|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well if the design team would stop making the same mistakes. They would be given more praise instead of criticism IMO. If they want to repeat the same errors with errata over and over. Why would they be given praise. If they want less criticism they can improve how they do errata. If not why should I or anyone else give them a free pass on criticism. One does not reward a diabetic with praise if he keeps eating food with lots of sugar. Why are rpg developers different.
In Exalted defence if does say from the start that the players are going to be powerful. It's not a rpg where a first level character starts wearing only a codpiece while carrying a rusty dagger. Do attacking all surprised means gamers reading the book are simply not paying attention IMO. Rusts on the other hand if it ever gets a revision could be a decent set of rules. Too bad they allowed anything and everything including the kitchen sink in terms of new rules and classe.
That being said after suffering through all the nerfing in PF. Sometimes it's refreshing to play a rpg that routinely tosses balance outside the window IMO.
That's the thing though. It's not just the ACG or its errata. It's been a pattern for quite awhile. Either options are too strong. It not worth taking. Or nerfing to the point it's not worth taking. Absolutely no middle ground IMO. I don't think it's that hard to make a feat/class/ class feature both worth taking and not too powerful.
Not to mention house ruling should never be something used to sell a rpg. I think all of us as members of the hobby sometime or another house rule. Many of us prefer to use RAW. It's why I buy a the rpg in the first place. Try selling a new car and then telling people that the brakes need work. The tires need to be rotated etc. good luck selling it. It's not so much the errata. So much that their no middle ground. No finesse. Either something remains too strong. Or becomes not worth taking. Rarely is if both effective and worth taking IMO. Paizo errata process reminds me of a scene from the movie Armaggedon. When the Russian cosmonaut picks up a big wrench. Then says " this is how we fix things on MIR station" and begins to randomly swing and smash his wrench.
They keep making the same mistakes. Why should some of the fans give them a free pass. Get the errata process right or expects the complaints to continue.
It too easy to say the debs are human when mistakes happen. Once, twice, three time. After that it's simply making the same mistakes over and over. I respect the debs. I'm no longer giving them a free pass on repeating the same mistakes anymore. Either we get new material that is either too powerful it not worth taking. Their seems to be a adamant refusal to find any mide ground. Errata is even worse. Either what needs to be fixed is ignored. Or nerfed to almost being useless IMO. A good example is Divine Ptotection. What was a strong feat perhaps too good. Is now almost worthless IMO. A DM would either have to give it to me for free. Or I need to be payed at least a six figure amount before I ever added to my character sheet. It's frustrating really.
As for the play tests agreed they are a farce. A feel good PR thing for the fans. The debs can and will ignore any of the play tests if they ready have a set idea in mind of what a class should be. I actually like Mythic. The main issue for me never using it is that Mythic enemies don't scale properly with players.
Here's to hoping that paizo takes note of the new feedback on their possibly rushed errata, which was prompted by guilt/feedback from their rushed book, and slowly and carefully craft improvements that make real differences and are not arbitrary or without necessity.
At this point I don't think they ever will. They should be making effective errata with their eyes closed imo. With the exception of Mark. Their is a adamant refusal to find some sort of middle ground when it comes to designing new material. Same with errata. Either something is too good. Or nerfed so much as to not worth taking imo. It's almost impossible to get something is both good yet not too game breaking at the same time. Their also doing nothing to dispel the notion that martials can't nice things either imo.
It's not 2009 anymore. Only so many times I'm willing to give free passes on the same mistakes from devs. I'm not giving up on PF. Far from it. I am giving up on the devs to gives us new material that is worth using in my games. While were at it simply admit once and for all that PFS has a big hand in what gets incorporated into errata. At this point Paizo is not fooling anyone. It's very frustrating because it seems like they almost never listen. Which is why I don't waste my time with playtests or compiling errata. What's the point really.
While I still may allow some 3pp. I will make sure to add the caveat you mentioned in my post. It will make it easier and fair.
