ACG Errata


Product Discussion

501 to 550 of 727 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

andreww wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Last year people talked about Wizards being obsolete with the Arcanist. Now people say it's s$+%.
Except you know that no-one is actually saying that. People are saying that Occultist isn't very good any more but the Arcanist itself remains very strong.

Except people have been saying it.


Some people have been saying any given thing. The majority opinion was that all 3 full casting arcane classes were remarkably balanced against each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Master E wrote:
Is it just me or did they give the Arcanist to much of a hit. The Arcane reservoir was the arcanists main class feature. You now need a 16 in charisma to get any good use out of consume spells making your Arcane reservoir extremely limited. You would most likely want to save one point to make sure you can use dimensional slide in case you get in to a jam. You would probably want to save a second point in case you need to use quick study to quickly get a spell that you didn't prepare. It also makes cthe occultist archetype (my personal favorite archetype) down right awful imho, especially when compared to a Summoner or wizard with acadmae graduate. It also makes it much harder for the Brown-fur transmuter to do its thing because they will use quite a lot of arcane reservoir points to increase to power of and hand out there buffs. Consume magic item can help alleviate some of the problem but it carries the same limitations as consume spells and is very expensive. Have a bit of an exploit tax also makes it harder to play any of the archetypes, who all give up a chunk of there exploits, and get all the exploits you want. I do except the arcanist was an extremely powerful class but I do think they nerfed it a bit to harshly. I think it would have been better implemented if they had done 3+cha or 2xCha.

Not remotely.....for a class that has as many goodies attached as an Arcanist, it is 110% correct for them to need 2 casting stats... and lets be honest 16 CHA really isnt that hard to get.

Summary.... Arcanist fan-boys you should be gracious, walk away quietly and realise they got off lightly!! ;))

Grand Lodge

that is a fair enough point


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Vrischika111 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

An excerpt from the "Ravingdork's Crazy Character Emporium" thread:

Ravingdork wrote:

CHARACTER ERRATA

Due to the extensive new errata for the Advanced Class Guide, numerous characters have been modified (almost universally for the worse) to better fit these official changes, as follows:

[edited]...lots of affected chars[/edited]

Several more characters, though they have not had to have their sheets adjusted, nevertheless function very differently now than was originally

...

I really like RD's chars and the way he builds them.

but to me this is the proof that lots of things needed the nerf.

if 75% of the chars were having divine protection : then it's too good.
(regardless of background)
if 50% of the chars were using spell consumption the whole day : it's too good.
if a feat is really good for you, whatever is your build, then it's too good.

I also think some feats were over-nerfed or have been nerfed while not needed.

but most of the changes are welcome and are based (as far as I can feel it) on forum's feedback.
"hey, 1 feat and I can give reach / fast healing to my whatever needs it" --> too good.

hey, I dip and I can access all arcane spells I want (+some other goodies) --> too good...

so yeah, keep on posting your builds/best ideas/nice combos (I do really like reading that) but don't be surprised when a build/idea/combo get nerfed because 95% of OP builds are using them

suppose they should deal with power attack then...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

also, on the OP talk, i've seen at least 1 person call 1 or so classes from the ACG OP.

brawler got to swap out feats?
Arcanist get's to choose it's spells known?
Swashbuckler gets dex to damage?
Slayer completely replaces the rogue?
Investigator completely replaces the rogue?
Shaman is too versatile
skald is like a beefed up barbarian
bloodrager is like a beefed up barbarian

well now that i think about it haven't really heard anything about hunter or warpriest, except maybe warpriest buffing is stronk.

Grand Lodge

Didn't buy it and glad I didn't - I was disappointed with how with the exception of the arcanist it seemed that a lot of play test advice was ignored. Bad technical editing and poor understanding of their own systems balance just seems (by the posts here and elsewhere) to have created a poor all around product.

Frankly I lost faith in Paizo's technical editing when they screwed up class features RIGHT there in their own rule books when they did the Sword Saint samurai archetype and with the many screw ups with Ultimate Combat. Not sure if they even bothered to errata the Sword saint yet either.

Happy to play the game but I don't buy the new stuff anymore (not since UC I think) - the quality has gone down hill whenever they have a major publishing deadline. I am happy to hear that MAYBE Occult Adventures may be of a better quality than this book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
shroudb wrote:

So in your opinion a feat that had a requirement of

bab +4 and either rage or bravery or flurry
and added your Strength bonus to all your saving throws would be balanced?

if only paizo loved us this much...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helaman wrote:

Didn't buy it and glad I didn't - I was disappointed with how with the exception of the arcanist it seemed that a lot of play test advice was ignored. Bad technical editing and poor understanding of their own systems balance just seems (by the posts here and elsewhere) to have created a poor all around product.

