Why all the nerfs Paizo?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

601 to 650 of 923 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

People have explained, and explained, and explained to you why none of those options actually work, including that EXACT SCENARIO if you'll recall.

Not our fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong.

No Ryn, you are the one who refuses to admit when you are wrong. I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre. Your answer, the only real rebuke you have even tried, has been:

"Well what if I don't wanna run a game like that?"

And I tell you, for the millionth time, then you can't complain about it.

Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

Time to play my "concept" character, sorceress who uses first level spells and summon monster 2-9 with a max of 19 cha.

Oh wow I still stomp all over optimized martial toes!

Maybe I should just randomly throw dice at the GM during my turn to keep my optimization from being too high.

EDIT: Feeling like "HWalsh" is code for hogwash. Maybe its' just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Samy wrote:
JJ has specifically stated several times that he's not a "rules guy". He's a campaign setting guy for the most part.
It isn't a matter of being the official "front man" for rules. It's a matter of not awknowleding a problem in the core of a system he writes for AND actively denouncing those people who would draw attention to the problem as liars trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons.

There is indeed a big difference between:

"I don't see the caster/martial disparity in my games"
and
"I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas."

I think there is also a difference between:

"actively denouncing those people who would draw attention to the problem as liars trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons."
and
"I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas."

Also I see this is a pretty great sign that people don't want to hear the developers talk ever. This post is from two years ago and it will never stop being brought up.


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

honestly, you can just put like 3 rope tricks in a room and then sleep in any one of them if the enemy starts using that tactic, it would be a waste of resources sure, but then we'd just rope trick again when we ran out.


Rynjin wrote:


The thing with a caster is, there really is a spell for everything, and any given trick will probably only work once. The more experienced...

Of course any given trick only works once.

That is why there are variants.

The point is to make a caster think, "Okay. The evil lord McBadguy might have some kind of trap in place. I could get us there in a flash with teleport but... That could end badly for me. Maybe it might be better if we saddle up the horses and ride instead."

Or it makes the caster think, "Okay. I could cast Summon Monster right now... But it might be better to let the Monk and the Barbarian handle this one... We might need it later."

Or they think, "Okay. If I hold off on casting... For now... We can travel further. If we only have so much time to do this, the more time we can spend adventuring the less time we waste sleeping."

These are all the same kinds of tricks and comments and advice that we have gotten for years and years and years and years from the official makers of games like this. Heck the sleep interruption stuff specifically was from Dragon Magazine back in the day.

You can argue that, "Just because these have been in use forever doesn't mean that they should still be in use now." That, however, doesn't change the fact that the game we play now still has the same limitations built into it meaning, obviously, it is still a mechanic that we are expected to deal with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:

If you don't mind, let's stick with your car analogy for a bit.

Pathfinder is a car which chugs along just fine at 35 miles an hour. which is where the devs designed it to work. However, some people want to drive it on the freeway, at 55 miles an hour. At that speed, the car shakes, rattles, and leaks. Other folks might even want to drive it on the open road, where the speed limit goes up to 70 miles an hour. At that speed, the car blows up like a Pinto.

Despite this, the car is supposedly designed as and marketed towards every driver on the road, fully capable of driving at high speeds.

Or, to drop the analogy, if the devs don't want players optimize the slightest bit, they shouldn't make a system that strongly rewards optimization. If the system can't handle people driving at 70, then don't make rules that allow people to drive at 100.

So, just so we're clear, you cannot quote any designer in regards to optimization? I'm not asking to score a debate point, I'm honestly curious to know if they think they are designing for actual optimization or not. I love all the work that goes into refitting monsters and such for my PCs, but not everyone does.

With regards to the analogy though, I think that Pathfinder is a car that works great at 45mph. At 60mph, it is maxed out, but still moves along. But the car engine itself can reach far higher speeds, and more importantly, many drivers expect it to be able to, even though the tires, body, and other parts of the car are shaking apart.

So when I come along, driving at 90mph, and I have a conversation with you, who likes to drive at 120, I refer to you as a 'fast driver'. But you know some people who cruise at 150, so to you, I'm just a slow driver, you're an average driver, and this other guy (Let's call him Kirth, just to be funny) is a fast driver.

