With the AoMF, Nicklas was referring to the original thread where this topic came up: the Ultimate Equipment guide. The thead was asking what do you want to see in UE? And on that thread, there was a large discussion about AoMF, monks, unarmed strikes, that then culminated into the clarification of flurry of blows. I will just refer you to that thread.
Yes exactly that, i believe it started because a developer commented on people talking about that aomf is mostly useless because u can just use a weapon, and wanted something similar to aomf just cheaper in UE. So in basics i believe that the comment was made to simply say that aomf isnt at all useless, because u cant flurry with one weapon, which then has all the following repurcusions.
Ofcourse i dont try to make excuses for people calling names, yelling or otherwise trying to herass the developers, i think the developers deserve a lot of respect for making a fantastic product. I do believe though that poeple need to hear critizism if they make a big mistake, else how would they know that it is made, and im just saying that i understand some of peoples frustrations in that some of their bought material is now completely obselete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth pointing out that the flurry "clarification" was quasi-retracted.
That said.. this causes some problems that came to light today as this bounced around the office, namely that it was not common knowledge that it was supposed to work this way and has gone to print without this change. This is obviously a concern and one that I intend to investigate. There is also the problem of the Zen Archer, which clearly does not work with these rules (or rather, it clearly, as its intent, violates these rules). There is also the concern that this system is a bit of a pain to figure out, which is something that does concern me greatly.
We will be evaluating this situation a bit further in the coming days and I would like to thank everyone here for pointing out some of the problems with this ruling.
I hope that clears this up a little for folks. I will see to it that we get to the bottom of this soon.
So the current state is unclear.
On a related note, I am surprised at the length of time that Paizo are taking to deal with the flurry of blows issue. It has been perhaps a couple of months? Given the massive debate, outcry, flame-warring and sheer volume of FAQ requests, I expected Paizo to have formally settled the matter by now.
Is it really that surprising?
Well, I find it surprising. The amount of debate and the number of requests for FAQ is unprecedented.
What you seem to forget is a huge hardcover coming out in like 2 weeks. I think the new books take a little more importance over errata. They'll get to it. Give it a while. They always deal with problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you seem to forget is a huge hardcover coming out in like 2 weeks. I think the new books take a little more importance over errata. They'll get to it. Give it a while. They always deal with problems.On a related note, I am surprised at the length of time that Paizo are taking to deal with the flurry of blows issue. It has been perhaps a couple of months? Given the massive debate, outcry, flame-warring and sheer volume of FAQ requests, I expected Paizo to have formally settled the matter by now.
Is it really that surprising?
Well, I find it surprising. The amount of debate and the number of requests for FAQ is unprecedented.
Yeah, like the new stealth system they promised. /sarcasm
Yeah, like the new stealth system they promised. /sarcasmWhat you seem to forget is a huge hardcover coming out in like 2 weeks. I think the new books take a little more importance over errata. They'll get to it. Give it a while. They always deal with problems.On a related note, I am surprised at the length of time that Paizo are taking to deal with the flurry of blows issue. It has been perhaps a couple of months? Given the massive debate, outcry, flame-warring and sheer volume of FAQ requests, I expected Paizo to have formally settled the matter by now.
Is it really that surprising?
Well, I find it surprising. The amount of debate and the number of requests for FAQ is unprecedented.
Which as an optional rule still exists in it's entirety.
Paizo is a relatively small company with a lot on their plate for a large fan base. It takes a lot of time to get other more important projects done, then they can revisit rules like this when they get a breather and can look it over. Unlike WotC, (who is quickly losing my respect with MTG, but I'm going to give D&DN a try) who would put out a book and we were lucky to get anything fixed. Ever. Paizo gets my respect for simply listening to it's fan base and even making the attempt to set things right.
That is true, and that's why I've still got respect for Paizo - unlike WotC. The thing is, them fixing things that are literally broken shouldn't be something to like them for - it should be a very baseline requirement. If I buy rotten eggs, and go back and complain and get new eggs, I don't feel "wow, that's such a great store that gave me new eggs", I feel "they did what they should do. That's good".
But, as said, I do respect paizo and think it's great that they do come around and not only change the rotten eggs but also often explains how the eggs got there in the first place without anyone noticing.