As both a player and DM I can understand not being happy about having to change a pc. Yet at the same time if I'm allowing the pc to keep his current share of treasure. As well as a rebuild I think it's more than fair. What caused me to ask him to leave was that he had to build the pc his way and only his way. No exceptions. Game breaking or no he wanted that kind of pc. No two ways about it. He did not help himself with asking to use 3pp even when I said no to 3pp the second time around. Finally while I encourage players to give feedback getting what amounts to be a lecture on why I'm a bad DM and person for not allowing his build. Simply because he would in his games. Ended up being the final straw. Feedback is one thing. Giving me a lecture on how I run my game is another.
139. The " you agreed to allow my character at the start of the game. So you can't disallow it later" even if it's overpowered may ruin the entire campaign. I had a player who built a character using 3pp and by tweaking Herolab to make it legal. I allowed at first but eventually it was too powerful and unbalanced. I spoke to the player and told him to make something else.
Apparently the player could and would only play that particular character concept. Eventually I had to ask hm to leave. Yes did I agree at the beginning to allow the character as is. Which I admit was s mistake on my part. Was I going to allow one player to ruin a entire campaign and everyone else fun no way. Not to mention when the resident optimizer sends you a email saying " are you insane that build is too powrful". Then chances are good it is.
Which leads me to
Paizo doesn't really understand stand the subtle art of nerfing. They identify a problem, then say "F%&! everything!" and make it as worthless as possible so they never have to touch it again.
Agreed and seconded. Their seems to be a adamant refusal to find the proper middle ground with the debs IMO. Either a option is too strong. Or it's not worth taking. Or so badly nerfed it's not worth taking. As well as doing nothing to remove the image that martial a cant get nice things IMO.
True but I expect that from Catalyst games. I sure as hell expected more from Paizo. I wanted to eventually buy a used second printing. I'm not even going to do that because they needed stuff that did not need to be IMO.
After a point though their will be a saturation point with aps imo. How many Aps does a person really need before it's just easier and cheaper to build one own. I can see new fans to the system buying aps at least at the start. By the time one has 10 aps. Unless one is gaming twice a week at least one is never going to be run out of Aps to run. Aps are also a investment as well. 120$+ not everyone can afford that.
Your right about the SRD. I would have made neither version free. If I owned the ip "buy the books their no free lunches from me" . That's just me though.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Absolutely. While making sure no one else can for better or worse.
It also depends on what kind of feedback the OP wants to hear and receive. Too often it's usually the op wanting validation. If for example a DM asks if he or she was too harsh with a player. With the DM being too harsh. Inevitable it usually turns into "how dare you tell me
It's also the nature of a forum. sometimes one gets rude or polite posters. Usually a mix Sometimes a poster who can't seem to let a thread go with a "I"m right! Dammit I write and so on. With neither side willing to come to a consesus imo. I will be honest sometimes I don't behave the way I should on these boards. I'm not proud of it. Neither am I going to pretend to be some kind of paragon of virtue either.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
If your going to start a business then wanting to create, build, keep a profitable one has to be one of the main goals. For any kind of company. I still think the Wotc designers want to also release a good and enjoyable product for the fans. Then again in the hobby there is a huge double standard imo. If it's a rpg company they a fan likes they are the nest and above reproach. If it's one they hate they are the spawn of satan. Even if both companies engage in similar behavior.
You would be surprised. According to some in the hobby Paizo can only exist with the goodwill of the fanbase and nothing else. That they should keep publishing the current set of rules even if they lose money. We gamers are a strange breed. Logic and common sense do not always apply imo. The problem is though that because of the SRD their no need to really buy many copies of a core book. With the apps, SRD, Herolab one does not even need to purchase a book. I would have charged a 5-10$ monthly fee to use the SRD. Make extra money that way. I'm expecting someone to say that's unfair, expensive etc. If you can't afford 5-10$ a month what are you doing buying rpgs is the question. When it's something a person wants suddenly money is not a issue. When it's the opposite suddenly money is a issue.