Meanwhile, to the actual designers of the car, they are referring to 'people who drive 50-60mph' as fast drivers, and we're all just utter maniacs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the way, how long do martials last without a steady stream of buffs and magical healing?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.
Dude. Dispel Magic, it's a 3rd level spell.

Dude. Keep up.

Last time you brought THIS up I pointed out to you that Dispel Magic doesn't work on Rope Trick.

It's in the description of the spell, man.

"Creatures in the extra-dimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes."

I don't want to contribute to a derail, but...

Spoiler:
You can cast dispel magic on the rope trick, right? Sure, you can't kill them inside the extradimensional space, but you can prep outside it and then force them out.


Lemmy wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

Wow... The "Gary Gygax did it!" fallacy.... Hadn't seen one of those in a long time... Careful, everyone! It's an antique!

(BTW, GG would be considered a horrible GM by modern standards)

Well, he was, at one time, the absolute best DM in the world.

Of course, he was also, at the exact same time, the absolute worst DM in the world, due to being the only one.


Rynjin wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


"Creatures in the extra-dimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes."

You can still cast it to dispel the rope trick. You just can't target the people on the other side through it. Dispel the rope trick and everyone on the other side falls out (likely very surprised and disheveled) to be dumped on the floor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except the game we play now has more and more options to mitigate those downsides.

Making the caster paranoid is all well and good...but it doesn't actually do anything. Like, at worst:

-So we Teleport to like a mile outside of the place instead of using weeks of travel on horseback.

Which invalidates:

-"There's only so much time we have to do this" since you just f@~%ing saved 2 weeks worth of travel.

This:

"Or it makes the caster think, "Okay. I could cast Summon Monster right now... But it might be better to let the Monk and the Barbarian handle this one... We might need it later.""

Doesn't even make any sense. Kudos, the caster has basic resource management skills. That's not shutting him down in any way. it's just the caster choosing not to waste a spell when the encounter is easy enough for the beatstiks to handle it. What was this even supposed to prove?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Samy wrote:
JJ has specifically stated several times that he's not a "rules guy". He's a campaign setting guy for the most part.
It isn't a matter of being the official "front man" for rules. It's a matter of not awknowleding a problem in the core of a system he writes for AND actively denouncing those people who would draw attention to the problem as liars trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons.

There is indeed a big difference between:

"I don't see the caster/martial disparity in my games"
and
"I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas."

I think there is also a difference between:

"actively denouncing those people who would draw attention to the problem as liars trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons."
and
"I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas."

Also I see this is a pretty great sign that people don't want to hear the developers talk ever. This post is from two years ago and it will never stop being brought up.

Well... no, those two phrases really are the same thing. A person who propagates myths because they have an agenda is synonymous with a liar trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons. Unless you think James was referring to a positive agenda, which, given the context, I find highly unlikely.


Rhedyn wrote:

By the way, how long do martials last without a steady stream of buffs and magical healing?

How is this anything other than the utmost subjective of a question possible?

If I said "Forever", "Months" or even "All day", you'd no doubt be incredulous. And that's just comparing two people's games.

I can't imagine how anything other than answers that serve to reinforce your own personal perspective would be considered as viable by you, making the entire question simply an exercise in argumentum ad populum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

If you don't mind, let's stick with your car analogy for a bit.

Pathfinder is a car which chugs along just fine at 35 miles an hour. which is where the devs designed it to work. However, some people want to drive it on the freeway, at 55 miles an hour. At that speed, the car shakes, rattles, and leaks. Other folks might even want to drive it on the open road, where the speed limit goes up to 70 miles an hour. At that speed, the car blows up like a Pinto.

Despite this, the car is supposedly designed as and marketed towards every driver on the road, fully capable of driving at high speeds.

Or, to drop the analogy, if the devs don't want players optimize the slightest bit, they shouldn't make a system that strongly rewards optimization. If the system can't handle people driving at 70, then don't make rules that allow people to drive at 100.

