|3 people marked this as a favorite.|
Magicdealer wrote:Give us something positive, something that adds more value to our booksGood thought Magicdealer! I'm a big fan of this perspective, and we try to do this when we see something that's an obvious issue in that direction as well, but those tend to be less visible because the original option was usually weak, so no one really remembered it. Cunning, for instance, was a terrible purchase in the 1st printing even if your character was already going to have 5 ranks in Knowledge skills because it was still worse than just getting another +1. The new cunning is actually really nice for a crit-focused smartypants character (perhaps a shocking grasp magus who can get the enhancement bonus in other ways), but it hasn't gotten more than one mention so far (by an extremely thorough poster who went through every item as a line item) and it'll take a while for builds to start including it. I'm excited to see it show up more often and am considering it for my falcata-wielding lore warden fighter in PFS.
So then, I guess the question is whether or not the total reduction in useful book options is offset by the total increase in useful book options. I'm not trying to be negative or insulting. The work that paizo has done with pathfinder overall has been amazing.
Everything from the beginning reworking of the basic classes, to the addition of new, flavorful classes, to archetypes, and on through the mythic and unchained content has been great to see, and I've spent hundreds of hours pouring over the content and working and reworking characters. It's not like I haven't gotten my money's worth :p
It's just this one, little area that regularly frustrates me.
The change you mentioned for cunning is a useful change, but it doesn't really open up new or different character types.
In return, this errata removed mistmail builds, conductive builds, ring of revelation builds... well, I could go on but this thread is full of examples. These are items that people could, and did, create entire character designs around. They provided unique, and interesting abilities. In comparison, a flat +4 bonus to confirmation rolls doesn't really match up.
Now, I understand that some things need to be fixed. I'm not arguing that. But maybe there are ways to do so that keep them interesting.
Take the Jingasa for example. What if, instead of making the critical negation a once ever thing, it had been changed to this: "Once per day, when struck by a critical hit or sneak attack, the wearer can spend an immediate action to delay the effects of the critical hit or sneak attack for one minute."
It's still useful, and useful daily, but now it requires more tactical use and possibly some hilarious last second scrambling for temporary hitpoints and such. Heck, you could drop the time delay lower and still have it useful. I mean, obviously I'm not a game designer so there are probably plenty of examples as to why this would be a bad change. Yet I can also envision a meta build using the delay and a friend with a kukri to set off some interesting on-damage events.
But this is a good example for the sorts of changes that I'd prefer to see. If there's an item that paizo thinks is too good, or too useful, instead of burning it to the ground it would be nice to see it reworked when possible to still allow for characters to be built around it. That way, we're not losing build variety or diversity when these changes come out.
I half-expect though that if someone tossed out something comparable to the jingasa rework I suggested, someone else would want to use it in a new book as a new item since new books are where paizo's operating budget comes from :D And I get that, too. If paizo doesn't make money, then we don't get any more pathfinder updates. But it leaves me saddened because I expect that's the reason errata releases will continue as they have been.