need sources to back this statement mate. That's quite the extraordinary claim there.This is not how I would have described their response.
But from memory, when people complained about not getting an Oracle rebuild, staff response was something like "We told you what our rebuild policy was. It hasn't changed. It's not our problem if you misunderstood it and assumed there would be additional rebuilds granted after PC2 because we never said or implied that."
They got terse and blunt. There were statements made that could be interpreted as mocking, if you wanted to, but I personally interpreted as exasperated.
That said, I stopped following the thread after a bit. It is possible it devolved.
No, that's exactly how I would describe their response. The problem was players making a PC2 class after the PC1 rebuild cutoff date, which was 7 months before PC2 came out, not getting a rebuild. Unlike everyone else.
It became a problem for Oracle specifically because when you shove the new Mysteries/Curses into the old class chassis (as they forced people to do), you get a nonsensical mix. It's not even a case of "I think this new Oracle is bad". It's a case of "one half is talking about things that the other half doesn't have" situation.
It was a trivially easy problem to fix by treating PC2 characters the same way as PC1 characters: if you existed before the book came out, you get a rebuild. That's it.
Their response was "we said it wouldn't work that way and we're sticking with that despite it creating nonsensical outcomes that a GM will have to solve at the table. It's your fault for not knowing that ahead of time."
Like, this isn't even about if you like the remaster Oracle or not. Surely everyone can agree that no one should be put in a situation where they need to use a half premaster/half remaster class, right? Yet that is exactly what happened, and Paizo's response was "its your fault for not knowing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having started to peruse Divine Mysteries, they desperately need to errata the art of Apsu on his entry. I'm trying to finish this book, not collapse laughing at how silly the poor chubby, sagging, whiskery dino-lizard looks. Did he pick his skin color because someone selling divinity insurance said it was the cheapest color to cover? No one that shade of green does anything interesting or gets in trouble.
Having started to peruse Divine Mysteries, they desperately need to errata the art of Apsu on his entry. I'm trying to finish this book, not collapse laughing at how silly the poor chubby, sagging, whiskery dino-lizard looks. Did he pick his skin color because someone selling divinity insurance said it was the cheapest color to cover? No one that shade of green does anything interesting or gets in trouble.I also had to double back on that one cause I had first read the Avatar forms and THEN saw the picture.
For reference, the Avatar form for Apsu is:
"When casting the avatar spell, a worshipper of Apsu typically grows spectacular dragon wings and their skin becomes covered in platinum scales."But his picture has Mr. Mustache Green dragon...
Haven't seen the artwork, but maybe Apsu's scale color changes based on lighting and such, hence why he might be depicted with different scale colors? There is a term for it, but it's escaping me at the moment.
|
|
EDIT: Ninja'd by Xenocrat, who provided an actual link, as well.
It didn't help that in threads addressing the issue, when Paizo staff responded it was largely to mock people having issues.I'm going to need sources to back this statement mate. That's quite the extraordinary claim there.This is not how I would have described their response.
But from memory, when people complained about not getting an Oracle rebuild, staff response was something like "We told you what our rebuild policy was. It hasn't changed. It's not our problem if you misunderstood it and assumed there would be additional rebuilds granted after PC2 because we never said or implied that."
They got terse and blunt. There were statements made that could be interpreted as mocking, if you wanted to, but I personally interpreted as exasperated.
That said, I stopped following the thread after a bit. It is possible it devolved.
No, that's exactly how I would describe their response. The problem was players making a PC2 class after the PC1 rebuild cutoff date, which was 7 months before PC2 came out, not getting a rebuild. Unlike everyone else.
It became a problem for Oracle specifically because when you shove the new Mysteries/Curses into the old class chassis (as they forced people to do), you get a nonsensical mix. It's not even a case of "I think this new Oracle is bad". It's a case of "one half is talking about things that the other half doesn't have" situation.
It was a trivially easy problem to fix by treating PC2 characters the same way as PC1 characters: if you existed before the book came out, you get a rebuild. That's it.
Their response was "we said it wouldn't work that way and we're sticking with that despite it creating nonsensical outcomes that a GM will have to solve at the table. It's your fault for not knowing that ahead of time."
Like, this isn't even about if you like the remaster Oracle or not. Surely everyone can agree that no one should be put in a situation where they need to use a half premaster/half remaster class, right? Yet that is exactly what happened, and Paizo's response was "its your fault for not knowing."
This is one of those situations where I 100% understand where everyone is coming from. I don't blame anyone for being upset for not getting a rebuild.