So, just so we're clear, you cannot quote any designer in regards to optimization? I'm not asking to score a debate point, I'm honestly curious to know if they think they are designing for actual optimization or not. I love all the work that goes into refitting monsters and such for my PCs, but not everyone does.

With regards to the analogy though, I think that Pathfinder is a car that works great at 45mph. At 60mph, it is maxed out, but still moves along. But the car engine itself can reach far higher speeds, and more importantly, many drivers expect it to be able to, even though the tires, body, and other parts of the car are shaking apart.

So when I come along, driving at 90mph, and I have a conversation with you, who likes to drive at 120, I refer to you as a 'fast driver'. But you know some people who cruise at 150, so to you, I'm just a slow driver, you're an average driver, and this other guy (Let's call him Kirth, just to be funny) is a fast driver.

Meanwhile, to the actual designers of the car, they are referring to 'people who drive 50-60mph' as fast drivers, and we're all just utter maniacs.

As dead as this metaphor is, I am not done with it!

A journey of all sports cars goes pretty well. A journey of 3 sports cars and 1 beat up 92 shevy is going to be a frustrating experience. What if the sports cars don't want to drag the old car?

PF can be a lot like that. It works fine at higher speeds if everyone is going that fast. A good chunk of the PF lot just can't go that fast.


Kain Darkwind wrote:


So, just so we're clear, you cannot quote any designer in regards to optimization? I'm not asking to score a debate point, I'm honestly curious to know if they think they are designing for actual optimization or not. I love all the work that goes into refitting monsters and such for my PCs, but not everyone does.

With regards to the analogy though, I think that Pathfinder is a car that works great at 45mph. At 60mph, it is maxed out, but still moves along. But the car engine itself can reach far higher speeds, and more importantly, many drivers expect it to be able to, even though the tires, body, and other parts of the car are shaking apart.

So when I come along, driving at 90mph, and I have a conversation with you, who likes to drive at 120, I refer to you as a 'fast driver'. But you know some people who cruise at 150, so to you, I'm just a slow driver, you're an average driver, and this other guy (Let's call him Kirth, just to be funny) is a fast driver.

Meanwhile, to the actual designers of the car, they are referring to 'people who drive 50-60mph' as fast drivers, and we're all just utter maniacs.

Its actually very standard game design logic not to design a game for the "best of the best" players. You want to design for the median. That by the very nature indicates that no designer designs with optimization in mind.

"On the very first playing, even a below-average player should be able to successfully traverse the game sequence." - Chris Crawford

(Yeah, he's not a Paizo dev, he's a game designer though. That is accepted logic at this point in time.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

By the way, how long do martials last without a steady stream of buffs and magical healing?

How is this anything other than the utmost subjective of a question possible?

If I said "Forever", "Months" or even "All day", you'd no doubt be incredulous. And that's just comparing two people's games.

I can't imagine how anything other than answers that serve to reinforce your own personal perspective would be considered as viable by you, making the entire question simply an exercise in argumentum ad populum.

Just because the answer is, "Martials are like infants drinking magic like milk just to survive" does not mean there is no answer or that the question was silly. It's Paizo martials that are silly.


HWalsh wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

So, just so we're clear, you cannot quote any designer in regards to optimization? I'm not asking to score a debate point, I'm honestly curious to know if they think they are designing for actual optimization or not. I love all the work that goes into refitting monsters and such for my PCs, but not everyone does.

With regards to the analogy though, I think that Pathfinder is a car that works great at 45mph. At 60mph, it is maxed out, but still moves along. But the car engine itself can reach far higher speeds, and more importantly, many drivers expect it to be able to, even though the tires, body, and other parts of the car are shaking apart.

So when I come along, driving at 90mph, and I have a conversation with you, who likes to drive at 120, I refer to you as a 'fast driver'. But you know some people who cruise at 150, so to you, I'm just a slow driver, you're an average driver, and this other guy (Let's call him Kirth, just to be funny) is a fast driver.

Meanwhile, to the actual designers of the car, they are referring to 'people who drive 50-60mph' as fast drivers, and we're all just utter maniacs.