I see your point. Yet even a tweaked version has to offer me at least 50% new material minimum. Otherwise it's cheaper to just get the updated PDF imo. I don't hate the Bestiaries far from it. It just that were starting to see reduntant monsters imo. Is there a huge difference between a river, fjord, lake and ocean giant. Offer me something new because I am beginning to have little interest in monsters that are similar yet slighlty different.
@old School Nick. While enjoy 2E it would be a step backwards. Some elements like the various spheres for clerics. Thaco belongs to 2E and should be left there.
It's still a business though. The employees and bills need to be paid. Which is easily done when a company is profitable. Not so much when your core product is losing money. I get your point John Lynch. While profit is not the main focus it should be a focus at all times even to a lesser extent imo.
As for Wotc and 5E I don't get them sometimes. While I don't think they deserve all the vitrol thrown their way some of their decisions on the support of 5E just are confusing and annoying tp say the least. Whats the point of new edition if their is poor support. I'm not asking for the same level that 3.5 hd. Except now they went in the opposite direction.
Not to mention Gravity Bow is a Ranger/sorcerer/wizard spell with a target of "you". Unless a Fighter spends the points in Use Magic Device which is imo a waste for lack of skill points. He is not getting the benefits of the spell. Were not unhappy with Fighters as a class because of lack of damage. We find the class boring. With casters who can do the same with spells.
It's not really being superheroic imo. After a certain level a high level fighter has enough hp to fall in lava and survive. Maybe once, twice. For better or worse it's in the rules. D&D has never really been one of those games where realism meant anything imo. Dragons of all sizes being able to find food to survive constantly is a good example. It's by raw. Otherwise combat manuevers would be to deadly if the game was based in realism. Your not getting up at least not for awhile if your bullrushed into the nearest wall.
As for one true way. Everyone plays differently and if one does not want people discussing their opinions they should bother posting online.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
It's a risk yet I don't think it's a lose/lose propositiion imo. Wotc took a huge risk with 3E and it paid off. Yet it also could have been a loss. Their a point where either a company tries something new or they stand the chance of losing money by catering to the same people. Or they keep ignoring the flaws of the system keep publishing it. While offering options that keep fixing the flaws. Either way it's not a exact science if it was rpg and non-rpg companies would be releasing new versions of products 24/7 imo.
Being a gamer does not mean they can simply ignore the business side of the company either. If they are making a profit with the current edition. Whatever my feelings with the rules they should keep publishing it. If they keep publishing a edition that loses money simply to keep fans happy and they go under well I don't feel sorry for any business owner who does that. Keeping fans happy is nice and all not when your losing money to do so.
Why would be a good way to go imo. Still for some if your not offering something new they will not even look at it. Even if it is a free update. For myself a rpg company that releases a new edition has to offer a minimum of 50% of new material. Or I'm simply not interested. I see no reason to invest a second time in a rehash with little to no changes. Exceptions exist if the new edition is a better version while still being a rehash. Otherwise while I enjoy PF for the most part. i'm not interested in a edition that for example continues the fighter/caster disparity.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Which also might be the way to go as well. Probably the only way if they want to extend the life of the current edition imo. The problem with that approach is that it also kind of highlights and makes the flaws of the system stand out even more. A sourcebook to make the original core material work or fix the flaws that it had. Some on the hobby will ask "why not put this material in the first place. Why makes us buy it?'.
Though I do think they need to cut back on the bestiaries. Even time a new hardcover is released we get a smaller bestiary. Occult adventures will get a bestiary as well. I hope we get some new monsters. Not simply variations with the serial numbers filed off.
To those saying don't change anything or simply polish the rules. Why would I buy it again. All I need is the free SRD. Even with the SRD. I simply cannot see as many fans rushing out to buy it the way they did the PF core. It's not 2009 anymore. 3.5. is being supported with the current version. Again offer something new or don't bother. The only way I would buy a core with errata is if Paizo was offering at minimum 50% off. Their no way I'm dishing out 50$ for a reprint with better organization and some errata here and there. At most 20-25$. You can bet they will get flak simply because they charged full price or even Amazon prices for another rehash. If I want 3.5. I'm generally satisfied with the current core.
