Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Bringing up the planetouched grace period again doesn't really help the argument though. It's just not relevant, unless people really have dozens of 2nd Level characters waiting to abuse such a rules change.
With respect to thejeff, maybe it's not relevant to you, but it most certainly is relevant to John and Mike - John specifically referenced it in his post. That certainly, based on John's posting, played a role in that decision (I am inferring that since he referenced why there wasn't a broader grandfathering ruling made.)
|
|
But Mike and John have to look at PFS player base in its entirety and make those decisions on whats best for the Organized Play Campaign as a whole.The ruling hurts anyone between levels 2 and mystic theurge.
Free rebuilds hurts....?
Yes they do. Because if someone lies and uses the free rebuild to get out of bad choices because they can retroactively claim they were going for early entry and some GM oks it can make another player sitting at the same table who is honest and has made a bad choice feel like they aren't being treated fairly.
And yes this does hurt every character between level 2 and mystic theurge early entry, which would be before 6th level, that wanted to get mystic theurge. I understand that, but how many players is that in a campaign that contains a player base in the 10's of thousands?
Mike and John have to do whats best for the 10's of thousand of players and not just the individual players, and in a case like this you can't please everyone. No matter what choice was made someone would have been upset.
I feel that they made the best choice to hurt the least number of people.
After drudging through here I'll throw in my 2cp as a non PFS player.
Barring a unforeseen reason that I can't think of I would think the best not already in place option would be the stated idea to allow nonrebuildable characters lvl2 a and up to effective date of the ruling to progress forward with early entry provided they do not use any rebuild or retrain options in the interim time (thus preventing a bunch of rebuilds/retrainings to suddenly meet prereqs.)
|
|
[
Yes they do. Because if someone lies and uses the free rebuild to get out of bad choices because they can retroactively claim they were going for early entry and some GM oks it can make another player sitting at the same table who is honest and has made a bad choice feel like they aren't being treated fairly.
Mike and John have to do whats best for the 10's of thousand of players and not just the individual players, and in a case like this you can't please everyone. No matter what choice was made someone would have been upset.
I feel that they made the best choice to hurt the least number of people.
...so you're saying that there are more people, with identical badly made characters sitting at the same table where one will lie for a rebuild and the other wont then there are people hurt by this transition? Because without that rather questionable notion the idea that more people would be hurt doesn't work out.
Bringing up the planetouched grace period again doesn't really help the argument though. It's just not relevant, unless people really have dozens of 2nd Level characters waiting to abuse such a rules change.With respect to thejeff, maybe it's not relevant to you, but it most certainly is relevant to John and Mike - John specifically referenced it in his post. That certainly, based on John's posting, played a role in that decision (I am inferring that since he referenced why there wasn't a broader grandfathering ruling made.)
Which is a fairly strong indication of why the folks advocating for an option that removes that concern feel unheard.
|
|
Bringing up the planetouched grace period again doesn't really help the argument though. It's just not relevant, unless people really have dozens of 2nd Level characters waiting to abuse such a rules change.
The abuse of the grace period shows that players out there will go with what is technically legal even if it's against the spirit of the rulings. So we have players out there that would abuse the grandfathering option. You'd probably have more to abuse a free rebuild.
And Mike and John seem to feel that the plane touched abuse was to much and they may not want to make that mistake again. I personally agree with that sentiment.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew, the general consensus among the people impacted are that, as written, those PrCs are not really viable. A delay does "ruin or destroy" them, because of the difference in what you get out of it.
I don't have a dog in this hunt. I've never made an early entry PrC, and never intended to.
However, somewhere around half of my characters are slotted for standard entry PrCs. I've played a couple of Arcane Tricksters, a Mystery Cultist, and am about to grab my first level in Envoy of Balance. I've got an Eldritch Knight and a Mystic Theurge drawn up and ready to go (and I'm really excited about my MT).
These types of builds aren't for everyone. They *definitely* give up power at low levels for power later -- and the tradeoff might be objectively a net loss at PFS levels.
But "non-viable" is hyperbole. They may not fit every party or every playstyle, but they are perfectly viable.