It's very good though to see someone come in and say "we're looking into this rotten egg problem, we'll be back". As is now, we've had a staff tell us not to be rude - which is very understandable and agreeable - but we would have needed them to tell us they're looking into it too. We don't need the ruling right now, but we need to know one is coming. Because some things that are broken have been so for a while. If the FoB always has worked as under SKR's ruling, then the Zen archer has been broken for a year and a half without anyone fixing it up.
And on the monk issue specifically, I disagree with you both in terms of what "ruling" (note that I didn't say errata) means and what this was. But that's off topic so I won't delve into that.
And new books SHOULDN'T take priority over errata, not when it's stuff that is completely broken like this. If you've sold several batches of bad eggs, you don't tell those complaining to "go home, we're selling fresh eggs here". Seriously. For me, and it seems I'm not the only one in this, Paizo has always had two major strengths: Commitment to the fanbase, and commitment to high quality. Those are the reasons I and others buy their rulebooks rather than WotC's. If they release literally broken rules and down-prioritize fixing them because of a new release, they are thumbing on both those things. And this has been going on for some months - if this was the first issue and just recently popped up I'd agree with you (though they could probably set of half an hour of one dev to check into if a +1 bonus would make it broken - a circumstantial feat is better than a completely worthless one)
While a new release might bring them more short-term profit, keeping good contact with their fanbase and fixing things that are broken (and trying to keep up the good quality of the core rulebook and APG, where few things needed fixing compared to UM and UC) will make sure they have long-term customers left.
They always deal with problems.
A commoner still can't see the tarrasque from two hundred meters away.
|
We don't need the ruling right now, but we need to know one is coming.
No we don't. Maybe we'd like one, but we don't need one.
In fact there are good business reasons for Paizo to keep silent. Until they've had the time to take a serious look into the problem and decide how (or even if) they are going to handle it, they can't afford to say anything that could be thought of as a commitment. And be assured that anything posted on these forums will be over-analysed and interpreted to mean a whole lot more than what is actually being said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think Paizo is taking on more than they can chew. WotC concentrated on simply issuing more books, and with each new book that came out, ton of things were found to be broken. Paizo is starting to do the same thing. Concentrating on the new books, instead of the old ones. I don't want to have 10,000 books that have 10,000,000 broken feats, spells, and items. I'd rather have 10 books with as few broken things as possible. Based off what I've read from the developers posts, Paizo employees are putting on serious overtime, so much they can't even issue a FAQ update once in a while.
Quality over Quantity is what attracted me to Paizo. But it seems they've gotten greedy and decided Quantity is better.
@stringburka
Interesting logical leap... they haven't addressed the problem so they aren't ever going to address the problem. Yeah...
Perhaps you havent noticed but Paizo has fantastic customer support, and extreme committment to their products.
Could it be perhaps that they've bigger fish to fry now (material usually takes a little longer to make than a few months) and will take an indepth look at things later? Naw, that can't be it.
@stringburka
Interesting logical leap... they haven't addressed the problem so they aren't ever going to address the problem. Yeah...
That's a big fat straw man, and pretty rude. I haven't been rude in my posts so don't be towards me. I've never said they'll never going to. In fact, I've been saying all along that I think they are a good company and I believe they WILL do it. What I'm saying is that it would be better for PR and better for us as consumer if they aknowledged that there is an error and said "we'll be back with a ruling later", than just ignoring it.
I want to say that paizo has fantastic customer support - it has had fantastic support, I agree with that - but the latest months I've seen it drop by a fair bit. It might be a downward spiral, where the staff got tired of unfounded attacks and thus reduced their time on the forums (understandable), which made people disappointed at them for not having as good customer support anymore (also understandable) and thus the flaming increased (not okay).
We don't need the ruling right now, but we need to know one is coming.No we don't. Maybe we'd like one, but we don't need one.
We don't need one to survive, but we need one to use the product we've paid them for.
In fact there are good business reasons for Paizo to keep silent. Until they've had the time to take a serious look into the problem and decide how (or even if) they are going to handle it, they can't afford to say anything that could be thought of as a commitment.
