Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

The Prone Shooter Feat Does... Nothing?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Cheliax

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...

PFSRD wrote:

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.

So... what is this feat meant to do? Even the feat referenced in the "Special" section, Prone Slinger, acknowledges that crossbows and firearms can be fired while prone.

Furthermore, if you did have both feats, you still wouldn't need Prone Shooter to fire a sling without penalties, because there are no penalties for firing a sling while prone if you have the Prone Slinger feat!

Here's Prone Slinger, for reference.

Prone Slinger:
PFSRD wrote:

Prone Slinger (Combat)

Your sideways sling release allows you to launch bullets and stones even while prone.

Benefit: While prone, you can use a sling to make ranged attacks.

Normal: Crossbows and firearms are the only ranged weapons that can be used while prone.

What is Prone Shooter meant to do? Was this just a massive misunderstanding of the rules by one of the writers? The prone condition is really prevalent, really common, and really important. Did the author of this feat really misunderstand how the prone condition works, or am I missing some obvious "RAI" here?

Thoughts?


I wrote that feat. In my turnover it gave a small (I think +1 or +2) bonus to attack rolls when shooting from prone.

Cheliax

Interesting. What does the author mean by "in my turnover?"

Also, the rest of the feat's text is still irrelevant..?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Garden Tool wrote:
Interesting. What does the author mean by "in my turnover?"

It a small pastry usually filled with fruit. :-P

I believe what he is talking about: "I gave the editors this beautiful work of art, representing my heart and soul, sweat and tears, and they ripped it from my bosom, stomped on it, sliced it up, removed any semblance of what I wrote and printed the final copy."

In other words, he wrote it to give a bonus when firing from prone. Logical if you ever fired a gun from a prone position. Somewhere in the editing process they removed the bonus and any reason for taking the feat.


Garden Tool wrote:
Interesting. What does the author mean by "in my turnover?"

Writer types up a feat / spell / weapon / etc, presumably making sure it works properly, hopefully tries to make sure the feat isn't overpowered when combined with other feats, then turns the work in to the editors.

The editors probably examine the feat, tweaking it to the point where they feel it is balanced for the Pathfinder game. Only then is the feat allowed to go to print. A process that sometimes produces results like this and Final Embrace Horror's useless prerequisite feat.

I suspect it is those editors who probably have final say for errata and such. So even if an Author answers a question on something THEY wrote, the final decisions will come down from the editors.

This alone is an important reason to take answers posts from Pathfinder Author with a grain of salt. Sure they wrote the initial version, but what winds up in the game is not their final call, it is the editor's. And the author may be answering for what their version was, not the version the Editors made an official part of the pathfinder game.

Another Author who had editors adjust his work.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3v54&page=7?Ultimate-Magic-Errata#321


Garden Tool wrote:

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...

PFSRD wrote:

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.

So... what is this feat meant to do? Even the feat referenced in the "Special" section, Prone Slinger, acknowledges that crossbows and firearms can be fired while prone.

Furthermore, if you did have both feats, you still wouldn't need Prone Shooter to fire a sling without penalties, because there are no penalties for firing a sling while prone if you have the Prone Slinger feat!

Here's Prone Slinger, for reference.** spoiler omitted **

What is Prone Shooter meant to do? Was this just a massive misunderstanding of the rules by one of the writers? The prone condition is really prevalent, really common, and really important. Did the author of this feat really misunderstand how the prone condition works, or am I missing some obvious "RAI" here?

Thoughts?

I think it is a misunderstanding of rules. It is something that should be fixed in errata. As it is it's one of the few really erroneous and useless feats.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The Prone Shooter, as printed, indeed does nothing. It is an excellent example of Paizo's commitment to quality control.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a firearms perspective. Firing from a prone (or even kneeling) position should give more stability and therefore a bonus to hit as a matter of course. Anybody with experience with firearms would know this.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If this is coming from the Paizo editors, than Paizo needs better editors.

Shadow Lodge

the funny thing is that the d20pfsrd.com entry for prone say :

"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"

which is wierd because i didnt see that in the CRB


TheSideKick wrote:

the funny thing is that the d20pfsrd.com entry for prone say :

"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"

which is wierd because i didnt see that in the CRB

Don't have my book on me, but in the Combat chapter, I believe, there should be an AC Modifier table and an Attack Roll Modifier table that has the pentalties listed.