In your reply, you have demonstrated the communications problem. There was never a "PC1 rebuild". It was a "Remaster rebuild" and they left the window you could use it open long enough that it encompassed PC1 *and* PC2. Nothing they said ever suggested that there would be another round of rebuilds, and if you had been playing organized play long enough you knew that the rebuilds they had given were already unprecedentally generous.
But if you didn't have that experience, you didn't know that, and it was extremely easy (and understandable) to make different inferences.
I think they were just really trying to redraw the line that rebuilds are rare and should never be expected.
Would anything have been hurt if they had allowed PC2 characters a rebuild? Probably not. Was Oracle thoroughly borked in PC2 such that it was rendered unplayable? Absolutely. Would *I* have allowed Oracles a rebuild? I'd have argued for it.
But at the end of the day, rebuilds are pretty cheap. I've had to pay for them in the past. (In fact I had *just* paid for a rebuild the week before they announced the Remaster rebuilds in the first place.) It's easy enough to pay for one and move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those situations where I 100% understand where everyone is coming from. I don't blame anyone for being upset for not getting a rebuild.
In your reply, you have demonstrated the communications problem. There was never a "PC1 rebuild". It was a "Remaster rebuild" and they left the window you could use it open long enough that it encompassed PC1 *and* PC2. Nothing they said ever suggested that there would be another round of rebuilds, and if you had been playing organized play long enough you knew that the rebuilds they had given were already unprecedentally generous.
But if you didn't have that experience, you didn't know that, and it was extremely easy (and understandable) to make different inferences.
I think they were just really trying to redraw the line that rebuilds are rare and should never be expected.
Would anything have been hurt if they had allowed PC2 characters a rebuild? Probably not. Was Oracle thoroughly borked in PC2 such that it was rendered unplayable? Absolutely. Would *I* have allowed Oracles a rebuild? I'd have argued for it.
But at the end of the day, rebuilds are pretty cheap. I've had to pay for them in the past. (In fact I had *just* paid for a rebuild the week before they announced the Remaster rebuilds in the first place.) It's easy enough to pay for one and move on.
It's also easy for someone to say "this organized play thing has too many extra rules and isn't worth the hassle" and just stop going. Most folks doing it want to play at a con, they're not die hards. It's already more work than a normal game with tracking chronicles, different lists of whats allowed (which aren't that easy to find for a casual player if it's not on AoN), etc. Piling stuff like this on it doesn't help those of us trying to get people to try it out.
The thing is that these were remaster driven rebuilds. That was what caused. The remaster itself is an unprecedented situation. They made a decision back around PC1 related to how this would work, and okay, fine. But then stuff changed, and instead of going "well we should adapt", they went with "no we said this and we're doing it, deal."
The idea that rebuilds are scarce doesn't really apply here, since people weren't asking for extra rebuilds. The people in this situation never got a rebuild and just needed the same one that PC1 classes got. Which since the point of those was "your class changed after you made the character so we'll let you rebuild", the PC2 classes should get the same treatment. Already existing characters before PC1 came out got it, so ones between PC1 and PC2 not getting it is just setting a double standard for how characters are treated since they're in the same boat: they were changed after creation by the remaster too (drastically in the case of Oracle and Alchemist).
It effectively WAS a PC1 rebuild, since if it was a "remaster rebuild", all classes impacted by PC2 would have gotten it. Wouldn't they?
Lets be honest: not a ton of people were impacted by this. But the way they handled it left a very sour taste in the mouth of people that were, and the flippant response coming from Paizo contributed to that.
Telling them "yeah, go buy a rebuild to fix it" is one of those "this technically works" solutions that a terrible player experience at the same time. Hell, half the PFS players I know wouldn't know how to buy a boon even if they wanted to do so, so now its another thing I have to explain as a GM.
... and of course, that conversation is starting with me as the GM having to explain "oh by the way, Paizo put out a new book and now your character doesn't work this way" when they show up at the game having no idea any of this is going on.
(All of those also could have been avoided had they stuck with "if your character existed before the remaster, you can keep using the old chassis", which they did write down but then didn't follow with subclasses. Then anyone with an existing character is fine unless they want to rebuild.)
|
|
The thing is, I pretty much agree with you overall. I do want to reiterate this though.
It effectively WAS a PC1 rebuild, since if it was a "remaster rebuild", all classes impacted by PC2 would have gotten it. Wouldn't they?
They did. If they existed before the Remaster.
I had 3 characters of PC2 classes that I held rebuilds on until after PC2 came out.
