Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Brother Swarm

wraithstrike's page

34,975 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 34,975 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
PDT? Um, Pathfinder Design Team?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I'm favoriting both, and here's why: They both have their intrinsic value.

What the rules say is important, because not everything has to come down to what the PDT says (as the rules as written are sufficient). In fact, some tables might not even consider the PDT's intent at their home games, even if they are official, because they would value their own ruling over what the PDT's official stance is. The rules as written need to have some value because the assumption is that the PDT is "translating" their intent through what the rules say.

Now, granted sometimes they do this in a poor manner (as you've just given an example of), in which case the intent behind the rule (penalty reduction only applies to TWF penalties) is valuable. But the ability to discern both the RAW, and the PDT's intent behind the RAW, is the best course of action, as it tells you what the rule should be, but not what the rule actually is, and is key for discerning the different types of rules that may (or may not) exist.

People may disagree with this, and feel that there is one true answer, and they're probably right. But I'd rather that the one true answer should be answered properly by both, and not differently by one or the other, and knowing the situation on both sides of the spectrum further helps provide the one true answer that people are usually searching for.

I am just asking what you think most are asking for or what you would ask for, but I do understand your post. <thumbs up>

zainale wrote:
that does not make any sense.

For flavor reasons I like the repeating crossbow, but mechanically speaking if I can just reload as a free action there is no need for the clip. My last post was speaking on mechanical reasons. As a GM I would probably let someone reload the entire clip because it doesn't hurt anything and it keeps the exotic weapon from being worse than the simple one.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Team "What do the words say"

19 people marked this as a favorite.

Team "What would the PDT do"

There have been quiet a few times people had disagreements in the rules forum because one was discussing what he thought the most literal interpretation of a rule was, and another person was discussing how they thought the PDT intended for a rule to be ran when they made it.

A few posters have also told me they thought most people came to the rules forum to find out the most literal interpretation of what the book said.

Myself and other people try to figure out intent. As an example there is a feat which says it removes all penalties when using Two-weapon fighting. Most agree that this means you don't suffer the TWF penalties, but a very literal interpretation would mean that you actually ignore all penalties on attack rules when weilding a shield with another weapon.

My reason for doing this is to have a record of the community's default position. So as an example if "what the words say" is an overwhelming majority people can specify that they want to know the opinion on intent, and vice versa.

I think it will help with a large number of debates by having a standard.

Please use the following posts to vote with. "Favorite" the one which matches your opinion.

zainale wrote:
you can't quick reload a repeating crossbow's clip?

Nope, but if you can reload normal crossbows as a free action then the clip reloading is not needed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson: The rules question section is here FOR that "'formulaic rules interpretation'".
No. That is your opinion. My opinion is that the rules section is here to discuss the intent of the rules.

So the rules section is actually not for talking about the rules but what you can read into them? Got it. Or better yet, the intent of NOT having a rule... :P

None of us truly now the intent of the authors of the rules unless they themselves speak up so what we're left with are the actual words on the page and "real world logic and 'common sense' shouldn't override that. Now "real world logic and 'common sense' is an acceptable reason for house-rules but we aren't in that section.

Bringing intent into rules debate should be for trying to figure out when you have multiple readings of a rule and not for altering/changing the existing reading or inventing a rule from scratch.

That is false. We can definitely know the intent without having the authors speak up. People come here to find out how the rule is supposed to be used at the table.

People tend to confuse "can't prove" with "can't know". I tend know more often than not how the rules are intended to work, even if I have no proof until an FAQ is made or a dev speaks up.

Being told to assume it is land speed still does not change the fact that people can be wrong when doing so.

vhok wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

If an effect says it applies to the base speed then it refers to all the base speeds.

If an affect calls out "base land" or base fly" speed then it would only apply to that one speed.

Some monsters can only fly or swim so their base speed is whatever they use. Many people assume base speed equals land base speed because most creatures can walk if they can't do anything else.

Base Speed

Base speed is your unencumbered speed for a specified type of movement. Your base speed for any movement type is calculated in a similar manner as described in Base Land speed. When a speed type is not referenced, base speed usually implies base land speed

seems to me you have it a bit backwards, we don't assume its base land speed. we are told to assume it's base land speed

It also says "Base speed is your unencumbered speed for a specified type of movement" so I was not wrong.