(For the record, I like the new update to the FAQ. But I understand why people don't, and have plenty of sympathy for those who have characters impacted by it. I have no opinion about potential remedies that would grandfather or allow free retrains/rebuilds.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm not seeing it but how could the grandfathering of lvl2 and up be abused. As has been stated if I was gonna be a MT/ET/other early entry I'm built for it if I wasn't planning on it till I found out that only an existing char could do it how many possible characters could I have that could really be worth changing over how I was gonna build the char.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
I agree. As I see it, the grandfathering option as proposed drastically limits the potential for abuse. If that's not so, I haven't seen a good argument for it, or that they were considering this case when they mentioned the previous abuse.
The previous abuse is certainly an argument against allowing a grace period.
While I agree the proposed grandfathering should limit abuse, it still allows more people to abuse it then the grandfathering we actually got. It's unfortunately a risk/reward situation and I feel we got a more cautious grandfathering because of that.
I think we just had a situation that we had no great solution for and unfortunately I think what we got was the best for the campaign.
He Isn't siding in this incident he is saying that not everything goes the way everyone wants it.
|
|
What I prefer and what is often do not meet.To make sure I understand correctly, are you saying that you would prefer to accommodate the rule abiding players affected by this decision in a way that allows them to continue playing and having fun, but that simply is not what is?
I believe that this was a more general statement, but you're certainly free to interpret it as you please.
|
|
No need to speak down to me... It looked like it was in response to my post, so I asked for clarification. I didn't want to assume he was saying something he wasn't, so I directly asked.I believe that this was a more general statement, but you're certainly free to interpret it as you please.What I prefer and what is often do not meet.To make sure I understand correctly, are you saying that you would prefer to accommodate the rule abiding players affected by this decision in a way that allows them to continue playing and having fun, but that simply is not what is?
Apologies if that sounded condescending. It was not intended as such.
|
|
Based on all of the discussion, it seems like there are people who do not agree that there are no great solutions and that what we got was the best for the campaign. That seems like the whole point of this entire conversation.
I am still surprised that there are people that find flipping rules on a segment of the player base midway through the life of their characters, potentially creating a character that is no longer fun to play, preferable to accommodating those players in a way that allows them to continue playing and having fun simply because there is the potential for a very small amount players "abuse" (I use quotations because it really depends on your definition of abuse) that route. I just can't imagine ever believing that stopping a player that has not broken any rules from having fun with their character going forward is the best resolution. Then again, I firmly believe that Pathfinder is a game and that games are designed for the sole purpose of providing entertainment.
Of course people don't agree. You are never going to have something everyone agrees on when your talking about a player pool of 10's of thousand of people. I'm just explaining the point of view of someone who feels we got the best solution we could get.
And yes the point of games are to have fun, but the goal is to have the most people have fun that's possible. They're people that don't have fun playing with people with early access characters. Some people wouldn't have fun playing at a table with one of the people who abused the grandfather option (if that happened.) They're are so many variables for what people find to be fun that when your trying to make a decision on something that effects 10's of thousand of players whether directly or indirectly you have to look past the fun and try to find what's fair for the most people involved in the campaign. Mike and John made what they feel is the best decision for the health of the campaign that has 10's of thousand of people playing for fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're people that don't have fun playing with people with early access characters. Some people wouldn't have fun playing at a table with one of the people who abused the grandfather option (if that happened.)
.... what?
How does someone playing an early entry mystic theurge suck the fun out of someone elses game?
How common is that compared to the theurges stuck mid cocoon?
How could having to play with a mystic theurge be as bad as having to ditch the character ?
Both the prevalence and the intensity of the harm you're claiming is greater seems to be less. You are calling out some bizarrely specific circumstances with a low level of annoyance and treating them as if they were not only on par, but greater annoyance than abandoning a character.
The most fun for the most people is not whats being achieved here.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
So as somebody that has been looking into pathfinder society play for a long time (and I mean a LONG time, my schedule never lines up, but its finally starting to open up), let me ask this:
What incentive do I have, when after 30-40 hours of game time, plus any books I purchase, that my character plan could be invalidated at any time without any recompense, warning, or alternative?
I'm not impressed at all with how venture captains have handled this situation. Some are even accusing players that used the rules of pathfinder society play to their advantage of cheating. I understand you are volunteers, but I cannot believe you are permitted to act this way on behalf of Paizo.