EDIT: Also found here in the PRD.


It should give some small bonus to firing a projectile weapon from prone. The thematic justification being that you are more steady and can aim better.

The benefit could be as simple as a +1 to attack and damage, or it could cut penalties to attack at range, or even add Dex to damage. It the benefit is beefy enough, the character could remain flat-footed until the start of his next turn, from holding stationary to attack.


23 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
If this is coming from the Paizo editors, than Paizo needs better editors.

Hey, they are probably just overworked from their efforts to keep the monk nerfed.

Shadow Lodge

Frankthedm wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If this is coming from the Paizo editors, than Paizo needs better editors.
Hey, they are probably just overworked from their efforts to keep the monk nerfed.

lol shut up.

favorited


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frankthedm wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If this is coming from the Paizo editors, than Paizo needs better editors.
Hey, they are probably just overworked from their efforts to keep the monk nerfed.

You know, there is a part of me that looks forward to the day someone from Paizo blows their top at us for making these comments. I wonder how many buttons we have to push to get a response?

Shadow Lodge

Not many, SKR has already had a few.


Tels wrote:
Frankthedm wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If this is coming from the Paizo editors, than Paizo needs better editors.
Hey, they are probably just overworked from their efforts to keep the monk nerfed.
You know, there is a part of me that looks forward to the day someone from Paizo blows their top at us for making these comments. I wonder how many buttons we have to push to get a response?

Have you consdered writing them an email?


Frankthedm wrote:

A process that sometimes produces results like this and Final Embrace Horror's useless prerequisite feat.

Don't bring Final Embrace into this. It gives you constrict and grab and requires you have constrict already if you're not a naga or serpentfolk. It doesn't specify what natural attack you get grab on-- you now just have it, free floating, like the ability to rend but no attack combination that sets it off (like the Chemosit from Serpent's Skull #2's bestiary).

It also specifies that you can now grab and constrict creatures that are your size, when the Bestiary 3's glossary specifically states no size limitation on constrict and that you can always grab creatures your size.

What does it do? It is for serpentfolk and naga characters to gain the constrict ability.

Why was this feat even worth paper.

/rant


Ice Titan wrote:
Frankthedm wrote:

A process that sometimes produces results like this and Final Embrace Horror's useless prerequisite feat.

Don't bring Final Embrace into this. It gives you constrict and grab and requires you have constrict already if you're not a naga or serpentfolk. It doesn't specify what natural attack you get grab on-- you now just have it, free floating, like the ability to rend but no attack combination that sets it off (like the Chemosit from Serpent's Skull #2's bestiary).

It also specifies that you can now grab and constrict creatures that are your size, when the Bestiary 3's glossary specifically states no size limitation on constrict and that you can always grab creatures your size.

What does it do? It is for serpentfolk and naga characters to gain the constrict ability.

Why was this feat even worth paper.

/rant

Interesting. It is a good thing the normal section is written vaguely enough so that it is not actually a restriction on anything or the feat might have nerfed the constrict ability just by existing (assuming that is the only place where such a restriction occurs).

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

25 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.


Ross Byers wrote:

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

Don't worry people are still upset about the monk nerf.(I personally think you should change it back) Love your content Paizo!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

Don't let it get to you Ross. The problem is these kids need everything handed to them carved in stone. They seem to have no ability to make logical conclusions on thier own and really need everything spelled out for them in forty foot tall letters preferably on the side of mountains so they do not actually have to move -AND- read.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I assure you Ross, I was not trying to be funny, and am treating the matter with all seriousness.


As I see it....Pathfinder is a significant improvement over 3.0/3.5. So what if they make mistakes? They are great about dealing with the majority of them imo. Ive been playing since 1st ed. AD&D and while the evolution has been to add rules (thus complicating things) there have also been strides for things to make sense. Paizo's staff has continued this. - Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, the constant monk hate is the *only* thing I dislike about Paizo at all. Sometimes I get make an "O rLy?" face when I see certain things, like Antagonize, but other than that, I love just about everything that they make. I just really dislike the constant Monk debuffs. Monk and Ranger are my two favorite classes. They both (well are supposed to anyway) represent classes with strong combat application, and a lot of out of combat utility. I love playing a versatile character, and it's hard to do so as a Monk because the most important aspect of the Monk's survival (the ability to defend itself and fight), is all but useless for him.