Now it also says "base speed usually implies base land speed", but that is not the same "base speed only applies to base land speed unless otherwise stated".

It really depends on what you want to do mechanically in the game and how much multiclassing you will do.

Deighton Thrane wrote:

But what about in the case of the movement evolutions of the eidolon. It references base speed, not base speeds. If you're suggesting that all speed types are the base speed, how do you decide if you have multiple movement types? Just use whichever you want? Because I don't know why I wouldn't take swim twice to get a swim speed equal to my swim base speed +20, then flight at my swim speed which is land speed +20, instead of the +10 the limbs evolution already gives you. Plus an extra 20 feet for every evolution point you put into.

As further example, let's look at greater longstrider. Greater longstrider says:

This spell functions as longstrider, except it gives you a +20-foot enhancement bonus to your base speed and a +10-foot enhancement bonus to your other modes of movement (burrow, climb, fly, swim, and so on). It does not affect movement modes you do not actually have—for example, if you do not have a swim speed, this spell does not grant you a swim speed.

If your base speed included all speeds, it would say it provides a +20' enhancement bonus to your base land speed, and a +10' to your other base speeds. That's not what it says though, it says you get a +20' bonus to your base speed, and a +10' bonus to other modes of movement. Which seems to indicate that your other movement types are not your base speed.

I'll admit this is a little weird considering creatures that don't have a land speed, but with many things, like spells assuming you're small or medium, this game was designed around rules for the PCs, and all PCs walk as a standard form of movement. Even merfolk have a base speed of 5'.

Can you type this again and match it up against statements I actually made?

I never said it could improve a base speed you did not have. Do I really need to say that "it can't affect your fly speed if you do not have a fly speed"? I kinda assumed everyone would understand that it can't give you a base speed you don't have access to.

Related question: Is there a way for a druid to cast a summoning spell as a standard action?

If an effect says it applies to the base speed then it refers to all the base speeds.

If an affect calls out "base land" or base fly" speed then it would only apply to that one speed.

Some monsters can only fly or swim so their base speed is whatever they use. Many people assume base speed equals land base speed because most creatures can walk if they can't do anything else.

The craft(alchemy) rules are intended to be more difficult than the other craft skills due to the things you can make so you can't use the artisan tools. The artisan tools should really say "any tool craft skill except alchemy"

To make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment.

Thundercloud only covers a 5 foot area. I am reading the call lightning spell as accounting for actual storms that the druid would be in, and where the lightning of call lightning would come from.

To me the combo does not work.

Calth wrote:
For people complaining about the special ability restrictions while using ABP, here is an alternate, better version that actual lets you use them that was cut for space reasons. The Paizo blog version is basically as official as the one in unchained, and much better.

I see something about the Tarrasque. I don't see this armor enhancement.

I keep the same spells ready. Sometimes nonadventuring days contain unexpected conflicts(fights).

Morlaf wrote:
Alaryth wrote:

Every group can play the game as they wish and with their own style, Morlaf. But many people (myself included) think that the characters must be useful on their own either inside and outside combat, and not require DM dependency to be on par with the rest of the party.

Knife master is a good archetype, but have the same problems as the basic rogue; low accuracy, low defense, too much dependency on the position of other parties members to land the sneaks attacks and low damage when sneak attack is not possible, wich is very usual.

I don't entirely agree.....

we cannot all be equal all the time - in fact ever.
as for the non-GM dependancy that is a bit silly.
He, in co-operation with the players, should address grotesque imbalances in character effectiveness if it becomes an issue.

I don't think he was advocating for an equal experience in every game. I think he was saying that a class should generally be able to hold its own without the GM having to help it out.

There is a difference between a class not holding up in a particular GM's game, and not being able to hold up in a much larger group of GMs' games because it is mechanically inefficient.