As a customer with paying money, this is not something I wish to support.
I encourage you to use whatever metrics available to you to make your choices, and I don't doubt that leadership involved did in fact spend time on reaching this decision, but know that the decision you made over this came with a loss of several sales to support a future pathfinder society character.
I am not going to spend money with a company that would treat me, my time, or my limited resources like this.
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.
Essentially this is like changing something via Errata and then changing it back in the next one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.
Essentially this is like changing something via Errata and then changing it back in the next one.
Emphasis mine.
To say it was unintended would be false. There was a specific phrase on the old FAQ that said they understand exactly what was going to happen with that FAQ.
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.
I simply do not understand how the word "loophole" reconciles with this statement:
The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Can you explain it to me? How can someone read the FAQ and come to the conclusion that early entry wasn't the intention of the PDT?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.
Essentially this is like changing something via Errata and then changing it back in the next one.
Emphasis mine.
To say it was unintended would be false. There was a specific phrase on the old FAQ that said they understand exactly what was going to happen with that FAQ.
Oh why did I post, I have plenty of scenarios and Emerald Spire to prep . ;(
I said unintended cause this specific way to qualify for prestige classes and feats like arcane strike, were never intended by the authors of those prestige classes.
EK didn't require a BAB (unlike Arcane Archer) since previously we had not class or race that could get early entry.
And considering the reaction of James Jacobs when it came to the possibility of early entry into the Evangelist class, I am pretty sure, that this he didn't intent it either.
It is quite likely that the person(s) who made this decision, had a reasoning to do so, but I don't think everyone at Paizo was thrilled by it.
That is not a value judgement regarding the "lacking?) power of prestige classes, rather than... sometimes they cause a mess.
I remember that it took quite a number of CRB Errata editions to remove that "elf only" requirement from the arcane archer, months after they mentioned it on the forums.
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.I simply do not understand how the word "loophole" reconciles with this statement:
The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.Can you explain it to me? How can someone read the FAQ and come to the conclusion that early entry wasn't the intention of the PDT?
If could argue that they realized that this causes a weird situation regarding the default minimum character level for prestige classes and they even mentioned it in the FAQ. Whether this counts as a loopwhole or not, is really more a matter of definition.
Thank for quite it btw, since this shows that apparently even they didn't know all the possible results of this change (the vast majority of FAQs don't include this language).
I really don't know what caused the first FAQ and what caused the second one (although telling James Jacobs that he is not a rules authority in this case... most likely has an effect).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.I simply do not understand how the word "loophole" reconciles with this statement:
The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.Can you explain it to me? How can someone read the FAQ and come to the conclusion that early entry wasn't the intention of the PDT?
For some reason, I think the addendum you quoted was added after the initial FAQ posting. So the timeline would be, FAQ was posted, some people brought up the early access to PrC's, and then the design team clarified with the addendum. However, I do not have a copy of the FAQ when it was first released, so I'm going off of fuzzy memory from about a year and a half ago.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, you're heading back towards the sort of comments that gets threads locked down. Picking apart someone's comments word by word isn't going to advance your cause of affecting change.
Based on the discussions thus far, it seems that nothing presented has changed the minds of the power that be. That doesn't mean people are too stupid or biased to have understood the suggestions - it means they weren't swayed.
For the near term at least, I suggest folks stand back, think about what they want to do with the affected PCs in the interim, and get back to playing. Maybe the PC gets shelved for a bit in the hope that something changes. (I have 2 PCs shelved myself for different reasons - unfortunate, but it happens.) Maybe you play one of your other PCs for a while, or make another PC, or GM for a bit and put GM credit on the person to get them where you want them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that is the qualifier for banning play options, we should probably ban Gunslingers, Witches, Dual-Cursed Oracles (with Misfortune) and likely a whole bunch of other options that "some people wouldn't have fun playing at a table with".
No, those options are legal by the rules. Early access with spell like abilities is not.
In fact I'm not arguing that things should or should not be banned based on fun, that's your argument. So please don't try and make it seem like I'm trying to ban options based on the fun level. I'm in fact trying to point out that your argument that if people are having fun, it shouldn't be banned isn't a valid option for organized play when you have to consider everyone's fun.
.... what?
