There have been a lot of complaints about UM...


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I understand not everyone likes all of the content, if I didn't like it, I would leave it at the bookstore. However I'm grateful we have a company first of all continuing 3.5 material, and secondly who allows playtesting. Thank you paizo. I continue to support your company.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.

That is both funny and true. Well done.

Dark Archive

Stefan Hill wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.
That is both funny and true. Well done.

+1!


+2

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Gorbacz wrote:
Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.

+2d6 ⇒ (4, 6) = 10


The funny thing is that though we're a great number not liking all the content, we're still pleased that 3.5 content is still partially usable in an updated edition and that there is some measure of exchange between developpers and regular players.
It's not the binary situation (buy the book/leave it at the boookstore) you're trying to make it pass for.

Though I'll admit that gratefulness is a stretch for some of us, since Paizo is not doing us a favor.


Fred Ohm wrote:

The funny thing is that though we're a great number not liking all the content, we're still pleased that 3.5 content is still partially usable in an updated edition and that there is some measure of exchange between developpers and regular players.

It's not the binary situation (buy the book/leave it at the boookstore) you're trying to make it pass for.

Though I'll admit that gratefulness is a stretch for some of us, since Paizo is not doing us a favor.

Actually, it's exactly that simple, it's a good for purchase like any other. They are doing me a favor, making my friends and I happier, and saving. Me time of creating the content inside said good. If I don't like content I can always alter it as the dM.


Ishpumalibu wrote:
Actually, it's exactly that simple, it's a good for purchase like any other.

Yep. And like any other good for purchase, it's not that simple. The use we have (or have not) for the goods is the important thing, and it can't be reduced to the purchase. As you would agree if you really think that :

Quote:
They are doing me a favor, making my friends and I happier

That's not a favor, that's trade. Since they're (probably) happy doing this, and get paid enough, I'd say it's at least a fair deal. Your happiness is not at the center of it all, it's at one end. Which is also why being happy isn't buying the book.

Quote:
, and saving. Me time of creating the content inside said good.
wat
Quote:
If I don't like content I can always alter it as the dM.

Sure. But everyone can't be the GM, and debating rules is a bore.


Fred Ohm wrote:
Ishpumalibu wrote:
Actually, it's exactly that simple, it's a good for purchase like any other.

Yep. And like any other good for purchase, it's not that simple. The use we have (or have not) for the goods is the important thing, and it can't be reduced to the purchase. As you would agree if you really think that :

Quote:
They are doing me a favor, making my friends and I happier

That's not a favor, that's trade. Since they're (probably) happy doing this, and get paid enough, I'd say it's at least a fair deal. Your happiness is not at the center of it all, it's at one end. Which is also why being happy isn't buying the book.

Quote:
, and saving. Me time of creating the content inside said good.
wat
Quote:
If I don't like content I can always alter it as the dM.
Sure. But everyone can't be the GM, and debating rules is a bore.

Now you're just being arguementative, and you obviously have nothing better to do than complain. The whole point of this thread was to be positive about this book.

Shadow Lodge

"THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT UM..."

I haven't seen a lot of complaints. I've seen a few repeated a lot.


i also look forward to the book and i think Paizo has done a magnificent job on their material.

on the same topic, what are some of the things in UM that people DO actually like?

i was kinda wondering since ill be getting the book on wed.


0gre wrote:

"THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT UM..."

I haven't seen a lot of complaints. I've seen a few repeated a lot.

Alright you got me there ...


Pathfinder would not have been made if people had no complaints about 3.5.


I absolutely love the magus class.


clawoftiamat wrote:
I absolutely love the magus class.

+1

i never really cared for casters that arent full casters, but i do like the magus. very flavorful and well made if you ask me.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.

1d20 ⇒ 10


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
0gre wrote:

"THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT UM..."

I haven't seen a lot of complaints. I've seen a few repeated a lot.

+1

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Pathfinder would not have been made if people had no complaints about 3.5.

Yet some people want Paizo to bring back exactly the things people complained about in 3.5. Weird.


There is a lot to like about the book, the Magus for one, lots of interesting archetypes, the pre-made spellbooks are great for me, and the section on creating new spells is interesting.