At the point we have a class problem, not a GM problem.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never known a GM to let an arrow overcome invis and there is no rule support for it. Players need to think of things in both directions when they suggest rules.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

It's definitely not an oversight. It's clearly written in the rules. If you need an interpretation, it is a limit on divine casters, but more importantly it's there to allow the raising of a planar binded creature.

The idea is that when it comes to the magical nature of outsiders the arcane caster is slightly better at revival. Also this isn't a real rules question. Want a phrase not to be there is kind of not FAQ worthy. Do you think the developers didn't consider this?

Haste was clearly written and called out "held weapons" at one point, but the devs didnt intend for it to work with only held weapons.

So it is not "definitely" clear that this is not an oversight.

I know bringing outsiders back to life is not a common thing, but there is no reason to pay 25000 and use a higher level slot when you can pay 1500 and use a lower level slot.

Agile Maneuvers

Jeff Merola wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Reincarnate doesnt work because with outsiders the body and soul are one unit.

The spell doesn't say that. but it does say: Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be reincarnated.

Are there non-outsider elementals? Because I thought they all were. Why repeat that?

Wasn't elemental a separate type from outsider in 3.5 or 3.0?
Yup. Elemental was a separate type in 3.5 (as was Giant). It's just one of the many copy+paste errors in Pathfinder now.

Giants were made into humanoids on purpose, and as for Elementals I have to check the book later but I think they are a type of outsider in 3.5 and PF.

Lou Diamond wrote:
When non native outsiders are killed on a plane that is not their own don't they reform on their home plane? I would think that a Solar or Planatar could use raise dead on an Angel as their magic is of a direct divine nature powered by their divine essence not magic passed on to a mere mortal. I would also say Devils,demons and deamons could do the same. Though I think by a nature deamons would not bring back a failure.

Only summoned outsiders continue to live on their home plane. An outsider that is not summoned really dies and stays dead.

Reincarnate doesnt work because with outsiders the body and soul are one unit.

Link to FAQ'd post -- click me

16 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Is Limited Wish intended to bypass True Resurrection(a higher level spell)?

According to the rules raise dead line of spells it takes True Ressurection to bring an outside back to life.

According to Limited Wish it can not duplicate a higher level spell.

According to the outsider entry:

When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don't work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life.

Limited Wish not only saves the party 23500 gold peices, but it is a lower level spell than True Resurrection.

It is my opinion that when the outsider entry was written that Limited Wish was included by accident.

FAQ please.

PS: I am well aware of what the book says. <----In before someone points out the exact wording of the outsider entry.

Claxon wrote:

That seems weird, since True Res would otherwise be required and limited wish is a lower spell level.

Seems a little too easy.

Limited Wish does not have that text for allowing it to bring outsiders to life. It seems that in the outsider section they were listing examples and accidently included limited wish. I am going to FAQ it since I think it was an error.

If both are contradicting it is worth an FAQ. It is likely an oversight.

It works because the rules say it works. Any "how" it works is going to be flavor.

Easy version: The spell is powerful enough to make it happen.

If the monster is dominated or charmed then it is under the control of the enemy caster. Nothing gives the eidolon a free ride here. Despite being a class feature it is still its own creature, and it has no immunity from compulsion spells.

What the summoner can do is send the creature away if he can not regain control via another compulsion spell or dispel magic.

PS: Protection from <insert alignment> may also give the creature a reroll

ryric wrote:
I see no reason you couldn't use Acrobatics during Spring Attack movement. All using Acrobatics does is reduce your speed and make your movement not provoke - while Spring Attack also makes your movement not provoke, I don't think that matters. You could choose to Acrobatics through an empty field if you so chose. If you need a loose justification, tell your GM that you are tumbling to prevent any potential AoOs from an invisible person who might be there, as Spring Attack only prevents AoOs from your target.

Because uncanny tumble says you have to use it to avoid an AoO from an opponent, not a potential opponent who may not even be there. You already know the target of Spring attack can make an AoO so unless there are really invisible opponents then Canny Tumble does nothing. It also calls out "that(opponent who could hit you with an AoO). That spring attacked opponent is not that opponent.

As an example if you take weapon focus(slam) it will apply to any slams you have, not just to one slam. If you think it is too powerful if it can do 2 levels of energy drain a round then I would limit it to one level no matter how many times it hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:
Soulcleave wrote:

I have seen this spell end encounters and save the party more than once.