(One of them was really because I was waiting for Tian Xia Character Guide because I thought I might want to be a Hungerseed. Which is an illustration of why they are generally so restrictive on rebuilds because they are trying to avoid rebuilds that are *really* to get the new hotness, not to fix the problems with the class. There has been a history of every time that Organized Play leadership has tried to be permissive, that some segment of the playerbase takes advantage of the loophole. "This is why we can't have nice things" and all that.)
Obviously, what they *thought* was that by announcing the Remaster and the way that rebuilds worked was that everyone would avoid building new characters of classes that would be in PC2 until after the PC2 was released. Obviously, they grossly misunderstood human nature. (I think they also just didn't expect the influx of new players they were getting and how their expectations would be very different.)
Locally, virtually no one has been affected by this at all. I can only think of two oracles, and they were both created before the Remaster was announced, and so were eligible for rebuilds.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't think it's fair to characterize Paizo's take on PC2 rebuilds as being that bad.
From the beginning they always said there would not be a second wave of rebuilds. And historically, they've always been really reluctant to allow rebuilds, so when they say they aren't planning to allow another rebuild, that's very believable.
So if a new player rolled up in that time window and made an oracle, AND played it for several sessions until it had become level 2 and couldn't rebuild freely anymore using the general level 1 rules - then something's gone wrong.
Was the newbie player playing only with other newbies for three sessions in a row? Didn't anyone else go "oh hey you're playing a class that could change a lot in a couple of months, you should be careful"? Did people think "Paizo said there'd be no rebuild, but I bet they're bluffing and they'll cave in"?
So yeah, I think "exasperated" is a fairer way to describe Paizo's reaction.
(I'm on the fence about whether a PC2 rebuild would have been good. On the one hand, it removes a lot of pain. On the other hand, you get on a slippery slope where someone uses their PC1 rebuild to pick a PC2 class and then chains that into another rebuild. I think that's the sort of abuse Paizo was worried about. History have shown that at least some people would do that.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current ruling
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current ruling
You do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right? Also anyone who had half a brain knew the Alchemist was getting a complete rewrite. The class was a mess to the point where the amount of effort to get it to work was just too much.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current rulingYou do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?
No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.
Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "
The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current rulingYou do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.
Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "
Not as simple as you make it out to be as all wizards got their spells force updated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't think it's fair to characterize Paizo's take on PC2 rebuilds as being that bad.
From the beginning they always said there would not be a second wave of rebuilds. And historically, they've always been really reluctant to allow rebuilds, so when they say they aren't planning to allow another rebuild, that's very believable.
So if a new player rolled up in that time window and made an oracle, AND played it for several sessions until it had become level 2 and couldn't rebuild freely anymore using the general level 1 rules - then something's gone wrong.
Was the newbie player playing only with other newbies for three sessions in a row? Didn't anyone else go "oh hey you're playing a class that could change a lot in a couple of months, you should be careful"? Did people think "Paizo said there'd be no rebuild, but I bet they're bluffing and they'll cave in"?
There's a problem with people that follow something closely where they think everyone else also does that. Most people don't actually do that. So the real explanation is closer to "they heard characters impacted by the remaster would get a rebuild sometime before the end of 2024" and didn't give it a second thought.
This is definitely true with PFS stuff, where the rules and rulings are scattered across multiple locations and not easy to find even if you're looking for them. If you don't know to actively look for it, you'd have no reason to ever think this was a problem until you find out that you don't get any rebuilds at all and your character was completely changed overnight and doesn't work properly because you've got partially old version and partially new version.
Literally no one expected that to happen, even people that do follow this stuff closely.
So yeah, I think "exasperated" is a fairer way to describe Paizo's reaction.
Exasperated that an edge case problem cropped up and people told them about it? That's literally what they told us to do when the remaster plan for PFS was announced.
No one could have expected this problem back when it first started because PC1 wasn't even out yet. Unexpected stuff happens, that's life. Getting exasperated at the people pointing out that there's a hole in the plan because things changed with PC2 isn't the playerbase being mean: its giving the feedback they asked for on the draft policy.
To solicit feedback and then get "exasperated" when you get it shows a problem of some kind, but the problem there is Paizo wanting to follow policy even when the policy is producing an outcome that is clearly not in line with the intention.
(I'm on the fence about whether a PC2 rebuild would have been good. On the one hand, it removes a lot of pain. On the other hand, you get on a slippery slope where someone uses their PC1 rebuild to pick a PC2 class and then chains that into another rebuild. I think that's the sort of abuse Paizo was worried about. History have shown that at least some people would do that.)
The problem case for this was people that didn't get a first rebuild. People keep talking up this issue of multiple rebuilds and second rebuilds, but it's a red herring. The problem was characters created after the PC1 cutoff, which meant they didn't exist to get the first rebuild.