Frankly I lost faith in Paizo's technical editing when they screwed up class features RIGHT there in their own rule books when they did the Sword Saint samurai archetype and with the many screw ups with Ultimate Combat. Not sure if they even bothered to errata the Sword saint yet either.

Happy to play the game but I don't buy the new stuff anymore (not since UC I think) - the quality has gone down hill whenever they have a major publishing deadline. I am happy to hear that MAYBE Occult Adventures may be of a better quality than this book.

I'm right there with you. I stopped buying physical copies of books after the APG. There were some serious issues that very few folks around here recall because the community was so much smaller and the print runs were so much shorter. I decided at that point to only pick up PDFs.

UM and UC made me glad of that choice. The ACG was so rough that the PDF only rule got shaken. From now on it seems like PDF only if the (release +1 month) reviews don't have technical concerns.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
I think the arcanist change is because it's supposed to be a mix of wizard(int) and sorcerer(cha) and ended up being just int. Like dumping charisma to 7 like a wizard and still doing their thing wasn't what they wanted. They wanted it to be like the shaman where investing in Cha seems very rewarding.

Making it irrelevant if you had CHA 7-13 was not a good move, though. If we go by the official guidelines (like my GM does), you only get 15 points to buy a character. Putting 10 of those points into INT is a given (min-maxers probably will try for 17 points), so it is really not easy to at least get a 14 into CHA.

If you have a GM who routinely allows characters to be built with 20 points (like I do in my groups) or more, then the issue is of course not as obvious.

IMO, it probably should have been CHA bonus +1 uses per day, minimum one, so that putting a positive number into CHA would have had an effect before reaching CHA 14.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
forger03 wrote:
Here's to hoping that paizo takes note of the new feedback on their possibly rushed errata, which was prompted by guilt/feedback from their rushed book, and slowly and carefully craft improvements that make real differences and are not arbitrary or without necessity.

The ever-increasing size of errata to the RPG book line is disturbing. The developers told those expressing concern some years back as to the deleterious effects of churning out 3 RPG books a year is having on the quality and editing of those books to go fly a kite, for all practical purposes. Something to the effect of "We're getting money, that's all that matters", if memory serves.

The Advanced Player's Guide still stands head and shoulders above the rest of the RPG line precisely because they had a long enough development time to properly polish the book. Minimal errata. Excellent, thorough and longer playtesting.

I'm not shelling out $60+ a book with shipping when a book is going to get beaten half to death with ~200 - 300 pieces of errata after publication. It makes PFS characters get rebuilt or simply trashed. It makes a LOT of headaches for everyone else. That so much errata has become the norm for each book has me greatly concerned about Occult Adventures. How big is the errata pile going to be - should I wait until January 2016 so we can get a fully-errata'd PDF?

I'm really hoping that Occult Adventures breaks this trend. We'll see what the likely "mistakes in Occult Adventures" thread reveals.

I feel that Paizo's publishing schedule has become the anti-Paizo. They publish so many books because they seem to feel beholden to a specific release schedule come Hell or high water regardless of initial release quality across multiple product lines. In short, they've become the very thing that drove so many away from WotC to Paizo. You can't even run an AP anymore without some kind of online access at a bare minimum.

I understand that times and beliefs change. However, when beliefs change from "release good stuff when it's ready and not before" to "everything by subscription, we'll fix it whenever we get around to it", customers will act accordingly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, the "new rules" churn is rivaling the late 3.5 WotC fast release schedule by now. It's again getting to the point that there are too many new rules to keep up and care.

It seems to be an indicator for me that PF 2.0 is coming soon.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Errata was great.

Delay was not.

People got used to a new normal for too long.

Obvious things that had to be nerfed were nerfed (Consume X exploits, Divine Protection).

Some good clarifications.

Lots of things left unaddressed though (Strangler Brawler losing Unarmed Strike so it's harder for it to qualify for Grapple?!?)

Class balance issues left unsolved (most egregiously, Charmed Life not being a free action still stumps me).

Reposting before it gets buried by topic derailment.

I'd like some impressions to this.

I would say that seems fairly accurate.