It has become a staple required spell, especially for the Cleric in the party.

Some examples include, The 5th level party is getting their collective heads handed to them by a 6th level Barbarian with a +3 Greataxe when the cleric suddenly casts a focused Dispel Magic on the axe and it works. This gave us the 2 rounds we needed to recover and bring him down. In the Ruby Phoenix Tournament we effectively negated an entire encounter. Dispelling a Magic Item removing the advantage of the opposition and reducing a difficult encounter to a Cakewalk.

And these are just two examples (Luck priest being able to re-roll the Dispel Check?)

Dispel magic is one of those spells that just oozes utility.

I agree that there are many useful applications for it... if it ever happens to work. And so far, it hasn't. Not once.

Can anyone recommend a way of actually getting Dispel to function? Is there any way of boosting the CL roll?

The orange ioun crystal boost caster level by +1, but if every caster is +5 above the party level then you will still fail a lot.

There is also a feat that lets you cast at a higher level for a specific school of magic.

No, it does not give mean you can unlock the 20 rank ability if you only have 10 ranks.

Here is how it works.

Rogue's Edge (Ex): At 5th level, a rogue has mastered a single skill beyond that skill's normal boundaries, gaining results that others can only dream about. She gains the skill unlock powers for that skill as appropriate for her number of ranks in that skill. At 10th, 15th, and 20th levels, she chooses an additional skill and gains skill unlock powers for that skill as well.

What this means is that you get to choose one skill at 5th level, and that one skill gets to use the skill unlocks. Later on you get more rogue's edge again so you can apply it to more skills.


Signature Skill (General)

Your ability with a particular skill is the stuff of legends, and you can do things with that skill that others cannot.

Prerequisite: 5 ranks in the chosen skill.

Benefit: Choose one skill. You gain the ability listed in that skill's 5 Ranks entry. As you gain more ranks in the chosen skill, you gain additional abilities. If you have 10 or more ranks in the chosen skill, you gain the appropriate abilities immediately. If your chosen skill is Craft, Knowledge, Perform, or Profession, you gain the listed powers only for one category of that skill, such as Craft (bows). This feat can be taken only once, but it stacks with the rogue's edge ability and the cutting edge rogue talent.

This basically gives you more skills that work with the skill unlock, however you can only take the feat once. The feat itself only gives you access to skill unlocks up to 10 ranks, but since it stacks with rogue's edge you also get the 15 and 20 rank unlocks also.

Cutting Edge (Ex): A rogue with this ability immediately selects two additional skills with her rogue's edge ability. She can select this advanced talent multiple times.

This talent allows you to choose 2 more skills to unlock as if the rogue had rogue's edge two more times.

Basically the feat and the rogue talent you get to choose more skills to unlock if the four granted by the rogue class are not enough.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That spell is awesome. I have used it again monsters with built in caster levels, so they tend to have lower caster levels than me. I have used it on magical traps. I have had my players use it to debuff a boss, if they rolled well.

Generally speaking a boss fight will have the opposing caster be a few levels higher, but in normal fights the caster is normally a lower level or only slightly higher, but of course that still requires you to roll higher than an 11.

If a caster is 5 levels above the party your GM is not using the normal rules for designing encounters. That would make the caster at least +4 above the party APL.

PS: My advice applies to most tables I have played at and the combats I have seen described on these boards. It seems that may not work at your table.

From the PFS FAQ:

A player may not re-skin items to be something for which there are no specific rules, and any item a character uses for which there are no stats is considered an improvised weapon

No you may not have a baseball bat in Pathfinder unless there is one already in existence.

Basillicum wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The barbarian has a special ability that allows him to provoke so without something like that you can't just provoke because you want to.

Which special ability is that?

Actually I misread it. The ability allows the barbarian to leave himself open to free attacks, and then he can take AoO's against the attacker, but the rules still clearly define when you provoke. You must take a provoking action.

In care you are still interested here is the ability.