Fortunately, I have a GM who is also my best friend and he trusts my judgement when I say something should work like this, instead of like this. I keep harping about the Monk to those who don't have so lenient a GM.

In addition, we recently ran a PFS Day at our local Hobby store with some 20 people showing up. 5 of the players desired to run a Monk and asked me for advice on how to build their concept. I had them plan their characters out to level 12, and tried to give them the best advice I could (while juggling advice for the other 15 people as they often turn to me for advice, and preparing for the session). In the end, 4 of them were deeply disappointed with the power levels of their Monks and decided to abandon them for classes that simply 'worked' better. The other one got lucky in that he wanted to play a bow monk and I simply pointed out Zen Archer and didn't really need to give him much more advice beyond that.

But if I'm really starting to hurt feelings or annoy people at Paizo, then I'll tone it down/cut it out. I don't really want to hurt people, I, like many humans in the world, expressed my knee-jerk reaction to an outrage by spewing insults. For that, I apologize.


Ross Byers wrote:

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

Ross, I agree with your comments. If people have beef with Paizo, at least be respectful. Some of this unnecessary bashing and backhandedness has really gotten out of hand.

That being said, Prone Shooter (and some other parts of UC) do need a fix and I have faith that Paizo will update the feat to be useful in their next errata of the UC book. Some of this problem can be attributed to miscommunication between the feat creators, editors and the rules designers.

However, the vast majority of the UC product is quite good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I certainly sympathize with Paizo in terms of being only human. We all are. However, when it's pointed out (with supporting math) that certain options are not just "less than optimal", but outright not worth taking or not functional/possible as written, that should be AT LEAST officially acknowledged. I would personally prefer the issue be fixed, but at minimum it should be acknowledged in the FAQ/errata.

And anyone who puts forth the argument that some players "have no ability to make logical conclusions on their own", well, that's entirely spurious. As someone who's paid several hundred dollars to Paizo in exchange for their RPG books, I expect the rules to be functional, internally consistent, and entirely without "trap options".

I don't think anyone is claiming everything must be perfect out of the gate. However, once the problems are pointed out, and mathematically proven to be problems, they *really* ought to get fixed. That's what I (and presumably hundreds of others) am paying for. Acknowledge the problem, publicly, then fix it. Take the time to do it right, but DO IT. Your loyal fans and customers are watching eagerly.


Tvarog, If I were paizo I wouldnt officially acknowledge those statements (yet). To do so would indicate that they are broken without proper analysis and debate by the developers. Developers should not be placed into a position of having to possibly retract offical statements just to satisfy our desires.

We know the monk cannot perform well in a combat role, they probably know the monk cannot perform well in a combat role. They may (or may not) be looking at the problem. They may not perceive one. I dont know. But demanding a response from them before they have analyzed it themselves won't work.

Heck, just fixing AotMF would go a long way towards fixing the monks combat role. But that is another topic.

- Gauss


Gauss, good point (and I really am on Paizo's side here, I want PF to be the best system on the market and I enjoy playing most of it). However, that begs the question - how long does proper analysis take, when the proof has already been provided? At least, say (even unofficially) "we're looking at X", even if you come back a month or three later and say "well, we decided it's not really a problem". PF has been out long enough for the monk problem to have been looked at by now, and probably 95% of the math was done before it was even officially released. Prone Shooter, well, again... how long does it take to look at a feat, realize it does literally nothing, and say "we're looking into the problem"?

I think I'm going to stop posting for a while, I don't want to "be a jerk" by trying to help bring attention to things that need fixed. I will however follow this issue with great interest.


Our doing math isnt the same thing as developers taking a look at it. While we look at it from the pov of damage potential there is also (Admitedly not that great to warrant it) the extra powers and defenses monk gets. When taken as a whole it is a complex question that frankly, many players cannot agree on as to what the best solution is.

So...lets assume they do know the problem exists and have known for awhile. Then lets assume they do agree with the problem. Now they announce 'yes, we are looking at the problem and we agree it exists'. Does this change the posts or make them worse? Do they get even more bombardment from everyone and their brother trying to offer solutions?

While I like Paizo for how much they respond to things when something needs a FAQ I like it that they have not stated a major change until they adequately researched it and come to their own consensus. Btw, Im really impressed with how they are/were working on the stealth issue.

One other element, that of 'backwards compatibility'. While many have felt that is holding the 3.P system back I also agree that it is keeping alot of people (including myself) that liked the majority (core at least) of 3.x and want to play a living 3.x system.