This would have been the first rebuild for them, and that's well in line with the stated policy of "classes impacted by the remaster will get a rebuild." That was the point. All they had to do was say "characters with a PC2 class created before the release of PC2 that didn't already get a free rebuild also get one."
That's not extra rebuilds. It's literally the same number of rebuilds that characters of PC1 classes got. What actually happened is those characters were drastically changed by the remaster and got zero rebuilds when the stated policy was that characters changed by the remaster would get a rebuild.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't think it's fair to characterize Paizo's take on PC2 rebuilds as being that bad.
They intentionally sabotaged every active oracle in PFS over level 2 and then charged players a fee to fix it.
I'm sorry but there's just no way to spin that as good.
From the beginning they always said there would not be a second wave of rebuilds. And historically, they've always been really reluctant to allow rebuilds, so when they say they aren't planning to allow another rebuild, that's very believable.
Historicaly Paizo doesn't really have much precedent for going out of their way to kneecap an existing class during an update. Their guidance for PC1 was the exact opposite, with old characters specifically being allowed to keep referencing the CRB.
It's kind of grotesque to try to blame the player for not predicting that Paizo would do a complete 180 wrt Oracles.
Not giving out another free rebuild would have been fine... if people had been allowed to keep using their existing characters normally, as had been the policy every other time this happened. If Paizo wanted to force everyone to the PC2 standard, they could have offered rebuilds to bring these Oracles up to date. Instead they chose the most anti-player option they had, by forcing people to choose between buying their own rebuild or being punished with a removal of class features.
To put it another way, Paizo sometimes presents themselves as a sort of over-DM to PFS as a mega campaign and campaign setting. A DM doing the kind of thing Paizo did here is just rpg horror stories bait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not as simple as you make it out to be as all wizards got their spells force updated.The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current rulingYou do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.
Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "
I'm confused. I don't see how you can compare the mild inconvenience of temporarily switching AoN to legacy mode to look up what spell school a spell used to be with the barely playable mess of a fraken class trying to play an unremastered oracle forced to use the new versions of the mysteries.
I'm confused. I don't see how you can compare the mild inconvenience of temporarily switching AoN to legacy mode to look up what spell school a spell used to be with the barely playable mess of a fraken class trying to play an unremastered oracle forced to use the new versions of the mysteries.Not as simple as you make it out to be as all wizards got their spells force updated.The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current rulingYou do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.
Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "
Because legacy electric arc is remaster electric arc. If you can't even get that correct then it's a hell of a lot more complicated than you think.
And yes before you try and say it isn't there was erratta the day of Player Core 1 that eliminated ability modifiers from spells like EA.
I'm confused. I don't see how you can compare the mild inconvenience of temporarily switching AoN to legacy mode to look up what spell school a spell used to be with the barely playable mess of a fraken class trying to play an unremastered oracle forced to use the new versions of the mysteries.Not as simple as you make it out to be as all wizards got their spells force updated.The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current rulingYou do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.
Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "
Because legacy electric arc is remaster electric arc. If you can't even get that correct then it's a hell of a lot more complicated than you think.
And yes before you try and say it isn't there was erratta the day of Player Core 1 that eliminated ability modifiers from spells like EA.
I'm not sure if we're referring to the same things. Are you referring specifically to the changes to the cantrips or to remastered spells that kept if their names.
A) I mean sure, the loss of the attribute modifiers to cantrips is annoying at low levels. But every caster has had to deal with that, and it's really nor comparable to what a legacy Oracle is dealing with.
B) An Evocation wizard can still prepare any of the 119 evocation spells published under the OGL as school spells, including one like Hydraulic Push or Fireball that have been remastered. Lorespire is quite clear about this.
Edit: reworded example to be clearer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Makes a show of collecting the fragments of his hand grenade, reassembling it haphazardly, and attempting to put the pin back into place.*
I come back to my Biggest Errata needed thread only to see us talking about Rebuilds and PFS. Can someone explain what is going on to me please since I have a feeling I am missing a post somewhere which started this off. New Oracle is funky we can all agree and it feels weird compared to Sorcerer.
Despite what some people would say, I think Oracle now with the Remastered Divine List is stepping all over Sorcerer's toes with better AC & HP.
Not to mention with the divide in the Battle Harbinger that this would be the best way to make a Battle/Martial Oracle similar to the old Mystery.
I come back to my Biggest Errata needed thread only to see us talking about Rebuilds and PFS. Can someone explain what is going on to me please since I have a feeling I am missing a post somewhere which started this off. New Oracle is funky we can all agree and it feels weird compared to Sorcerer.