Some of these things needed to be. If you can consume spells/items all day, it makes a cruel joke out of "you'll run out of reservoir for your ridiculously powerful exploits EVENTUALLY" compared to things like Ki or Panache pools, which deplete very quickly if you're doing cool stuff. Divine Protection was a ridiculously powerful feat, although turning it into a once-per-day charmed life has made it into a joke instead. I'm not that flustered about it, it's just one of the MANY chaff feats we ignore when making characters now.

Charmed Life had to be an immediate action, unfortunately, because I don't believe you can do it in response to something targeting you as a free action. If you are, I do agree that would have been a much better errata, because necessarily immediate or not, Charmed Life is a g&+~$#n anchor around the Swashbuckler's neck by making its primary form of defense have anti-synergy with every other class feature the Swashbuckler's got, and all the exclusive parry/riposte in the world won't make people want to play a class that is fighting its own action economy as much as the enemy. Some of the deed restrictions also makes me wonder what exactly Paizo was expecting. Did they think people were going to be purchasing Amateur Swashbuckler and all those panache things for Derring-Do? They are really out of touch if it surprised them that much that Precise Strike and Parry/Riposte were the stars of the show. I don't see much point to Arcane Deed post-errata; it seems like after you get Flamboyant Arcana, nothing's really worth investing another Arcana into stealing Swashbuckler things.

Overall, between Divine Protection AND Steadfast Personality AND Twist Away being weakened, it seems to me that classes with bad saves are forced to go crawling back to Iron Will and Great Fortitude. Yay...?


magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, the "new rules" churn is rivaling the late 3.5 WotC fast release schedule by now. It's again getting to the point that there are too many new rules to keep up and care.

It seems to be an indicator for me that PF 2.0 is coming soon.

Let us hope that they are smart enough to provide a full-schedule "chill out" period, unlike WotC's "continual publication until days before 4e" madness.

To give a concrete monetary example: APG, UC & UM Missus Turin and I maintained RPG line subscriptions for. In current prices, Paizo made $120 a book w/ shipping from our household for each book. The errata-pile for UM made Missus Turin cancel her subscription in disgust. My RPG line subscription held out a little longer.

Instead of making $120/book from one household, they now make $10/book *if* we like the idea of the book. There are several we haven't even bought the PDF for.

If they want to continue to lose money in this scale, they're welcome to continue with current practices. I don't mind cherry-picking PDFs for less than 10% of what I had been happily paying. I can spend that money elsewhere, at another company.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't confuse a vocal minority for the state of the game. That a lot of people are complaining is only proof that Pathfinder is a very popular game with a very large player base.

Sovereign Court

Milo v3 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


Uh... Brawler? Both the base class and archetype varieties. As well as the Sohei Monk.

Oh yay, light armour. /End sarcasm/

I want an unarmed character in real armour.

Brawlers actually do quite well in heavy armor - they just don't start with proficiency. Just have them dip a level into fighter or some other heavy armor class.

Really - that's a very solid way to go. If you're going a STR build you need the heavy armor for AC, and if you're going a dex build you might as well be a monk.


The dex Brawler can get AC with a Haramaki and a shield, and not worry about pesky max dex limits, while having plenty of armor.

Bonus: The haramaki can be adamantine, granting the brawler DR 1/-.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Don't confuse a vocal minority for the state of the game. That a lot of people are complaining is only proof that Pathfinder is a very popular game with a very large player base.

I know the state of the game as what I and my circle of associates/friends/players perceive it to be. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that the brawler has shield proficiency and can manage a mithral breastplate by using Armor Expert trait, they don't really need heavy armor. They're doing pretty well on the AC front. Having a shield and armor to enhance is beneficial due to how the price on enhancing 1 item works out versus two. The price of a single +3 armor is greater than having a +2 armor and +2 shield, but the later results in 1 more AC at 1000 less gold cost.


Cheapy wrote:

Wait, people actually thought Divine Protection was balanced?

Huh.

Haven't found it to unbalanced in play. I have found it a little unfair the poor fighter still get dominated why that cleric is beating every will save coming their way and still failing the reflex even the bonus.

Had an oracle take it but not till level 15, he had too many feat he wanted first. My Inquisitor took it at level 13 and I'm thinking or retraining it out now. Not getting as much use out of it as I thought. Favored Judgement would be better.

Only issue I took with this feat was it was ripping off a class feature of the paladin. Eldrich Heritage took 2 feats to get a gave you a sorcerers class feature a less ability due class -3 for sorcerer level. Personally I think Divine Protection should be kept but at 1/2 CHR minimum +1. So you wouldn't even get +2 till 18 CHR. Also I'd make it cost another feat. Say Skill Focus Religion.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand how Paizo missed the Strangler brawler archetype completely.