Its actually very standard game design logic not to design a game for the "best of the best" players. You want to design for the median. That by the very nature indicates that no designer designs with optimization in mind.

"On the very first playing, even a below-average player should be able to successfully traverse the game sequence." - Chris Crawford

(Yeah, he's not a Paizo dev, he's a game designer though. That is accepted logic at this point in time.)

If a good player is breaking your game, then clearly you did not intend for your game to be played long.

I guess you are advocating that we should have all moved on from pathfinder by now.


Rhedyn wrote:
I guess you are advocating that we should have all moved on from pathfinder by now.

Its not a matter of "moved on" Rhedyn - Roleplaying Games are not competitive MMOs where everyone should be concerned with "hitting their benchmarks" as it were.

RPGs are about a player playing a character.

If Ringlefoot the Halfling Rogue wants to drop a few skill points in Perform because his player rationalizes that he would have picked up some sweet dance moves, and maybe he should spend less points in Stealth even though that means less opportunities to use his sneak attack... He shouldn't be seen as a lump because he's not optimized.

Edit:

Note:
And I, as Ringlefoot's GM, am also obligated to take that into consideration and eventually have a space in the game where Ringlefoot's dancing experience comes into play.

That is part of what being a GM is about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The hilarious part is car metaphor that Pathfinder works better at very high optimization (c.f. the Ask Ashiel thread). It's only when you bring a beginner (or worse, a group of all beginners, including a beginner GM) into the game that it really breaks.
If the designers' "intention" was for Pathfinder to be played by beginners at low optimization, they failed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
I guess you are advocating that we should have all moved on from pathfinder by now.

Its not a matter of "moved on" Rhedyn - Roleplaying Games are not competitive MMOs where everyone should be concerned with "hitting their benchmarks" as it were.

RPGs are about a player playing a character.

If Ringlefoot the Halfling Rogue wants to drop a few skill points in Perform because his player rationalizes that he would have picked up some sweet dance moves, and maybe he should spend less points in Stealth even though that means less opportunities to use his sneak attack... He shouldn't be seen as a lump because he's not optimized.

Well Ringlefoot is a rogue so he is going to be dead weight in any party mid levels or higher.

I built a DSP psion that put all her skill ranks into craft because she likes to make things. I have every craft. I also have powers that let me craft mundane items instantly. It's not as useful as having a bunch of knowledges but I have fun with it and it contributes. My decision is a valid option and helps the party.

If you are motivated about something, then be good at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
I guess you are advocating that we should have all moved on from pathfinder by now.

Its not a matter of "moved on" Rhedyn - Roleplaying Games are not competitive MMOs where everyone should be concerned with "hitting their benchmarks" as it were.

RPGs are about a player playing a character.

If Ringlefoot the Halfling Rogue wants to drop a few skill points in Perform because his player rationalizes that he would have picked up some sweet dance moves, and maybe he should spend less points in Stealth even though that means less opportunities to use his sneak attack... He shouldn't be seen as a lump because he's not optimized.

Edit:

Note:
And I, as Ringlefoot's GM, am also obligated to take that into consideration and eventually have a space in the game where Ringlefoot's dancing experience comes into play.

That is part of what being a GM is about.

Please stop being on my side.

Liberty's Edge

Rhedyn wrote:
If a good player is breaking your game, then clearly you did not intend for your game to be played long.

That's been false for me at least on two separate occasions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Its not a matter of "moved on" Rhedyn - Roleplaying Games are not competitive MMOs where everyone should be concerned with "hitting their benchmarks" as it were.

RPGs are about a player playing a character.

If Ringlefoot the Halfling Rogue wants to drop a few skill points in Perform because his player rationalizes that he would have picked up some sweet dance moves, and maybe he should spend less points in Stealth even though that means less opportunities to use his sneak attack... He shouldn't be seen as a lump because he's not optimized.

And what makes PF any better to "play a character" than 5th ed or Fate or Gurps etc etc etc.?