That said, there are things I think Pathfinder dropped the ball on, or other people do, and I don't feel it is "nerdrage" to point that out. The folks at Paizo listen to what we have to say here and, while they obviously can't change everything people don't like, I think letting them know when something looks like a typo or is a disappointing design philosophy that someone doesn't want to see repeated in future books is not only acceptable but a sign that there is a fan base interested in Paizo keeping their products at the high level they so far have been at.

Dark Archive

idilippy wrote:

That said, there are things I think Pathfinder dropped the ball on, or other people do, and I don't feel it is "nerdrage" to point that out. The folks at Paizo listen to what we have to say here and, while they obviously can't change everything people don't like, I think letting them know when something looks like a typo or is a disappointing design philosophy that someone doesn't want to see repeated in future books is not only acceptable but a sign that there is a fan base interested in Paizo keeping their products at the high level they so far have been at.

Yah, but there are folks jumping the gone, so to speak, who are ready to drop Pathfinder, immediately "presume" Pathfinder's goin' in a whole new direction, etc. Not only not helpful (for both the staff and gamers) but detrimental to folks.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

There could be the most perfect, well balanced book, with all the class options that people have always wanted.

There will also be people who complain about something in that same book. It could be as stupid as the feeling of the paper.

I personally ignore most complaints. I do appreciate the errata posts, as those have let me know what I need to ignore or alter in the book until Paizo does it themselves.

Dark Archive

CalebTGordan wrote:

There could be the most perfect, well balanced book, with all the class options that people have always wanted.

There will also be people who complain about something in that same book. It could be as stupid as the feeling of the paper.

I personally ignore most complaints. I do appreciate the errata posts, as those have let me know what I need to ignore or alter in the book until Paizo does it themselves.

+1.


Steelfiredragon wrote:
+2

Enhancement bonuses from different sources don't stack. ;p

I grant a +1 thread agreement enhancement bonus. This thread agreement enhancement bonus stacks with all other thread agreement enhancement bonus in this thread.

(I could work for Aperture Science with terminology that.)


Granted I've only had the book for one day. But the conversations I've had with my players seem to be along the lines off:

1-Aww no prestige classes, 3.5 had 1000's why can't we have more?
(Cos prestige classes were always niche and are now largely redundant given the class options available).

2-Aww they haven't reprinted my favourate obscure feat or spell, why not?
(Cos not all of it's OGL, and the editorial decision to print new stuff rather than reprint stuff that's already out there and can be used already is a wise one)

3-I like all the new class options, but I can't see how they'll ever be used.
(Someone on the scene will. I particuarly love the masterpieces for the bard)

4-I call power creep! This rule or feature renders all others obsolete
(No more than anything else. Flavor and diversity beats power gaming potential. Get over it)

5-Why aren't there more magic items?
(Cos with existing Paizo rules and the sheer number of convertable 3.5 stuff, there's only the need to print original stuff like the spellbooks)

6- Why has the Magus been nerfed? It was balanced the way it was!
(Debateable. But dems the breaks. The new archetypes make up for any loss in 'power' in my opinion. One question tho. I vaguely recall the feat 'two-weapon fighting' helping reduce the penalties in a previous playtest. Does this work with spell combat to reduce penalties at all now?)

The only arguable point is that the book doesn't feel 'complete' to me somehow.
But everything I've read so far has made me appreciate my purchase. Yet another quality product from Paizo. I think the nerd barbarians just have to remember that without UM they wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Shadow Lodge

Oggron wrote:

Granted I've only had the book for one day. But the conversations I've had with my players seem to be along the lines off:

1-Aww no prestige classes, 3.5 had 1000's why can't we have more?
(Cos prestige classes were always niche and are now largely redundant given the class options available).

A while ago I heard some interesting observations about prestige classes versus Archetypes.

Prestige classes offer cool interesting character options starting at mid-high levels (levels 7-10). Most players spend the bulk of their time at levels 1-10 so if a player 'saved up' for a prestige class he might get a level or two in before the campaign ended. Ultimately the bulk of the interesting stuff prestige classes offer is for higher level play and don't tend to see a lot of use as a result.