There have been so many threads and posts about it just not functioning, yet the only thing that was changed was the Brawler's Kit.
Really?

It loses Improved Unarmed Strike, which is a prerequisite for Improved Grapple.
Which means that, if you're not a human, good luck functioning at 1st level.
But, oh wait! You can use Martial Flexibility to get it!
Because that solves the problem.

And yet it is supposed to focus on grappling?


magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, the "new rules" churn is rivaling the late 3.5 WotC fast release schedule by now. It's again getting to the point that there are too many new rules to keep up and care.

It seems to be an indicator for me that PF 2.0 is coming soon.

I don't think you'll see PF 2.0 coming any time soon. I think we may see a halt of PF RPG books coming out. Maybe focus on different genres like PF SciFi RPG. There is enough PF RPG content to feed the campaign setting for year. Pathfinder Online will also drive sales. I mean that's how I ended up playing pen/paper RPGs back in the day. Started with BBS MUDs on the Apple IIe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow. With all the changes, my hardcopy of ACG is pretty much useless, since I now have to cross-reference the errata.

Honestly, this makes me think twice about purchasing upcoming hardbacks from Paizo until at least a year after they are out.

Not trying to be a jerk. The money is part of it, but its also the fact that I have something occupying my bookshelf that just isn't accurate.


THe ACG was never accurate, that is why we have an errata before the 2nd printing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wszebor Uriev wrote:

Wow. With all the changes, my hardcopy of ACG is pretty much useless, since I now have to cross-reference the errata.

Honestly, this makes me think twice about purchasing upcoming hardbacks from Paizo until at least a year after they are out.

Not trying to be a jerk. The money is part of it, but its also the fact that I have something occupying my bookshelf that just isn't accurate.

I tend to have to wait to purchase books anyway, just because of a lack of funds, but the ACG was pretty clearly an outlier in Paizo's publishing history. Both Unchained and OA seem to be much higher in quality. So, please don't make grand sweeping gestures based on one badly crafted book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
voska66 wrote:
I don't think you'll see PF 2.0 coming any time soon. I think we may see a halt of PF RPG books coming out. Maybe focus on different genres like PF SciFi RPG. There is enough PF RPG content to feed the campaign setting for year. Pathfinder Online will also drive sales. I mean that's how I ended up playing pen/paper RPGs back in the day. Started with BBS MUDs on the Apple IIe.

We had some megathreads a few months back where people went back and forth on the issue. I am actually tired of discussing it, since some people have this weird belief that Paizo would never, ever betray them by bringing out PF 2.0, even if it meant that they'd unemploy themselves by doing so. So, I'll leave it with the small mention I made in the context of what Turin wrote. We'll see in a few years, anyway. GenCon this year would actually be the best time for Paizo to announce that they are working on PF 2.0, since they seem to have used up all the design space by now for new classes with Occult Adventures (even with the Vigilante).

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a few unhelpful/baiting posts. Let's dial back the grar and snark here, guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Wszebor Uriev wrote:

Wow. With all the changes, my hardcopy of ACG is pretty much useless, since I now have to cross-reference the errata.

Honestly, this makes me think twice about purchasing upcoming hardbacks from Paizo until at least a year after they are out.

Not trying to be a jerk. The money is part of it, but its also the fact that I have something occupying my bookshelf that just isn't accurate.

I tend to have to wait to purchase books anyway, just because of a lack of funds, but the ACG was pretty clearly an outlier in Paizo's publishing history. Both Unchained and OA seem to be much higher in quality. So, please don't make grand sweeping gestures based on one badly crafted book.

Actually, being someone who always buys first printings and feeling like an extended playtester after one or more rounds of errata is a problem I also have and have heard mentioned around my two tables, too. It's coming to the point where I seriously think about just purchasing the PDF, printing it out and having it bound into a hardcover, until at least a second printing is available. I am not made out of money and I find it quite frustrating that about every hardcover I own is partially invalidated by now.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Wszebor Uriev wrote:

Wow. With all the changes, my hardcopy of ACG is pretty much useless, since I now have to cross-reference the errata.

Honestly, this makes me think twice about purchasing upcoming hardbacks from Paizo until at least a year after they are out.

Not trying to be a jerk. The money is part of it, but its also the fact that I have something occupying my bookshelf that just isn't accurate.

you CAN write in your book :P

edit: i only ever buy pdf


magnuskn wrote:
I am not made out of money and I find it quite frustrating that about every hardcover I own is partially invalidated by now.