Despite the bloat doomsayers saying to the contrary. I think they can do more books for the current edition IMO. Each Environment could gets its own book. A updated book on the planes. Less monsters though as I'm seeing too many that are the same. What really is the difference between a cave/hill/gulley/mountain troll. Not to mention animated cave paintings. I can't use that in my games my onagers would fall down laughing.
With 5E being the edition that address some flaws of the system. They simply can't release the same material again. As for better or worse like the current edition the next version will be compared to 5E and other more recent releases of D&D. While those who like the system as is will be happy. Those like myself who also like it yet wish some of the e siting flaws would be fixed. Probably not as much. They have to both make old, new and disatisfied fans happy with the next edition. Which I don't think is possible.
Well if they are not going to offer anything new then why even bother in the first place. I have no interest in another mostly 3.5. rehash with better production values and new art. I'm all for backwards compatibility if their market research shows that the majority of their fanbase uses it. If out of 10 fans 2-3 use 3.5. I don't see why they need to cater to such a small group. I get the point about books not being invalidated and the investment put into buying the books. I rather buy something new that at the very least fixes some of the flaws. Why would I buy the same set of rules with the same flaws. Of had to cater to both old and new fans. Offering nothing new when 5E fixes some of the flaws is not the wY to go. It's not like it was when Worc released 4E. With them no longer supporting 3.5. With a edition that did not go over well for some. I think some in the hobby need to look at the hobby as a whole and not just their bookshelves.
The only solution is more books like PF Unchained. Otherwise they really should not waste time and money on more of the same.
For myself and my gaming group it all depends. More of the same and chances are good were not going to be interested. Let alone reinvest in the same thing twice. New art and better production values notwithstanding. With 5E and 4e an to a lesser extent 13th Age they have to imo offer something new. The problem is they risk alienating a portion of their fanbase whichever way they go. Too little change and chances are good it will not sell as well. Too much and fans are unhappy. Personally I can't see any major flaws in the system being fixed without major changes.
One thing I would not bother with is backwards compitabilty. Unless their market research shows that a significant number of PF fans use 3.5. I would not bother. Too often here and outside of the forums. All i hear is "no 3.5. only PF" or "pf core and nothing else". My experience with 3.5. material is little to almost none of it is used. Or PF fans wait and hope a 3pp release a version.
to be the dissenting voice if you have a group that optimizes even a small amount. They will go through the aps encounters easily. Many of the main npcs are poorly designed. Sometimes requiring major rewrites IMO. A good example in Rise of the Runelors their a fort that is overrun by Ogres yet still sized for medium creatures. You think they would have at least done some alterations to move around more easily. Another bbeg is in a enclosed area yet given no crowd control spells. Use the Aps to be sure yet prepare to rewrite many encounters.
As well take a look at what kind of classes the players take and what kind of Ap your planning to run. For example Runelords has many Giants. If s one has a Gunslinger even a slightly optimized one it turns into a turkey shoot IMO.
On my experience useful as a baseline but not more than that IMO. It's not even a matter of optimization. My group has only one real optimizer. The rest take the bread and butter feats for classes. They end up defeating creatures of cr 1and 2 higher. Sometimes easily. It's not helped with npcs in the zaps who have either poor feat and/or spell selections. Or start off in poor strategic positions. In arise of the Runelords a tribe of ogres takes over a human fort with no modifications. So large creatures in a medium space. Another example which was my fault was allowing a optimized gunslinger with a musket. Who was one shotting Giants. I had to triple the hp to make them last.
Or KC can do who's myself or others do. Ignore or leave s thread ere not interested in reading or being part of. Unless one has a gun at his or her head no one is forced to read let alone acknowledge every thread. Might as well be a vegan and go on a website that deals with meat dishes and complain that they only talk about meat.