The fact is that at the end of the day you don't pick a roleplaying game for the roleplaying part you want that to be there and you want it to not get in the way but what you want is the framework that the game is providing and that framework is like 75% numbers and 25% just enough content to make those numbers work for your ideas. This is true in PF and in DnD and in many other systems to varying degrees.

If you want to just play a character and not be a useless lump for not optimizing then play a purely narrative game those exist and they do the job of taking out the math much better than trying to force a game built on the math ever will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
If a good player is breaking your game, then clearly you did not intend for your game to be played long.
That's been false for me at least on two separate occasions.

I should add a caveat, "if things are working as intended". Idk why someone would intend for their game to break.

Liberty's Edge

Rhedyn wrote:
Samy wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
If a good player is breaking your game, then clearly you did not intend for your game to be played long.
That's been false for me at least on two separate occasions.
I should add a caveat, "if things are working as intended". Idk why someone would intend for their game to break.

Well, in these specific cases, there was no intent for the game to break, but the optimized character brought in did so nonetheless.

Ironically enough, the characters that started making the car shake apart were a paladin, ranger and fighter -- all three martials.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well... no, those two phrases really are the same thing. A person who propagates myths because they have an agenda is synonymous with a liar trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons. Unless you think James was referring to a positive agenda, which, given the context, I find highly unlikely.

I disagree that they are synonymous even if he isn't referring to it in a positive light.

Whether it is positive or negative there are some aspects of the game that people would like corrected with martial characters against spellcasting characters and I would define the goal to correct that as an agenda even if one isn't "devious or unworthy".

I also have an agenda, I would like people to hold off on reinterpreting what other people have said. Or at the very least not also make the argument that they want the devs to be more involved or talk more as they do so.

I feel that if that one line was insulting as being interpreted here and looked at the many posts here in the same way then removed those of similar nature, there would be virtually nothing left in this thread.


Samy wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Samy wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
If a good player is breaking your game, then clearly you did not intend for your game to be played long.
That's been false for me at least on two separate occasions.
I should add a caveat, "if things are working as intended". Idk why someone would intend for their game to break.

Well, in these specific cases, there was no intent for the game to break, but the optimized character brought in did so nonetheless.

Ironically enough, the characters that started making the car shake apart were a paladin, ranger and fighter -- all three martials.

Martials tend to start the rattling. High ACs. High Saves. Big damage. It forces casters to start applying themselves to keep up, and once casters really start working at it, the martials quickly become irrelevant.

One of the campaigns I'm in started breaking apart because of a synthesist summoner who play like a martial started disbalancing everything. Endless rules discussions happen between the wizard, GM, and druid each session. Chained summoners have been banned from future campaigns by that GM.

Liberty's Edge

Rhedyn wrote:
Martials tend to start the rattling. High ACs. High Saves. Big damage. It forces casters to start applying themselves to keep up, and once casters really start working at it, the martials quickly become irrelevant.

Well, assuming that the casters have the sorts of players who 1) care about the differential, 2) bother to try to do anything about it, and 3) are good enough to be able to anything about it. That's a lot of assumptions, and in both of my groups, all three did not hold; thus the martials continued to dominate.


Rynjin wrote:

Because not everyone is a GM, and not everyone's GM agrees with them on balance or what nerfs or houserules should be used.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for some people around here.

"Just houserule it or ignore it" is a meaningless piece of advice. Maybe I don't want a houserules document as thick as a novella.

It also affects ease of access to the material. The PRD and SRD change to reflect errata. So now I have to dig out my PDF, and it's harder to browse.

http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-archive/threads/114093 1

I get the impression that stance is one of either a long term GM or a player wgo only plays in his insular group of friends. Not everyone is so lucky, and oftentimes we wanderers or people who play on a first-come basis have no "static group" or regular party whose houserules serve as a reliable expectation. We don't shut ourselves up in our social circles.

RAW provides a neutral, central frame of reference that can be expected from most if not all groups until a GM tells their group otherwise.

So no, its not a shield, its standard practice, and honestly its rather small-minded of you to imply what you did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well... no, those two phrases really are the same thing. A person who propagates myths because they have an agenda is synonymous with a liar trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons. Unless you think James was referring to a positive agenda, which, given the context, I find highly unlikely.