How does someone playing an early entry mystic theurge suck the fun out of someone elses game?
How common is that compared to the theurges stuck mid cocoon?
How could having to play with a mystic theurge be as bad as having to ditch the character ?
Some people don't have fun playing with characters that they think are broken or using what some would term a cheesy option. I'm also not making a quantitative case of which side is losing out on fun the most. I'm merely pointing out that the campaign can't make it's ruling based on what's fun for some people, because you have people who have a different idea of what's fun.
I'm trying to explain a different view on this ruling then the ones some of the poster have. But really taking apart my post and focusing on one comment out of context and trying to say that I'm comparing the fun levels or that I'm advocating the banning of options based on how much fun people are having isn't fair to what I'm saying.
I'm going to bow out of the thread, I've explained my views and how I feel about this ruling and how it's fair for the largest number of people possible and why I think the options presented in this thread won't work. I don't really see what else I can add other then defending my points as they are taken out of context.
Good luck to the people who had their character planning negatively effected by this, hopefully you can find a proposal that can solve the issues that some of us see with the current option and be able to find a way that limits the chance of abuse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, you're heading back towards the sort of comments that gets threads locked down. Picking apart someone's comments word by word isn't going to advance your cause of affecting change.
I'm going to assume (fully understanding the risks) that you directed that comment at me.
I don't play in PFS, but I have considered using it as a tool for pick up games, or for vetting out new players for my home game. I'm just consistently amazed that there is such a general thirst for punitive measures against people that would dare play out of the box with mechanics. This isn't an isolated issue, I've seen many of the actors in this thread express joy and glee at the idea that someone else will no longer be able to play their characters. Actors who carry leadership tags in their namelines. Some of these people say that their fun is degraded because someone else is playing a character they don't care for the theme of, or mechanics behind; and not for reasons related to game balance or relative power levels.
I've kept the PFS subforum arrowed open because I like to be up to date about whats happening in the community, in case I do take the plunge and give it a go. I also understand that forumites are different from the general population, but I find the folks I tend to agree with in the forum are those I would consider "regulars," and those I tend to get frustrated by reading tend to have leadership tags. That is more difficult to explain away as an inappropriately small sample of the forum.
I think for now I'll keep watching but bow out of this thread. I can't say that I feel as though the campaign is a place for me. I don't do well with "authorities" deciding that I can't be trusted to not cheat or be abusive or whatever. From what I see as an outsider, those sorts of conversations always seem to revolve around removing player options, or accusing someone of using a creative mechanic interlock that others don't like. I think that if, as a campaign, you want remove options that you required people to purchase that you are probably making the wrong choice off the bat, but combining that with accusations of cheating, abuse, or munchkining, is unpalatable to me.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
For some reason, I think the addendum you quoted was added after the initial FAQ posting. So the timeline would be, FAQ was posted, some people brought up the early access to PrC's, and then the design team clarified with the addendum. However, I do not have a copy of the FAQ when it was first released, so I'm going off of fuzzy memory from about a year and a half ago.
I followed this when it first happened, so I'll share the timeline:
1) First, the PDT made The FAQ, without the addendum that BigDTBone quoted.
2) Then, those community members most proficient with the rules realized that this meant you could give your fighters Arcane Strike or even get into a PrC early.
3) Those less proficient with the rules said "But those prereqs say 'spells', plural, so an SLA doesn't count."
4) The PDT clarified that no, that pluralization doesn't mean that, and yes, an SLA really does count.
5) That same population said "But SLAs aren't arcane or divine, so they can't fulfill prereqs that require arcane/divine spells."
6) The PDT posted a new FAQ about SLAs being arcane/divine and how to tell which is which. (The exact wording of this FAQ changed a couple of times, but with little effect other than tweaking which SLAs counted for which prereqs.)
7) That same population then said "But the examples you're using [Copycat and Send Senses] aren't exact duplicates of those spells [mirror image and clairvoyance], so they don't count as being those spell levels [2nd and 3rd]."
8) Then-designer Sean K Reynolds clarified that an SLA's spell level is always the level of the spell it emulates; the only time you have to calculate a spell level is when it's not based on a spell at all (like many domain/bloodline powers).