This is my last post on this topic in this thread as I don't want to continue to threadjack it. - Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tvarog wrote:

Gauss, good point (and I really am on Paizo's side here, I want PF to be the best system on the market and I enjoy playing most of it). However, that begs the question - how long does proper analysis take, when the proof has already been provided? At least, say (even unofficially) "we're looking at X", even if you come back a month or three later and say "well, we decided it's not really a problem". PF has been out long enough for the monk problem to have been looked at by now, and probably 95% of the math was done before it was even officially released. Prone Shooter, well, again... how long does it take to look at a feat, realize it does literally nothing, and say "we're looking into the problem"?

I think I'm going to stop posting for a while, I don't want to "be a jerk" by trying to help bring attention to things that need fixed. I will however follow this issue with great interest.

There are many people who think the monk works just fine. I'm one of them. I don't think Paizo needs to do much to address the monk, or many other of the problems that the boards think are issues.

There are some things that could use addressing, like this feat. I don't think that Paizo needs to come out and say whether or not they are working on it though. To be completely honest, I could have sworn that a prone ranged attack was at -4. I can't find it anywhere and I don't know where I read it but I'm sure I did somewhere. It is entirely possible that they thought the same thing. Being human beings they are entitled to make errors like this once in a while. The good news is that this feat isn't tied to anything else so you can simply ignore it until further notice. It won't affect your game at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
There are some things that could use addressing, like this feat. I don't think that Paizo needs to come out and say whether or not they are working on it though. To be completely honest, I could have sworn that a prone ranged attack was at -4. I can't find it anywhere and I don't know where I read it but I'm sure I did somewhere. It is entirely possible that they thought the same thing. Being human beings they are entitled to make errors like this once in a while. The good news is that this feat isn't tied to anything else so you can simply ignore it until further notice. It won't affect your game at all.

I'm with you on the -4 thing. I have no idea where it came from, but I remember reading that at one point.

As to the complaints about paizo's editing, I would encourage detractors to buy a couple books published for a certain system combining cyberpunk and sorcery, or, even better (worse) a certain lupine themed companies offerings set in a universe of insufficient light. You will come running screaming back to the glorious light of the purple golem very quickly. I have thought from the begining that Paizo's writing, game balance, presentation, literally everything about the company, far surpased what I was used to dealing with previous setting and systems. Sure, when editing rules for a textbook sized game supplemt, things mistakes get made, but at least with Pathfinder it tends to err on the side of less broken, rather than more (see the afore-alluded to game systems to see excellent examples of such, and on both sides of the gms screen, no less).


devil.in.mexico13 wrote:
I'm with you on the -4 thing. I have no idea where it came from, but I remember reading that at one point.

The -4 to ranged attack penalty is an artifact of some other version of the rule set, PF does not carry a penalty for ranged attacks while prone, only melee attacks.

I believe the editors made the same mistake that Bob and you made in regards to the viability of Prone Shooter.


Stynkk wrote:
devil.in.mexico13 wrote:
I'm with you on the -4 thing. I have no idea where it came from, but I remember reading that at one point.
The -4 to ranged attack penalty is an artifact of some other version of the rule set, PF does not carry a penalty for ranged attacks while prone, only melee attacks.

The prone attackers rule was the same in 3.5, so if it was once a part of the D&D ruleset, it must have been prior to that revision.


Ross Byers wrote:

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

Ross, all I can say is don't take it personally. I personally (along with the whole group I currently play with) think that everyone at Paizo has done a wonderful job. Pathfinder is definitely one of the best gaming systems I have ever seen!

Unfortunately, this is a side effect of the 'faceless' internet. Many people who are anywhere from snarky to downright nasty on boards like this, are actually reasonably polite in face-to-face situations. They seem to have the attitude, "Since I will never actually meet you in person, everything I ever learned about appropriate interpersonal behavior no longer applies."

There have been several threads I dropped out of just because of posts like that. I was still in the middle of worthwhile conversations with some posters. But I don't need to spend my time reading a bunch vitriol and insults directed at myself or anyone else.