What books besides the ACG are you referring to?


voska66 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, the "new rules" churn is rivaling the late 3.5 WotC fast release schedule by now. It's again getting to the point that there are too many new rules to keep up and care.

It seems to be an indicator for me that PF 2.0 is coming soon.

I don't think you'll see PF 2.0 coming any time soon. I think we may see a halt of PF RPG books coming out. Maybe focus on different genres like PF SciFi RPG. There is enough PF RPG content to feed the campaign setting for year. Pathfinder Online will also drive sales. I mean that's how I ended up playing pen/paper RPGs back in the day. Started with BBS MUDs on the Apple IIe.

While they might dial back the releases (at this point there is probably more need for Campaign Setting hardcovers than campaign neutral ones), I don't think they will stop releasing books until they announce a new edition. If they stopped the main RPG line...what would the RPG development line people do? I'm pretty Jason, Mark, and everyone else would rather have a job than...not have one.


Yeah I can't say I have heard any significant editing complaints in books since ACG.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I am not made out of money and I find it quite frustrating that about every hardcover I own is partially invalidated by now.
What books besides the ACG are you referring to?

Every older hardcover non-setting book has received significant errata by now, even if it isn't as extensive as the ACG. Hence, all the first printings are inaccurate in many places. If you don't think that this is annoying, well, I can't change how you feel about things.

Silver Crusade

shroudb wrote:
i mean it was maybe the single worst designed feat that paizo published, and it deserved to be burned

[Thread derail] let's not exaggerate. There are a LOT worse. My vote for worst feat ever is Sacred Geometry. [/thread derail]


I believe your expectations may be unrealistic. Making a large rules book is a very error prone process. And I really doubt that your playing experience has been affected by many non-ACG errata.


MMCJawa wrote:

While they might dial back the releases (at this point there is probably more need for Campaign Setting hardcovers than campaign neutral ones), I don't think they will stop releasing books until they announce a new edition. If they stopped the main RPG line...what would the RPG development line people do? I'm pretty Jason, Mark, and everyone else would rather have a job than...not have one.

This thread's topic tells me they could not produce anything but the two Bestiaries this year and next before they'd be done polishing what's been cranked out the past few years. ;)


shroudb wrote:

you must agree to one or the other:

either divine protection was valuable ONLY for oracles, in which case it was a very, very good thing it got obliterated
OR
divine protection was open to a bunch more classes so it was more widely available, so there is no problem if every martial class had it's equivalent

you can't have it both ways, sorry

False.

If something would benefit martials it needs to be worse than the caster option. That is how the game was balanced in the CRB and the devs are committed to not addressing any possible problems that could stem from that because "it would be unhealthy for the game to address system wide issues with additional content". Therefore martials must have worse options.


bigrig107 wrote:

I don't understand how Paizo missed the Strangler brawler archetype completely.

There have been so many threads and posts about it just not functioning, yet the only thing that was changed was the Brawler's Kit.
Really?

It loses Improved Unarmed Strike, which is a prerequisite for Improved Grapple.
Which means that, if you're not a human, good luck functioning at 1st level.
But, oh wait! You can use Martial Flexibility to get it!
Because that solves the problem.

And yet it is supposed to focus on grappling?

Because they only fixed (some of) the stuff in the bigass "Potential Problems with the Advanced Class Guide" thread and didn't look much of anywhere else, according to Mark.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:

I don't understand how Paizo missed the Strangler brawler archetype completely.

There have been so many threads and posts about it just not functioning, yet the only thing that was changed was the Brawler's Kit.
Really?

It loses Improved Unarmed Strike, which is a prerequisite for Improved Grapple.
Which means that, if you're not a human, good luck functioning at 1st level.
But, oh wait! You can use Martial Flexibility to get it!
Because that solves the problem.

And yet it is supposed to focus on grappling?

Because they only fixed (some of) the stuff in the bigass "Potential Problems with the Advanced Class Guide" thread and didn't look much of anywhere else, according to Mark.

That's not quite what I said. We also looked at plenty of other data and performed editing passes (including an external editor), but searching the forums for every thread that showed up is just not possible to do. My forum presence (and percentage of threads that I read) is, I think we'll all agree, extremely high, and even I can't keep up with everything. So if you are going to make a post on the forum and you want it to be considered for the errata of a particular book, I strongly recommend using the consolidated threads.