9) After weeks of having every protest countered by the design team, that same population resorted to the old fallback of "But it'll be broken," with many of them adding, "and therefore that's not how it works."
10) Many heated debates ensued, as people tried to demonstrate that early entry was (A) legal, and (B) not broken. The protestors did not budge. Posts were removed, threads were locked; you know, the usual.
11) Finally, the PDT stepped in with the above-cited addendum to the FAQ, which (A) asserted that yes, this really is legal; (B) affirmed that the affected PrC's are weak enough that this won't be a problem; and (C) assured the protestors of the time that if anything broke, they'd fix it.
----------------------------
I've got to say, after being part of that big nasty process, the addendum to the FAQ (at the time it was posted) felt much more like an effort to quiet the protestors than a caution to those utilizing the FAQ. That context is kind of lost now, a year and a half later, but having been there at the time and having seen what led up to that addendum just makes it that much harder to stomach all these "you should have heeded the caution" posts. Especially when some of them come from people who had previously willfully ignored the "this is legal" part of the same addendum while that FAQ was still active.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For some reason, I think the addendum you quoted was added after the initial FAQ posting. So the timeline would be, FAQ was posted, some people brought up the early access to PrC's, and then the design team clarified with the addendum. However, I do not have a copy of the FAQ when it was first released, so I'm going off of fuzzy memory from about a year and a half ago.I followed this when it first happened, so I'll share the timeline:
1) First, the PDT made The FAQ, without the addendum that BigDTBone quoted.
2) Then, those community members most proficient with the rules realized that this meant you could give your fighters Arcane Strike or even get into a PrC early.
3) Those less proficient with the rules said "But those prereqs say 'spells', plural, so an SLA doesn't count."
4) The PDT clarified that no, that pluralization doesn't mean that, and yes, an SLA really does count.
5) That same population said "But SLAs aren't arcane or divine, so they can't fulfill prereqs that require arcane/divine spells."
6) The PDT posted a new FAQ about SLAs being arcane/divine and how to tell which is which. (The exact wording of this FAQ changed a couple of times, but with little effect other than tweaking which SLAs counted for which prereqs.)
7) That same population then said "But the examples you're using [Copycat and Send Senses] aren't exact duplicates of those spells [mirror image and clairvoyance], so they don't count as being those spell levels [2nd and 3rd]."
8) Then-designer Sean K Reynolds clarified that an SLA's spell level is always the level of the spell it emulates; the only time you have to calculate a spell level is when it's not based on a spell at all (like many domain/bloodline powers).
9) After weeks of having every protest countered by the design team, that same population resorted to the old fallback of "But it'll be broken," with many of them adding, "and therefore that's not how it works."
10) Many heated debates ensued, as...
Completely off topic but now I want to have Jiggy recap other rules discussions.
|
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.
Essentially this is like changing something via Errata and then changing it back in the next one.
Emphasis mine.
To say it was unintended would be false. There was a specific phrase on the old FAQ that said they understand exactly what was going to happen with that FAQ.
Since the old FAQ no longer exists, and I disnt save it anywhere, I'm going just off my memory... I believe the specifically said, in the followup clarification note on the FAQ, that allowing early entry was an unintended side effect, and they'd watch it and possibly revisit in the future.
So it was explicitly an unintended result that they left alone for awhile.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I don't play in PFS,Folks, you're heading back towards the sort of comments that gets threads locked down. Picking apart someone's comments word by word isn't going to advance your cause of affecting change.
Well, that is essentially the problem. We (and I definitely include myself) tend to complain and argue much much more here on the boards than at the table.
For some this is a kind of therapy, however it is pretty far removed from what you will see at the gaming tables. Sure a GM might complain about your character being broken, but that usually has nothing to do with your character, it just comes from the fact, that adventures are set, and sometimes characters shine... and at other times they are pretty useless (our Swashbuckler in a recent game hat "fun" with those elementals).
PFS pretty much works on the honor system, while there is a paper trail involved, and GMs have the right to do audits all the time... it is unlikely to happen. We just have some of those rules to deal with "complicated" players.
PFS allows more than most home campaigns, and while rules changes/clarifications hit players all the times, this is pretty much the only way to go. If every PFS table started with a rules discussion, well you would not be talking about 4 hours slots ..