Also, there are some cases where it is just misunderstandings. May people post joking, sarcastic, ironic, fun type comments. They don't realize the tone, tempo, and expression they would use in spoken conversation are not present in a written post. They don't even realize they are coming accross as diliberately insulting.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Really, that doesn't help.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

Ross, all I can say is don't take it personally. I personally (along with the whole group I currently play with) think that everyone at Paizo has done a wonderful job. Pathfinder is definitely one of the best gaming systems I have ever seen!

Unfortunately, this is a side effect of the 'faceless' internet. Many people who are anywhere from snarky to downright nasty on boards like this, are actually reasonably polite in face-to-face situations. They seem to have the attitude, "Since I will never actually meet you in person, everything I ever learned about appropriate interpersonal behavior no longer applies."

There have been several threads I dropped out of just because of posts like that. I was still in the middle of worthwhile conversations with some posters. But I don't need to spend my time reading a bunch vitriol and insults directed at myself or anyone else.

Also, there are some cases where it is just misunderstandings. May people post joking, sarcastic, ironic, fun type comments. They don't realize the tone, tempo, and expression they would use in spoken conversation are not present in a written post. They don't even realize they are coming accross as diliberately insulting.

Back in 08, when I played Heroclix and promised I would make top 8 at Wizard World Philly (I was a really really good player at that time), I got a chance to talk to the designer of the game at the time Seth Johnson. I told him flat to his face after months of bashing on him internet that I thought his designs were TERRIBLE. He was kind of dumbfounded that I actually said that to his face. His stuff was hit and miss, but I felt he needed to hear from words from a high-level player, and not just faceless masses. I loved the game, I wanted the game to be better. I felt a responsibility (as well as my own selfish interests) that the game wasn't going down a path that I felt hurt the game.

Another example is how the Mark Moreland and Mike Brock are adjusting things in PFS. Like more focused faction missions, more challenging encounters, more attention to parts of the rules were PF and PFS breaks down. They've done a good job of noting the complaints and requests and addressing them.

Sometimes people can't deliver points eloquently. Nobody wants to get bashed by the endless world of the Internet, but sometimes it needs to be said. If after a while errors are made repeatedly (and to a hilarious level to the monk balance issues), then it's not a coincidence, but a pattern.


The prone condition:
"Prone: 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."

I didn't actually read the text of Prone Shooter the first time I saw it, I just skimmed through the summary and figured it was an underpowered feat that allowed you to fire a bow while prone. Looking at the feat in detail it really does nothing.

To Mr. Byers, I want to say thank you for coming onto the message boards and offering your input. It's something that no other table top I've ever played does and I feel it's what makes Pathfinder such a great system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Some call me Tim wrote:
Garden Tool wrote:
Interesting. What does the author mean by "in my turnover?"

It a small pastry usually filled with fruit. :-P

I believe what he is talking about: "I gave the editors this beautiful work of art, representing my heart and soul, sweat and tears, and they ripped it from my bosom, stomped on it, sliced it up, removed any semblance of what I wrote and printed the final copy."

In other words, he wrote it to give a bonus when firing from prone. Logical if you ever fired a gun from a prone position. Somewhere in the editing process they removed the bonus and any reason for taking the feat.

"You have to leave the editor something to change. Once he pisses on it, he likes the flavor better, and buys it." ~ Robert Heinlein Stranger in a Strange Land


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cid Ayrbourne wrote:
... "You have to leave the editor something to change. Once he pisses on it, he likes the flavor better, and buys it." ~ Robert Heinlein Stranger in a Strange Land

I used to have a boss like that. We always had to make sure to leave some obvious sloppy mistake in our plans because he felt he had to change something. If he couldn't find an obvious mistake he would change some of the correct stuff just to exert his influence on the project. It was like living in a Dilbert cartoon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Cid Ayrbourne wrote:
... "You have to leave the editor something to change. Once he pisses on it, he likes the flavor better, and buys it." ~ Robert Heinlein Stranger in a Strange Land
I used to have a boss like that. We always had to make sure to leave some obvious sloppy mistake in our plans because he felt he had to change something. If he couldn't find an obvious mistake he would change some of the correct stuff just to exert his influence on the project. It was like living in a Dilbert cartoon.

Your accounting department is full of trolls too? ;)


BYC wrote:

... I felt he needed to hear from words from a high-level player, and not just faceless masses. I loved the game, I wanted the game to be better. I felt a responsibility (as well as my own selfish interests) that the game wasn't going down a path that I felt hurt the game.