Come and Get Me (Ex)

Prerequisite: Barbarian 12

Benefit: While raging, as a free action the barbarian may leave herself open to attack while preparing devastating counterattacks. Enemies gain a +4 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the barbarian until the beginning of her next turn, but every attack against the barbarian provokes an attack of opportunity from her, which is resolved prior to resolving each enemy attack.

The barbarian has a special ability that allows him to provoke so without something like that you can't just provoke because you want to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Claxon was saying devour soul is a standard action.

With that aside the energy happens on both claw attacks. If a creature delivers ____ as a claw attack or when attacking with a claw then that ____ happens on every claw attack.

Kinithin wrote:

Did the text of Rend change since this thread was created? The text of the ability at repeatedly and consistently calls it an attack.

If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent’s body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature’s description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus.

It is an attack in the sense that it does damage. It is not an attack in the normal sense, because it is just a rider affect.

I am 99% sure that even if an item is said to have multiple materials you only get the benefit of one and that is what you pay for. I will see if I can find the quote.

edit:ninja'd by 4 seconds

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Swiftbrook wrote:

With the latest release of errata, this time for Ultimate Equipment, it seems like Paizo has lost sight from where they came and who has built Pathfinder to be the premier RPG game. Pathfinder was born, literally, from the ashes of D&D 3.5 as WoTC tried to burn all traces of it. Lead by the visionaries from the core staff at Paizo, Pathfinder was built by its fans. Based on the OGL and SRD, a beta copy, available as a free download, was sold to eager fans at GenCon 2008. Through open play testing, feedback from hundreds of dedicated fans, and a dialogue between developers and gamers, Pathfinder was honed, refined and delivered at GenCon 2009.

Over the years, through additional play testing, the gamers and developers have continued to expand the Pathfinder game. Through play testing, author open calls and the RPG Superstar contest, we the fans and gamers feel empowered and take part ownership to the Pathfinder game system. The writers and developers of Paizo guide us and refine our efforts as the system grows. It’s our game, and it’s been a good partnership, gamer and developer.

Through the past few releases of errata, it seems like Paizo has forgotten how Pathfinder was built. With no apparent gamer input, chunks of our game have experienced drastic changes. Where many would say sharp chisel and soft mallet, or a fine brush and a steady hand are needed to reshape some item, class or feat, it feels like Paizo has swung a dull axe. Often missing the mark, destroying instead of shaping its target.

These drastic changes hurt. They hurt PCs, they hurt the players who have invested so much time creating and playing the PCs. They hurt the community-Paizo relationship. They hurt even more because the community seems to have no say in the changes. The pain is slow to subside because the Paizo developers rarely reply directly to the questions and concerns raised by the players in response to the changes.

These are opportunities lost for Paizo to make better improvement/errata with...

Asking for feedback here without an actual playtest would be a terrible idea. Too many people here think their way is the correct way to play and someone's underpowered is someone's overpowered. A playtest cant be done for every possible errata due to the employees being so busy.

PS: I don't care much for the newest errata either.

Neal Litherland wrote:

The primary benefit of a mounted charge with a lance is that it does double damage... but is that just weapon damage, or is it treated like a critical hit?

Common sense, and game balance, tells me you just roll the damage dice twice, as if you have Vital Strike. But the language in the feat says it deals double damage. Is there a ruling somewhere clearing this up?

I have always had players roll double the number of base dice for the weapon and double the modifiers, but it is not a crit so being immune to crits will not protect anyone.

Hogeyhead wrote:
Gray Warden wrote:

I like original builds! There's nothing I hate more than the usual conjurer wizard with Grease and Color Spray at first level, and pits/walls/fogs at higher levels. They are all identical!

Anyway, throw away Craft Wondrous Item and take Empower Spell at 5th. So you free a feat slot and can take Defensive Combat Training.

I recommend you to choose a bonded object as Arcane Bond, in particular your weapon. This way you can enhance it at half the price starting from 5th level (get a weapon cord if you don't wanna lose it). Spell Storing is a good magic feature for a caster's weapon. If you took Craft Wondrous Item for a specific item, then pick that as your bonded object.

If you want a familiar instead, take a look at the Mauler archetype or at small familiars to use as flanking buddies.