They are selling rotten eggs and it's never a good business idea to keep silent when people are coming back with their rotten eggs. Or maybe it might be, but not for a company that relies on customers coming back and has a good reputation for that, such as paizo.
Selling rules that doesn't work IS like selling eggs that doesn't work. It needs to be addressed. I believe they will address it, but the sooner the better - and it's better for them to aknowledge the error directly and say "we'll be back on it" than just keeping silent. At least if they want to get my money, which they probably do as from what I've understood, paizo are reliant on having a fan base that buy several books rather than selling one book to a large audience. 'Cause that only works with a core book.
Now, I hope this post and the one before doesn't come along as aggressive towards Paizo - I hold no such aggression. My original post wasn't meant as an attack on paizo but rather as customer feedback and an analyzation of the trend of rising attacks on paizo (which I disapprove of).
Its all economics, FAQs and clarifications are not subsidized or funded so they are considered a minor project.
I do not want to believe that is the attitude of paizo, as it's the same attitude as "i might have sold you rotten eggs, but there's nothing for me in changing them so you're stuck there for now. maybe sometime I'll fix it." I do not believe and do not want to believe that is the attitude of paizo; I have more respect for them than that.
What I'm saying is that it would be better for PR and better for us as consumer if they aknowledged that there is an error and said "we'll be back with a ruling later", than just ignoring it.
Jason already said they're looking into it - check Bobson's post. There was obviously confusion within the Paizo offices. As they don't know their ultimate direction, I don't see how they can be more specific than that.
It's all economics, FAQs and clarifications are not subsidized or funded so they are considered a minor project.I do not want to believe that is the attitude of paizo, as it's the same attitude as "i might have sold you rotten eggs, but there's nothing for me in changing them so you're stuck there for now. maybe sometime I'll fix it." I do not believe and do not want to believe that is the attitude of paizo; I have more respect for them than that.
Paizo is a business, they're in it for the money. They do a lot of things that go way above and beyond (the first is listening and integrating customer feedback), and they don't have to. I have faith that they will examine and treat the problem when they are able, but the facts are the fate of Flurry of Blows is less important than their other projects at the moment. They will get to it when their schedules allow, and it will be lightyears better than other businesses operating under the same models except that don't hold customer feedback in such high regard.
They have already stated they're looking into things. Do you want a progress report? They have already satisfied what you're asking for. They acknowledge that there is something causing an issue - not just with consumers vs designers but inside paizo as well. Your rotten eggs metaphor is just... not true. They issue errata all the time, they do many FAQ blogs to clear up muddy rules or clarify usages. This is just another example.
However, if you wish to discuss this further then everyone involved should probably create a new thread to talk about this instead of warping this thread any further.
Jason already said they're looking into it - check Bobson's post. There was obviously confusion within the Paizo offices. As they don't know their ultimate direction, I don't see how they can be more specific than that.
Yes, and I haven't said anything about that in respect to FoB - yet another straw man. It was well done and I have no issues with that. As I said, I respect paizo just because they do such things. My stance was that it's good to do that over the board, including the topic of this thread.
Paizo is a business, they're in it for the money. They do a lot of things that go way above and beyond (the first is listening and integrating customer feedback), and they don't have to. I have faith that they will examine and treat the problem when they are able, but the facts are the fate of Flurry of Blows is less important than their other projects at the moment. They will get to it when their schedules allow, and it will be lightyears better than other businesses operating under the same models that don't bother with consumer feedback.
Yes, of course they're in it for the money, but there's difference between being in business to earn money and tricking people to buy useless products such as rotten eggs or rules that doesn't work. I don't know how it's in the US, but in my country, it's actually an offense to marketing laws to give an impression of selling something and then not living up to it, or selling deficient products.
Goshdarnit, I'm giving up on this now. My initial post was just thought of as a vote of support for paizo against the attackers, some consumer feedback, and a guess as to why the climate on the forums have changed. Since then, people have been bashing at me, making straw men, putting words in my mouth and generally behaving as if I said paizo where bad people. I haven't. But your insistance of arguing against me as if I somehow attacked paizo has put me in a defensive position where I must again and again explain my stance and for every time I try to clarify it more, someone interprets it even harsher and we get on a downward spiral where it sooner or later actually sounds like I'm attacking paizo. I don't wish to go there. Ignore all of my posts but the first, as that was the only one of relevance to this topic. And don't read more into it than it said.