Another example is how the Mark Moreland and Mike Brock are adjusting things in PFS. Like more focused faction missions, more challenging encounters, more attention to parts of the rules were PF and PFS breaks down. They've done a good job of noting the complaints and requests and addressing them.

Sometimes people can't deliver points eloquently. Nobody wants to get bashed by the endless world of the Internet, but sometimes it needs to be said. If after a while errors are made repeatedly (and to a hilarious level to the monk balance issues), then it's not a coincidence, but a pattern ...

Please remember there is a humongeous difference between constructive criticism and insults. (This is not an accusation at you inparticular by the way.)

Look over that long thread where the PFS guys are asking for suggestions. The majority of those posts are genuine polite constructive criticism. "I think this would be better because..." I believe the officials involved are taking them seriously and seeing what they can do to address them.

Alot 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).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
I used to have a boss like that. We always had to make sure to leave some obvious sloppy mistake in our plans because he felt he had to change something. If he couldn't find an obvious mistake he would change some of the correct stuff just to exert his influence on the project. It was like living in a Dilbert cartoon.

I think we had the same boss.

He asked me to do a design, when I finished it, he looked it over and proceeded to sketch out a different design and said, "Here do it like this."

I asked naively, "What's wrong with my design?"

"Nothing. It just isn't how I would have done it. So redo it like this."


Ross Byers wrote:

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

I do completely agree that the current level of hate towards most of the paizo staff has gone completely overboard and is mostly ungrounded.

I personally dont expect paizo to never make a mistake, they are human after all, and they have also managed to create my favorite pen and paper RPG of all time. My only problem in all this is that when people make mistakes, then i expect them to be able to admit it and possibly fix it as fast as they can. This was done with the tetori monk, that lacked 3 of the feats he was given completely, but just got given new feats pretty quickly and even if its slightly annoying to now have a book with the wrong feats, then im not the slightest mad about it, because as you say mistakes happen.

Where i see people get angry at paizo, is in my eyes more because one ruling, made to not obselete the amulet, resulted in most of the published material breaking down. What i would like to see in the monk matter is a quick FAQ/errata that explains this "new" ruling, and what the implications are with the zen archer, zohei and weapon master monk, to not just make a change that invalidates their own material, without atleast explaining what these archetypes then are meant to do. It can be a little infuriating to spend a lot of money on a new book, only to get told that this this and this doesnt work, but i completely agree that there is no need to start insulting anyone because of it. Unfortunately that is one of the downsides to the internet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

While I agree, and have a lot of respect for the Paizo staff (and not the least due to your participation on the forums!), I think part of the reason has to do with some unpopular rulings the staff has made lately. Sometimes I (personally) get the feeling that the staff is very slow to come to a decision on a case where an ability or feat simply doesn't work or where there's obvious problems (like this feat - and a fair bit of other stuff in UC/UM) while there's some important rulings where the staff should probably have thought things through before ruling, or even asked the community what would be the best ruling (monk TWF, the new craft vs WBL ruling).

It seems to have been a lot of that lately, which might be a reason people are on edge and sometimes outright disrespectful. I do not mean to excuse that kind of behaviour, just that this might be a case of "no smoke without at least an ember".

No-one's perfect, but there's been quite a few incidents lately and it might be a good idea, if nothing else for PR, for some of the involved to go out and say "hey, we've done some bad rulings/bad editing lately, we need a month to think about this and then we'll be back. Sorry for the delay".

Though, you as staff will probably have to survive customers poking fun of you sometimes. Though certainly not in a truly disrespectful way.


stringburka wrote:


While I agree, and have a lot of respect for the Paizo staff (and not the least due to your participation on the forums!), I think part of the reason has to do with some unpopular rulings the staff has made lately. Sometimes I (personally) get the feeling that the staff is very slow to come to a decision on a case where an ability or feat simply doesn't work or where there's obvious problems (like this feat - and a fair bit of other stuff in UC/UM) while there's some important rulings where the staff should probably have thought things through before ruling, or even asked the community what would be the best ruling (monk TWF, the new craft vs WBL ruling).

It seems to have been a lot of that lately, which might be a reason people are on edge and sometimes outright disrespectful. I do not mean to excuse that kind of behaviour, just that this might be a case of "no smoke without at least an ember".

No-one's perfect, but there's been quite a few incidents lately and it might be a good idea, if nothing else for PR, for some of the involved to go out and say "hey, we've done some bad rulings/bad editing lately, we need a month to think about this and then we'll be back. Sorry for the delay".