Archetypes offer cool interesting character options starting at first level which make them viable for a lot more players.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
0gre wrote:
Oggron wrote:

Granted I've only had the book for one day. But the conversations I've had with my players seem to be along the lines off:

1-Aww no prestige classes, 3.5 had 1000's why can't we have more?
(Cos prestige classes were always niche and are now largely redundant given the class options available).

A while ago I heard some interesting observations about prestige classes versus Archetypes.

Prestige classes offer cool interesting character options starting at mid-high levels (levels 7-10). Most players spend the bulk of their time at levels 1-10 so if a player 'saved up' for a prestige class he might get a level or two in before the campaign ended. Ultimately the bulk of the interesting stuff prestige classes offer is for higher level play and don't tend to see a lot of use as a result.

Archetypes offer cool interesting character options starting at first level which make them viable for a lot more players.

+1


Oggron wrote:


6- Why has the Magus been nerfed? It was balanced the way it was!
(Debateable. But dems the breaks. The new archetypes make up for any loss in 'power' in my opinion. One question tho. I vaguely recall the feat 'two-weapon fighting' helping reduce the penalties in a previous playtest. Does this work with spell combat to reduce penalties at all now?)

What?

I haven't heard people say that thing, in fact* the magus got a bit more powerful than the last playtest. Why are you saying that?
*from what i have heard there was no big change in the class other what we have seen in the magus preview.

Liberty's Edge

joela wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:

There could be the most perfect, well balanced book, with all the class options that people have always wanted.

There will also be people who complain about something in that same book. It could be as stupid as the feeling of the paper.

I personally ignore most complaints. I do appreciate the errata posts, as those have let me know what I need to ignore or alter in the book until Paizo does it themselves.

+1.

+2

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ishpumalibu wrote:
I understand not everyone likes all of the content, if I didn't like it, I would leave it at the bookstore. However I'm grateful we have a company first of all continuing 3.5 material, and secondly who allows playtesting. Thank you paizo. I continue to support your company.

That happens with every book, by every company. Don't be misled by the vociferocity of the loudest nerdragers. For Paizo, it happened with the core rules, the alpha test, the beta test, the APG, and every other book that they've put out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:
Oggron wrote:


6- Why has the Magus been nerfed? It was balanced the way it was!
(Debateable. But dems the breaks. The new archetypes make up for any loss in 'power' in my opinion. One question tho. I vaguely recall the feat 'two-weapon fighting' helping reduce the penalties in a previous playtest. Does this work with spell combat to reduce penalties at all now?)

What?

I haven't heard people say that thing, in fact* the magus got a bit more powerful than the last playtest. Why are you saying that?
*from what i have heard there was no big change in the class other what we have seen in the magus preview.

It's the fixation on the bladebound archetype. Everyone is looking at it and seeing Stormbringer where it's not.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
That happens with every book, by every company. Don't be misled by the vociferocity of the loudest nerdragers. For Paizo, it happened with the core rules, the alpha test, the beta test, the APG, and every other book that they've put out.

+1

Apparently Paizo is supposed to survive on goodwill alone. While taking losses of revenue because some either feel forced to use the material or cannot say no to their players.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

There are some things in the book I don't really care for. So I'm not going to use them in my game. No biggie. There are other things in the book that I'm not going to use because of flavor, like the Geisha. My game is in the River Nations, not in the Land of Eastern Influence. When I run Jade Regent, I'll allow it. Having said that, there is a ton of stuff that will be used in my game. So all is good AFAIAC.


I think there are a few very loud complaints, but I dont think that is alot for a hardcover book. Heck, this book contains my favorite thing every to be added to the 3.x ruleset. The magus. I love this class. It is officially my favorite class and the archetypes add several new flavors of awesome. Will I use every single thing in the book? No, but that wasn't going to happen anyway. So it looks like a solid product to me.


A lot of complaints were in that horrible thread. But those were meta-complaints, about whether another book like that would be warranted in future... not really a complaint directly against UM.

And even then, half of those complaints were strawmen.

I can think of a few real complaints about the book, but nobody has really even mentioned them that I've seen. It's just little stuff that I'll houserule, nothing to lose sleep over (Magus spell recall I am looking at you!)

Overall, I think the quality ratio of UM is as good as the APG.


0gre wrote:

"THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT UM..."

I haven't seen a lot of complaints. I've seen a few repeated a lot.