Right I forgot to mention my arcane bond. I did take a familiar but not the mauler archetype, but the bodyguard archetype. First he increases my AC with aid another, meaning my AC is actually one of the best in the group (we are super poor), or at least it was until last game when we had 2 more deaths.

For you guys saying: OMG yousa gonna die! Wizards in front line no can haz! (Excuse the excessive sarcasm) look we are level 5 and so far we have had I believe eight deaths, and we have been lucky, however I have not died. The guy who makes the 'effective' melee builds (you know blenders) has died four times. You are not going to convince me that this cannot be done, but if you must try to convince me feel free, as I cannot stop you, it is a waste of time however.

I did not say you will definitely die. I said that unless your GM is overly nice to you* or you get very lucky then you will die. I also said that someone several levels below you can do the fighting thing better than your wizard will be able to. <---Not trying to convince you, just making sure you understand what I said.

With that aside there is no reason to have 8 deaths by level 5 from the "blenders" and then expect for your wizard to step in and survive. <----Once again, not trying to convince you. I don't really have a horse in this race.

*This includes poor tactics.

Dave Justus wrote:
I don't believe that the rules allow an incorporeal creature to inhabit the same square as a corporeal creature (absent a possession type ability), let alone another incorporeal creature.

There is nothing stopping an incorporeal creature from sharing a square with a corporeal one. They don't even really share the same space since they don't interact with each other until an attack or magic is in play.

The rules just don't say it because they assume it is obvious considering that they can occupy the same space as solid objects.

So before we go any farther are you saying what you think the PDT would say or are you taking the most literal reading the rules?


In fact, they cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions.

That leads me to think them stopping in an occupied square is not going to force anyone out of the square.

With the mythic rules you can only need to be competent to rule over the campaign. Making monsters mythical does not scale their difficulty enough to keep pace with the rules the players use.

I don't know how things are in your normal game, but for this one there is not much you can do except to advance the monsters beyond where they are officially.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there is a difference between unbalanced and gamebreaking.

Yeah those featherstep slippers were priced way below their value, but the tremor boots have been errata'd into "not worth buying at all".

The Falcon bracers(forgot the real name) could also have been adjusted better than they were as well as some other items.

There is no rules answer for this that I can find so I will just tell you how I would play it.

They can pass through each other unless one wishes to resist the other.

In other words one of them has to not want to share the square.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:

The recent Ultimate equipment errata made me sad. A bunch of (admittedly strong) items were basically erased. It feels like this is a trend in Paizo erratas and FAQs. Now you might say: "just change it in your home game!" But I play using the PFSRD, and it's impossible to find old printings of items. If I did not already know about the Jingasa (for example) before today, I would never be able to un-patch it.

I don't think Paizo devs are bad at their job, so this made me think about why erratas always feel like this. I believe this is because Paizo is limited to only releasing errata when they reprint the book, and that is an expensive proposition. If an item is broken, they only have one chance to fix it, and its no secret that it is better to have an item that no one uses rather than something that is seen as abusive.

Pathfinder is after all not a video game where the devs can afford to patch every weekend.

My solution is this: Why not playtest the changes? Paizo already has a large number of players in PFS that are used to checking the available resources page when building characters. I am thinking that paizo could release a sort of Paizo Patch Notes, say every 6 months, where they would subtly tweak items and class abilities that are not working as intended. Over those 6 months, players and GMs that play with the patched features could write feedback on how the change feels in actual play. Paizo could even encourage feedback with PFS reroll-boons :)

Once a change has been play-tested for a few patch cycles, it could be locked in for errata for the next printing of the book. This way, no one would be surprised and the community would be more involved in how the game we love is growing and changing.

I think that this sort of iterative updating is expected by people today who are used to continuous balance changes from games like League of Legends or Diablo.


Playtesting is hands-on for the Paizo staffed and they are always backed up as is.For the most part the staff does well, but I do agree there were a few botches IMO with this current errata.

I also don't want PFS to determine the rules for my homegame. They are not the gold standard and many of the rules there exist to give everyone the same experience.

1 to 50 of 34,975 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.