As usual everyone is a paragon of virtue. With a endless supply of humour when it comes to jokes. When it does not happen to them. Or when they hear it happens to someone else. Their a difference between hiding s toy car worth a few dollars. A real car worth a lot more. Either way I would not be happy with the person depending on my mood. I have certain personal limits when it comes to humour. I let people know about them ahead of time. If one still decides to make a stupid pun at my expense then don't be surprised at a negative reaction.
It's easy to say that when no one moves your car. It's a huge hassle. Not to mention depending on the police officer mood he or she might even fine the person who taught it was a joke. Maybe not a punch in the face. Definitely not wanting to talk or even possibly no longer be friends. It's all fun and games up until the person can the police. Or had something of value stored in the car. Which depending on the neighbourhood it gets moved to maybe stolen.
Wow I'm glad that never happened with our group. Chances are whomever moved the car would get punched in the face. Deservedly so imo. Were pretty easy going yet this kind of BS behavior disguised as a "joke" we are not impressed. It might be funny for the person who played the prank. Not so funny for the guy who has to call the police.
I never got the whole "this is my milk, food etc.. n one is allowed to use it". I get if it's a special kind of milk that a gamer is allowed to drink. As a group we share the food. Any gamer that does at my table better bring a cooler because he is not putting his milk in my fridge. He or she is also not allowed to take food that others brought. Fair is fair and it works both ways imo.
I'm not sure if it's free yet the core can be bought for a small price:
http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Worlds-Deluxe-Explorers-S2P10016/dp/1937013200 /ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436237903&sr=1-1&keywords= savage+worlds+explorer
The only difference between the Hardcover and the Explorer edition is one is a hardcover. The other a digest sized book.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, if they don't heed your advice, the answer is not to resort to consistent verbal abuse. That's like advising someone to lose weight, and then when they don't calling them fat during the sessions. This is not how adults [are supposed to] handle problems.
Again I never said consistent verbal abuse. A occasional verbal reminder then eventually blunt. To be honest and blunt no one wants to play with a person who has poor hygiene. It can be done just not by myself or my gaming group. I won't remind anyone of being overweight as long as they don't complain about feeling unwell because of being overweight constantly.
John Kretzer wrote:
Entirely possible then the DM is being a jerk. Though I'm assuming that the DM is pointing to a player with poor hygiene.
Telling a person to leave no matter how polite because of poor hygiene still is rude in a certain sense.
That works both ways though. If your not going to do anything about your health. I don't want to hear any complaints about how bad your feeling. If one keeps telling me their knees hurt well either put up with the pain in silence. Or expect to be told to lose weight.
Sometimes one has to be blunt. People are adults. If they can't take criticism of any kind. Then they need to grow personalities to match their adult bodies. I'm not a fan of the new social aspect where one has to talk to a adult like a child because their feelings might be hurt. Too bad. Once one turns 21 I'm not treating anyone like a child.
I dislike Social Justice Warriors. If it's not trying to push a cause heavy handedly. It's giving reasons for people not to improve themselves. The whole Fat Shaming Debacle. I'm overweight. I wish people would have been on my case. I could be going into my 40s with less health problems. Thankfully not many yet it could have been avoided. What SJW don't get is that their not doing overweight people any favors. As one gets older their health will become poorer. It's not a matter of debate or opinion. It's medical fact. Bodies simply can't keep up carrying the excess weight and function at 100%. One wants to be overweight and free to be go right ahead. Just as long as my tax money does not go toward paying the medical bills and their will be.
Sometimes they truly don't catch the subtle cues and hints. Sometimes they just plain ignore them. As it was the case with two players. I tend to be blunt but not a jerk. Sometimes though you need to say "I'm sorry but stink and no I'm not putting up with anymore". Not to mention people are adults. Since when do I have to talk to adults like I'm talking to a child.
Andrew Betts wrote:
I think it's the other way around. No one likes gaming with players with a player with poor hygiene. I get sometimes that coming from work it's unavoidable. After a point I'm willing to tell both a player and/or DM to wash up before coming to a session. Even if it means being late.
I was not including you when I wrote that DD. When 4E came out some in the hobby were bashing without having read it. One could easily see the gamers who took the time to read the book and those who were going off second hand information easily imo. Those are the gamers I meant.