Rynjin wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:

I don't understand how Paizo missed the Strangler brawler archetype completely.

There have been so many threads and posts about it just not functioning, yet the only thing that was changed was the Brawler's Kit.
Really?

It loses Improved Unarmed Strike, which is a prerequisite for Improved Grapple.
Which means that, if you're not a human, good luck functioning at 1st level.
But, oh wait! You can use Martial Flexibility to get it!
Because that solves the problem.

And yet it is supposed to focus on grappling?

Because they only fixed (some of) the stuff in the bigass "Potential Problems with the Advanced Class Guide" thread and didn't look much of anywhere else, according to Mark.

That'd be a problem.

Was the debacle that was the Strangler not mentioned in that thread?
Honestly, I haven't read all of it, as I figured someone else would read it.


that was the problem with the potential errata thread, once it's so many pages long people wont read to see if their issue was addressed or not. So if you'd have a first post that you could edit and add issues as they were determined to need to be looked at it would make it easy to see if a problem you found was found already, but as it is most people assume that someone must have mentioned it in a thread that long


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PMSchulz wrote:
Well, that kind of hurts my fencer magus. The whole point of doing him this way was to get the low and mid-level swashbuckler abilities to try and match the creature he is modeled after (The Night Fox enemy from the Dragon Quest series of games). Having your arcane pool not count as your panache pool, and that your swashbuckler level is zero for all abilities pretty much makes that arcana pointless.

And removing Opportune Parry and Riposte from the Flamboyant Arcana list pretty much makes that arcana pointless too.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For those asking, the Strangler issue was mentioned in Deadmanwalking's post


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
I believe your expectations may be unrealistic. Making a large rules book is a very error prone process. And I really doubt that your playing experience has been affected by many non-ACG errata.

In small ways, it has over the years. Situations like "No, you can't do this anymore, they erratae'd it" have come up multiple times.

And I know that it is better to errata than not, but it still makes me feel like I misinvested money in getting the first printings and now being stuck with them.


Xethik wrote:
For those asking, the Strangler issue was mentioned in Deadmanwalking's post

Your link kept producing a weird error. Something about making too many requests for the same page. So here is a new one.

Silver Crusade

Gisher wrote:
PMSchulz wrote:
Well, that kind of hurts my fencer magus. The whole point of doing him this way was to get the low and mid-level swashbuckler abilities to try and match the creature he is modeled after (The Night Fox enemy from the Dragon Quest series of games). Having your arcane pool not count as your panache pool, and that your swashbuckler level is zero for all abilities pretty much makes that arcana pointless.
And removing Opportune Parry and Riposte from the Flamboyant Arcana list pretty much makes that arcana pointless too.

Oh man, I didn't know that...that's just toxic, was the Swashbuckler complaining other people could do this relatively cool thing?


N. Jolly wrote:
Gisher wrote:
PMSchulz wrote:
Well, that kind of hurts my fencer magus. The whole point of doing him this way was to get the low and mid-level swashbuckler abilities to try and match the creature he is modeled after (The Night Fox enemy from the Dragon Quest series of games). Having your arcane pool not count as your panache pool, and that your swashbuckler level is zero for all abilities pretty much makes that arcana pointless.
And removing Opportune Parry and Riposte from the Flamboyant Arcana list pretty much makes that arcana pointless too.
Oh man, I didn't know that...that's just toxic, was the Swashbuckler complaining other people could do this relatively cool thing?

Well, the Swashbuckler chassis is non-functional at a fundamental level that they can't fix in an errata. So instead they just made P+R a Swashbuckler exclusive... which only works to pull the other classes that used it down, rather than pull the Swashbuckler up.


I don't think errata free books is actually a thing that can happen. You can minimize it for sure (something which ACG obviously didn't), but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well, the Swashbuckler chassis is non-functional at a fundamental level that they can't fix in an errata. So instead they just made P+R a Swashbuckler exclusive... which only works to pull the other classes that used it down, rather than pull the Swashbuckler up.

So the Swashbuckler's curse of only being a decent dip class continues? P/R was really cool (especially post CRANE WING), sad to know it's needlessly limited now. Jeez man, these erratas are straight poison for the most part. I'm praying to anyone listening that Occult Adventures isn't this garbled.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gisher wrote:
Xethik wrote:
For those asking, the Strangler issue was mentioned in Deadmanwalking's post
Your link kept producing a weird error. Something about making too many requests for the same page. So here is a new one.

Thanks, not sure what happened there.

501 to 550 of 727 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / ACG Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.