Though, you as staff will probably have to survive customers poking fun of you sometimes. Though certainly not in a truly disrespectful way.

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.

Also, Nicklas, what ruling with the AoMF are you talking about? And, to be fair, the monk "ruling" wasn't a ruling, it was a clarification on how FoB worked. It's always worked like TWF in that you need two weapons.


Gauss wrote:

Tvarog, If I were paizo I wouldnt officially acknowledge those statements (yet). To do so would indicate that they are broken without proper analysis and debate by the developers. Developers should not be placed into a position of having to possibly retract offical statements just to satisfy our desires.

- Gauss

The prone shooter problem is not new. This was clearly identified on these messageboards (and FAQ requested) long ago.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
stringburka wrote:


While I agree, and have a lot of respect for the Paizo staff (and not the least due to your participation on the forums!), I think part of the reason has to do with some unpopular rulings the staff has made lately. Sometimes I (personally) get the feeling that the staff is very slow to come to a decision on a case where an ability or feat simply doesn't work or where there's obvious problems (like this feat - and a fair bit of other stuff in UC/UM) while there's some important rulings where the staff should probably have thought things through before ruling, or even asked the community what would be the best ruling (monk TWF, the new craft vs WBL ruling).

It seems to have been a lot of that lately, which might be a reason people are on edge and sometimes outright disrespectful. I do not mean to excuse that kind of behaviour, just that this might be a case of "no smoke without at least an ember".

No-one's perfect, but there's been quite a few incidents lately and it might be a good idea, if nothing else for PR, for some of the involved to go out and say "hey, we've done some bad rulings/bad editing lately, we need a month to think about this and then we'll be back. Sorry for the delay".

Though, you as staff will probably have to survive customers poking fun of you sometimes. Though certainly not in a truly disrespectful way.

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.

Also, Nicklas, what ruling with the AoMF are you talking about? And, to be fair, the monk "ruling" wasn't a ruling, it was a clarification on how FoB worked. It's always worked like TWF in that you need two weapons.

Except that it hasn't always worked that way. 3.5, the basis for the Pathfinder game, expressly stated in the FAQ that a monk could use a single weapon for all their attacks in a flurry. The example given was a sai, I believe. Backwards compatibility with 3.5 is a very key selling point for Paizo, and the people behind Pathfinder have said, on numerous occassions, that if a rule is not explictly changed it remains the same.

Paizo's own writing staff, in every last single module, adventure path, and even their Gamemastery Guide have, to the best of my knowledge in 100% of the cases, published NPC stat-blocks of monks showing them using a single weapon in a flurry of blows. Published archetypes have made into books which have gone to print and placed on the market that make sense only if using the 3.5 style flurry with a single weapon.

I have no doubt of the sincerity on the part of Mr. Bulmahn that he intended for flurry to actually be two-weapon fighting from the beginning (with a clause that allows a monk use get all flurry attacks from unarmed strikes). But three years into the game is a little late for a clarification that breaks at least two, possibly three, archetypes, invalidates the stat-blocks of all published monk NPCs to date, and changes how the game itself is being played, by and large, by the community.

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, Paizo's employees are only human and we realize that they (on occassion) make mistakes. And they have been far more responsive to their customers than Wizards ever was. It just seems that sometimes, not always, but sometimes, good ideas get changed into useless ideas as a sacrifice on the altar of game-balance. That isn't a slur against Mr. Bulmahn, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Mona, or Mr. Byers--it happens in any publishing/editting line of work related to RPGs. These gentlemen have certainly been patient towards and worked with the community and I applaud their hard work and their efforts on making Pathfinder (that continuation of D&D) even better.

That being said, merely pointing out that something, like the Prone Shooter feat, has been changed to be an absolute waste of spending a feat, is not--in my own opinion--being disrepectful or a deliberate attack. It is pointing out a mistake (intentional or not) that quite possibly requires an errata.

Master Arminas


Axl wrote:

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? Paizo has important business to attend to for the conventions, like slating/hyping/presenting their upcoming product releases. Which will provide them revenue for the next year.

In all likelihood, there will not be any formal FAQ resolutions until the staff frees up from their urgent business. Its all economics, FAQs and clarifications are not subsidized or funded so they are considered a minor project.

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / The Prone Shooter Feat Does... Nothing? All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.