Goshdarnit.
EDITED due to oversensitive censorship.
|
A lot of posts that we see in alot of threads are nothing but generalized insults at the developers. It contributes nothing. It accomplishes nothing but possibly hurt feelings. I don't think I know of a single example where insults got someone to change their mind and do what the insulter wanted. I know at my job when someone insults me, whatever they want goes to the bottom of the pile (if it even makes it onto the to do list at all).
I agree. Here is an example of a thread that resulted in errata very quickly after being raised.
My original post simply laid out both positions, acknowledged the merits of both, and called for people to refrain from attacking the player of GM in question. And it resulted in an errata, which I can print off and use in-game.
I think if I'd named the thread "WTF are the designers thinking?!", or "Stoopid GM nerfs my PC WTF?!", I'd still be waiting, listening to the crickets and watching the tumble weed.
So I'm not seeing anything in the "prone" condition that penalizes ranged attacks in any way (except by prohibiting attacks with ranged weapons other than crossbows and firearms). And yet...
Thoughts?Prone Shooter (Combat)
While prone, you use the ground to stabilize your aim while using a crossbow or firearm.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (crossbow or firearm), base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: If you have been prone since the end of your last turn, you can ignore the penalty the prone condition imposes on ranged attack rolls you make using a crossbow or firearm with which you have Weapon Focus.
Special: If you have the Prone Slinger feat, Weapon Focus (sling) satisfies this feat's Weapon Focus prerequisite, and you can apply this feat's benefit to attack rolls you make using a sling with which you have Weapon Focus.
I think the feat SHOULD have read:
Prone Shooter (Combat)
While prone, you use the ground to stabilize your aim while using a crossbow or firearm.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (crossbow or firearm), base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: If you have been prone since the end of your last turn, you can ignore the penalty the prone condition imposes on ranged attack rolls you make using a crossbow or firearm with which you have Weapon Focus.
Special: If you have the Prone Slinger feat, Weapon Focus (sling) satisfies this feat's Weapon Focus prerequisite, and you can apply this feat's benefit to attack rolls you make using a sling with which you have Weapon Focus.
Normal: All attacks from prone normally incur a -4 penalty to attack rolls.
Which was probably what was intended when it was edited. OK, maybe shooting from prone shouldn't carry ANY penalty, but that is another point entirely. If this had said this, it would have made MUCH more sense. To be honest, this error does not bother me half so much as the one made when they published Antagonize; the entire concept of that feat was just wrong, not just the mechanics.
Here is an example of a thread that resulted in errata very quickly after being raised.
Well you might have just gotten lucky that the designers had some extra downtime to address things, or that an errata was being issued soon so they paid more attention than normal to the rules forum.
I don't think any of these cases can be thought of as the norm. It really just depends where they are in the production cycle of products.
It was in response to a "there's no reason for them to fix it because it doesn't give them money" (or something similar) claim.
At least I had the decency to make a strawman for you, you're just blatantly misrepresenting me.
I will say this very clearly. They will look into this when the time comes and the time will come in a few weeks or so because they are working on projects right now and don't have the manpower to address every problem, all the time, immediately.
OK, maybe shooting from prone shouldn't carry ANY penalty, but that is another point entirely.
The whole point of this thread is that shooting a crossbow (or firearm, as they work like crossbows in this regard) from prone already carries no penalty, as the table in the Combat section of the Core Rulebook states.
At least related to the original posters question.
I read the comment that guns and crossbows are more accurate from a prone position.
That is definitely true with modern weapons. But I'm not sure that is true with some of the very early weapons.
I once tried using a very old model of crossbow. It didn't have a trigger (wierd cumbersome lifting lever) and the stock was at an odd angle. It was actually very difficult to get into a prone position without setting it off and I couldn't find a good way to hold and aim it.
It worked pretty well from a kneeling position though.
Been flipping through some views of early firearms. Some of them especially a few of the early matchlocks look like they would have some of the same problems. I can't hardly see how you could hold one of them without burning yourself while lighting it. But I've never actually tried them.