+1

And there is a ton of good stuff in there. Constructs, Unique Spell Books, Magus, some nice stuff with Spellblights. I like some variation on curses as well as arcane spell failure and magic item creation mishaps.


LazarX wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Oggron wrote:


6- Why has the Magus been nerfed? It was balanced the way it was!
(Debateable. But dems the breaks. The new archetypes make up for any loss in 'power' in my opinion. One question tho. I vaguely recall the feat 'two-weapon fighting' helping reduce the penalties in a previous playtest. Does this work with spell combat to reduce penalties at all now?)

What?

I haven't heard people say that thing, in fact* the magus got a bit more powerful than the last playtest. Why are you saying that?
*from what i have heard there was no big change in the class other what we have seen in the magus preview.
It's the fixation on the bladebound archetype. Everyone is looking at it and seeing Stormbringer where it's not.

I too am seeing it as a way to play Elric with his Stormbringer but i still can't understand how the magus (as a class has been nerfed). Maybe because of the clarification about spells like scorching ray?

Dark Archive

Almost no book is perfect and I'm not going to be using all the material from Ultimate Magic, but I have been enjoying reading the book. Good job Paizo.

lastgrasp

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Oggron wrote:


6- Why has the Magus been nerfed? It was balanced the way it was!
(Debateable. But dems the breaks. The new archetypes make up for any loss in 'power' in my opinion. One question tho. I vaguely recall the feat 'two-weapon fighting' helping reduce the penalties in a previous playtest. Does this work with spell combat to reduce penalties at all now?)

What?

I haven't heard people say that thing, in fact* the magus got a bit more powerful than the last playtest. Why are you saying that?
*from what i have heard there was no big change in the class other what we have seen in the magus preview.
It's the fixation on the bladebound archetype. Everyone is looking at it and seeing Stormbringer where it's not.
I too am seeing it as a way to play Elric with his Stormbringer but i still can't understand how the magus (as a class has been nerfed). Maybe because of the clarification about spells like scorching ray?

There are folks who say the class is neutered and others who say it's a game stealing over-powered monster. Go figure.

Liberty's Edge

I only have two complaints, and they're both minor.

(1) It seems to be typo-heavy. Maybe it was rushed, or maybe just bad luck.

(2) The "Binding Rules" don't seem very rule-y to me, more like just a bunch more hints. No big deal, I'll just keep avoiding that whole thing, since it currently seems to be just an excuse to try to con your GM.

I'm happy with the purchase.
-Kle.


0gre wrote:

A while ago I heard some interesting observations about prestige classes versus Archetypes.

Prestige classes offer cool interesting character options starting at mid-high levels (levels 7-10). Most players spend the bulk of their time at levels 1-10 so if a player 'saved up' for a prestige class he might get a level or two in before the campaign ended. Ultimately the bulk of the interesting stuff prestige classes offer is for higher level play and don't tend to see a lot of use as a result.

Archetypes offer cool interesting character options starting at first level which make them viable for a lot more players.

This is an excellent point. I get far more use out of archetypes then I ever will out of prestige classes.

That and I can't stand multi-classing, even into a prestige class. I want to run my coreclass all the way up without having to deviate.

Paizo Employee CEO

Klebert L. Hall wrote:
(1) It seems to be typo-heavy. Maybe it was rushed, or maybe just bad luck.

Our editors just had a bad dice rolling week when they made their Perception checks to spot typos. We had to buy them new dice they were so frustrated with the low rolls.

-Lisa


Lisa Stevens wrote:
Klebert L. Hall wrote:
(1) It seems to be typo-heavy. Maybe it was rushed, or maybe just bad luck.

Our editors just had a bad dice rolling week when they made their Perception checks to spot typos. We had to buy them new dice they were so frustrated with the low rolls.

-Lisa

They should really just take 10 :) Probably can't take 20 because then it would have been released after Gencon.


Varthanna wrote:
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Klebert L. Hall wrote:
(1) It seems to be typo-heavy. Maybe it was rushed, or maybe just bad luck.

Our editors just had a bad dice rolling week when they made their Perception checks to spot typos. We had to buy them new dice they were so frustrated with the low rolls.