Despite what some people would say, I think Oracle now with the Remastered Divine List is stepping all over Sorcerer's toes with better AC & HP.
Not to mention with the divide in the Battle Harbinger that this would be the best way to make a Battle/Martial Oracle similar to the old Mystery.
I expreased hope that the gunslinger's alchemical feats would be errata'd before remastwr rebuilds expired and it opened some old wounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I come back to my Biggest Errata needed thread only to see us talking about Rebuilds and PFS. Can someone explain what is going on to me please since I have a feeling I am missing a post somewhere which started this off. New Oracle is funky we can all agree and it feels weird compared to Sorcerer.
Despite what some people would say, I think Oracle now with the Remastered Divine List is stepping all over Sorcerer's toes with better AC & HP.
Not to mention with the divide in the Battle Harbinger that this would be the best way to make a Battle/Martial Oracle similar to the old Mystery.
It's this one. Asking about how PFS will handle a Guns & Gears transition, then it was pointed out how they handled the Oracle transition and not to be optimistic.
Then someone asked for proof about one part of it, which prompted a bunch of us to go back in time to find that, which probably just pissed folks off all over again about how it was handled.
That part isn't about remaster Oracle itself: it's about the casual disdain showed by the PFS folks when a problem with how they were handling it was pointed out to them.
But while we're on the topic... biggest errata that is required is around Oracle. That includes small errata ("how many spells does it get?", which should have been a day 1 errata because its so fundamental and obviously wrong), to bigger problems like how the Bones curse actually works (RAW it makes you vulnerable to damage from sources that can't target you, which means a lot of words that don't do anything, and the curse's impact is drastically different depending on what was actually intended here). Weapon Trance is so bad that it feels like a practical joke and should definitely be fixed.
That's leaving out all the more fundamental problems with it like severely imbalanced curses and some mysteries that don't do what their description says they do, but I don't expect any of that to get touched (Alchemist is the only class that has ever gotten that kind of errata IIRC).
Live Wire is another obvious one. Some stuff in Secrets of Magic that has been lingering for years like Inner Radiance Torrent (which we were told was wrong but has gone for so long without being changed) and clarifications around Eidolons and tools.
The issue is that a lot of my "biggest things that need errata" items are things I strongly suspect (or know for sure) aren't going to get it, so there's no reason to list them. Looking at you, Kingdom rules, Ritual DCs, and the Exemplar archetype as a whole (errata'd to add Rare isn't a fix so much as its a way to contain the damage).
(And yes, I think the fact that both Battle Harbinger and the Animist gish are better at it than Battle Oracle is now isn't lost on folks. )
Thank you for explaining this Tridus! That makes sense, Live Wire is an odd case for sure. Inner Radiant Torrent needs that nerf but it is seemign like it will be longer as we both about 1 month to go for the Fall Errata they said they'd release...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GREAT GOOGLELY MOOGLELY PEOPLE!
PFS is not hiring Pinkertons to hack your personal computers to check up on your characters!
Just fix your Oracles so they work and move on!
No one but you will know!
Do VOs audit character sheets anymore? Not since PFS2 started.
This isn't the "Aasimar won't be PFS legal next season so we'll speed run through a bunch of repeatables" kind of problem!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also easy for someone to say "this organized play thing has too many extra rules and isn't worth the hassle" and just stop going. Most folks doing it want to play at a con, they're not die hards. It's already more work than a normal game with tracking chronicles, different lists of whats allowed (which aren't that easy to find for a casual player if it's not on AoN), etc. Piling stuff like this on it doesn't help those of us trying to get people to try it out.
Just want to highlight this for visibility. I've been doing organized play as a way to meet new people with similar interests and I'm willing to put up with the rules because of it, but it's exhausting to track everything down. Especially now that I'm starting to play around with running games and reporting them, bringing new players in can be a little rough. I'm a bit of an old grognard in my way and I really miss the collected PDF guide. I wish we could get a PDF guide to organized play including options and a PDF errata guide that so I can hand it out and say 'Here you go, read this and you're set!'
Having started to peruse Divine Mysteries, they desperately need to errata the art of Apsu on his entry. I'm trying to finish this book, not collapse laughing at how silly the poor chubby, sagging, whiskery dino-lizard looks. Did he pick his skin color because someone selling divinity insurance said it was the cheapest color to cover? No one that shade of green does anything interesting or gets in trouble.
It was, uh, not what I would expect from the Father of All Dragons. Kinda gives like... catfish vibes? His legs don't look like they can support him and he kinda has a 'wet' look; not scaled but more newtlike?