I agree it's not in the rules, but I wouldn't see it as completely unreasonable to impose some kind of penalty to using early crossbows and firearms in the prone position. Then a feat that eliminated that penalty would be reasonable.
Possibly the error is not in the feat. Perhaps the error was in not stating the penalty to begin with.
So I'm not seeing anything in the "prone" condition that penalizes ranged attacks in any way (except by prohibiting attacks with ranged weapons other than crossbows and firearms). And yet...
Thoughts?Prone Shooter (Combat)
While prone, you use the ground to stabilize your aim while using a crossbow or firearm.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (crossbow or firearm), base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: If you have been prone since the end of your last turn, you can ignore the penalty the prone condition imposes on ranged attack rolls you make using a crossbow or firearm with which you have Weapon Focus.
Special: If you have the Prone Slinger feat, Weapon Focus (sling) satisfies this feat's Weapon Focus prerequisite, and you can apply this feat's benefit to attack rolls you make using a sling with which you have Weapon Focus.
I think the feat SHOULD have read:
Which was probably what was intended when it was edited. OK, maybe shooting from prone shouldn't carry ANY penalty, but that is another point entirely. If this had said this, it would have made MUCH more sense. To be honest, this error does not bother me half so much as the one made when they published...Prone Shooter (Combat)
While prone, you use the ground to stabilize your aim while using a crossbow or firearm.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (crossbow or firearm), base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: If you have been prone since the end of your last turn, you can ignore the penalty the prone condition imposes on ranged attack rolls you make using a crossbow or firearm with which you have Weapon Focus.
Special: If you have the Prone Slinger feat, Weapon Focus (sling) satisfies this feat's Weapon Focus prerequisite, and you can apply this feat's benefit to attack rolls you make using a sling with which you have Weapon Focus.
Normal: All attacks from prone normally incur a -4 penalty to attack rolls.
Dabbler, that doesn't work. As it stands, there is no penalty when using a crossbow or firearm. There is only a penalty to attacking when making a melee attack, not ranged. Your proposed feat is exactly like the original, it has no benefit as the feat does nothing for the character in anyway.
The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
See? You only have a penalty to melee attack rolls, not ranged attack rolls.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prone shooter made me smile, thanks to this gem from (I think) OgreBattle over at the Gaming Den. That is no small thing in this cruel world of ours.
Let me tell you about Feats. A specific Feat. A Specific Feat from Paizo’s Ultimate Combat for Pathfinder.
This Feat is Prone Shooter. Let me tell you what Prone Shooter does.
It puts you into the mindset of The Prone Shooter. You go prone, you lie prone, you are thinking “I am a Prone Shooter” and you shoot with all the clarity Prone gives to the Prone Shooter.
Your buddy glances at your character sheet. He sees “Prone Shooter”, he knows "damn, that guy, he is a Prone Shooter, I better watch out when he falls prone, he still shoots!"
Yeah, that’s damn right, it’s On Your Character Sheet.
You didn’t even need to say anything, that’s real roleplaying right there, it’s dialog without dialog like a gritty western, very thematic.
Sure, you might have imitators, that guy over there might also be prone and shooting, but you know what? He’s just prone and shooting, he’s not a Prone Shooter, it’s not on his character sheet. What he does is mundane. What you do, it’s a heroic FEAT.
For roleplaying immersion, it’s a world of difference. But some min/maxing goon wouldn’t understand (kick them out of your table, IMMEDIATELY or they turn your campaign into an Videogame)
Dabbler, that doesn't work. As it stands, there is no penalty when using a crossbow or firearm. There is only a penalty to attacking when making a melee attack, not ranged. Your proposed feat is exactly like the original, it has no benefit as the feat does nothing for the character in anyway.
I'm aware of that, but it may be a mistake made by the editor that caused this, or it may be that they intended to errata the original statement to a -4 on any attack but never got around to it. My point being that including the 'Normal' would have at least let us know what they thought they were doing.
Pretty sure it's just that the guy who wrote this thought it applied to ranged attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Not helping.
Also, I'm going to go ahead and lock this, as the original question has been answered and further discussion is just going to continue off the rails. Do feel free to make another thread discussing the State of Errata or find one of the existing ones.