-Lisa

They should really just take 10 :) Probably can't take 20 because then it would have been released after Gencon.
PRD wrote:


Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

They can't take 10.

First off, they are rushed.

Second, they are distracted (By Lisa breathing down their neck asking if it's done yet). :)

Third, they are in a dangerous situation, cause if they mess it up, they are going to be roasted alive on the forums (plus Lisa will pour salt on the burns). :)

So in other words, they are now getting roasted on the forums for their bad rolls, and Lisa is ordering in a 40lb bag of sea salt. :)

Contributor

Klebert L. Hall wrote:
(2) The "Binding Rules" don't seem very rule-y to me, more like just a bunch more hints. No big deal, I'll just keep avoiding that whole thing, since it currently seems to be just an excuse to try to con your GM.

The purpose of that section is to pull all the outsider-related information on vulnerabilities, likes, and dislikes into one place, so a player with a conjuration-oriented can look up that info at the table without having to paw through (1) multiple books (2) that happen to be monster books.


Gorbacz wrote:
Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.

I will remember this when you will complain about something.

People have seen odd stuff and pointed out. And disscused about it because, you know, message board.

IMHO, paizo should not dismiss preemtpively complaints - most times are about misunderstandings or similar things, but several times really bad stuff has been pointed out.

People reading the messageboard should consider that gamers tend to exaggerate, but blindly dismiss every criticism in never, ever a good thing. In gaming, when at work, in personal relationships, in life in general.

never.


I, for one, love UM. Every book that comes out reminds me why I plan to be a Paizo customer for life (assuming the company remains as completely top notch as it is). I've already built a high level magus as an enemy, and while it was extremely powerful, it did not last long past it's arcane pool being spent, so is a very balanced class. High output, for a short time, and then moderate output the rest of the time.

Typos happen, and are easily fixed by the errata I am sure is already being worked out.

I just wish people who had complaints could voice them respectfully, which I know some do, but the ragers garner more attention. Just think of how much you'd appreciate a section in your work area that you went to daily where everyone came in and critiqued your job. People need to think about what it feels like on the other side of the screen sometimes.

That's my 2cp


Beorn the Bear wrote:

I, for one, love UM. Every book that comes out reminds me why I plan to be a Paizo customer for life (assuming the company remains as completely top notch as it is). I've already built a high level magus as an enemy, and while it was extremely powerful, it did not last long past it's arcane pool being spent, so is a very balanced class. High output, for a short time, and then moderate output the rest of the time.

Typos happen, and are easily fixed by the errata I am sure is already being worked out.

I just wish people who had complaints could voice them respectfully, which I know some do, but the ragers garner more attention. Just think of how much you'd appreciate a section in your work area that you went to daily where everyone came in and critiqued your job. People need to think about what it feels like on the other side of the screen sometimes.

That's my 2cp

All you said is very true and Paizo is amazing in the relationship with the fan base,as well as in "daring" in a couple of books new mechanics and ideas (and rightfully gnoring naysayers). These are great things which MUST be taken in consideration, as well as how much the material is INSPIRING (APG triggered a setting in my mind).

Nevertheless, a little bit more care in evaluating some mechanic or explaination goes a long way.

Erratas exist, but not always. Sometimes are "erratas" (I say it once a day, it's my "delenda carthago": SEE COCKATRICE STRIKE).

Old things exist still creating confusion. See the whole "attack action" thing, with threads once a week abot vital strike, as an example. Or the fact that one reads the monk description and says: "so Sunder is an attack? Non an attack action? Which one is a typo?".

Care can bee seein in these things too.


Arguing over a book that has already been delivered is pointless, Where there are mistakes there can be errata. Where an individual DM dislikes a particular section they can alter or ignore it. The point of discussing a product should be to share opinions and make suggestions to improve current play and future game development.


fantasyphil wrote:
Arguing over a book that has already been delivered is pointless, Where there are mistakes there can be errata. Where an individual DM dislikes a particular section they can alter or ignore it. The point of discussing a product should be to share opinions and make suggestions to improve current play and future game development.

I cannot spek for other people, but when I discuss ANY product, it's for

1) Pointing out any error that should be addressed

2) See the direction the game will take, and say my opinion about it.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / There have been a lot of complaints about UM... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.