I dislike those who can't say no to either their players or themselves when it comes to new material. Then blaming Paizo for releasing new material. While Paizo has a free online SRD. Neither are they a charity nor a non-profit. Bills and employees need to be paid. It's made worse when they come from the viewpoint as if they are being forced. Unless a gun is held to your head no one is being forced. Don't want or like new material don't use it.
Dms who insist on players acting like first level characters at every level. With all due respect by fifth hell by third level my character and others in the group. Are looking for traps, expecting to be ambushed and simply not going to walk blindly into situations. It makes no sense. Levels mean more than just power. It's also how experienced a character is. Thankfully they are rare.
I like HeroLab. I probably won't join a group where a DM disallows it. It's simply too convient a tool not to use imo. All the information for a player/npc at one fingertips. Spell descriptions, feats etc. For casters it's a godsend imo.
Store owners who give a opinion when unasked usually a negative one. I know it's your store but unless I ask a opinion say on 4E I don't need or want a long dissertation on why PF is better than 4E. Paying the rent does not entitle one to ruin my time at a hobby store imo.
Explosive Runes while powerful is hardly broken. Considering what other arcane spells that exist like Create Demiplane, Prismatic Spray. Color Spray a leve1 1 Spell is more powerful than that imo. It's even the context. Sure one may fill a book of runes or a room. It takes time. What's next Dancing Lights is broken because I no longer need to spend money on light sources.
I expect a person who talks about a rpg or any topic for that matter to have actually done their own research. Your opinion on say 4E or PF means nothing to me if your are basing it off second hand information. Or worse trying to play "I have been in the hobby for X number of years I don't need to inform myself on rpg xyz". You can have been playing 100 years in the hobby and I'm still going to ignore anything one has to say on the topic.
While 4E is no longer my D&D of choice I think it's a decent rpg.
I dislike players who refuse to tell me the truth about missing a session. If your going to tell me at the last minute that your are sick. Then I get a update from Facebook telling me your enjoying the time your spending with friends at a restaurant don't act all surprised if I'm less then impressed. The rest of the players like my time is just as precious as yours.
I don't get players who say for example like combat oriented games. Join a more roleplaying one then are unhappy at the lack of combat. Espcially when warned ahead of time.
I'm willing to accomdate and work with players who have a mental illness or say for example dislike rude language at the table. I'm not going to bend over backwards. Sometimes in the heat of the moment someone will say a swear word. If one is getting the proper medical help for a condition, medication and the support of family. Constantly acting up will not be tolerated at my table. Mental illness or notwithstanding. I had a ex-player who we had to walk on egg shells all the time because anything would set him off. A manic depressive. After a point with medication, proper care and friends trying to support and help him it was him and not the illness. I too have to have fun as well as everyone else at the table.
I sometimes wish we had more devs at Paizo who think outside of the box. The ones we have are not only in the box. They keep taping it shut. So far while I enjoy the material. Nothing really has stood out like the APG imo. Either something is too strong, too weak, too situational. Or worse the fluff does not match the crunch imo. While ignoring feedback when it suits them.
I don't think fluff and crunch need to be exclusive. Why can't we get both of each
Not a fan of the APs. Good reference material yet I find myself too often reworking the npc. Even for a non-optimized group the npcs are too weak imo. Which to me at least defeats the purpose of buying a AP. I'm supposed to save time not spend more time when running it.
Not a fan of Terry Goodkind anymore. Between the bad TV show and the later books. It has made me never want to read him anymore. If it's not the endless dessertations on how love will conquer all. Good will inevitably defeat evil. It's the powerful main character never ever using his powers. It felt like Goodkind simply was not trying to write a good series imo.
I dislike the terms "cheesy", "overpowered", or any similar terms. If one does not like something in the game just says so. To me something has to be proven factual overpowered. Opinion in this case means little to nothing. I one had another person on a forum insist high and low that DR/2 was broken. Compared to what casters can do. Compared to what other abilites other classes have.