I disagree that they are synonymous even if he isn't referring to it in a positive light.

Whether it is positive or negative there are some aspects of the game that people would like corrected with martial characters against spellcasting characters and I would define the goal to correct that as an agenda even if one isn't "devious or unworthy".

I also have an agenda, I would like people to hold off on reinterpreting what other people have said. Or at the very least not also make the argument that they want the devs to be more involved or talk more as they do so.

I feel that if that one line was insulting as being interpreted here and looked at the many posts here in the same way then removed those of similar nature, there would be virtually nothing left in this thread.

You might not find those goals devious or unworthy, but you aren't the creative director and we aren't quoting you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


Its actually very standard game design logic not to design a game for the "best of the best" players. You want to design for the median. That by the very nature indicates that no designer designs with optimization in mind.

It's actually not very standard, oddly, though it really should be.

If Pathfinder was balanced around the middle there wouldn't be so many issues.

But it's balanced everywhere BUT the middle.

Players-wise, it's balanced to the absolute bottom, completely new players or ones who won't do the most basic exploration of how mechanics interact with each other.

Mechanics-wise they keep trying to make a big dividing line between "absolute trash" and "godlike in power", with very little in between.

Sequine wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Because not everyone is a GM, and not everyone's GM agrees with them on balance or what nerfs or houserules should be used.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for some people around here.

"Just houserule it or ignore it" is a meaningless piece of advice. Maybe I don't want a houserules document as thick as a novella.

It also affects ease of access to the material. The PRD and SRD change to reflect errata. So now I have to dig out my PDF, and it's harder to browse.

http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-archive/threads/114093 1

I get the impression that stance is one of either a long term GM or a player wgo only plays in his insular group of friends. Not everyone is so lucky, and oftentimes we wanderers or people who play on a first-come basis have no "static group" or regular party whose houserules serve as a reliable expectation. We don't shut ourselves up in our social circles.

RAW provides a neutral, central frame of reference that can be expected from most if not all groups until a GM tells their group otherwise.

So no, its not a shield, its standard practice, and honestly its rather small-minded of you to imply what you did.

Wha?

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
If you ignore their biggest weakness then you are asking for them to be overpowering.
Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.

To me, a rope handing out of nothing in the middle of the air just SCREAMS "set up a massive ambush". Or possibly build a giant bonfire around it.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:

"I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas."

Also I see this is a pretty great sign that people don't want to hear the developers talk ever. This post is from two years ago and it will never stop being brought up.

Probably because it's utterly dismissive of those who fail to agree with the official Paizo party line. That kind of thing doesn't tend to be forgotten.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

Wow... The "Gary Gygax did it!" fallacy.... Hadn't seen one of those in a long time... Careful, everyone! It's an antique!

(BTW, GG would be considered a horrible GM by modern standards)

Well, he was, at one time, the absolute best DM in the world.

Of course, he was also, at the exact same time, the absolute worst DM in the world, due to being the only one.

Once again, Arneson is completely ignored.


Kthulhu wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
If you ignore their biggest weakness then you are asking for them to be overpowering.
Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.
To me, a rope handing out of nothing in the middle of the air just SCREAMS "set up a massive ambush". Or possibly build a giant bonfire around it.

Ok, rope trick that you don't suck at placing.

Or rope trick in the next room from where you hung a kerosene soaked rope tied off to 10 alchemist fires.

Or rope trick in the riggers room of a ship

Or rope trick with 7 hungry bears inside

Or rope trick above a smoky camp fire to obscure the rope

Or rope trick next to a tree that you cover with moss

Or rope trick with a 5 ft rope but you cast while levitating 100 ft in the air on a rope that's painted black (or white in the daytime)

Or rope trick that you tie a 16001 lb weight to and break it loose so that liability is gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well... no, those two phrases really are the same thing. A person who propagates myths because they have an agenda is synonymous with a liar trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons. Unless you think James was referring to a positive agenda, which, given the context, I find highly unlikely.

I disagree that they are synonymous even if he isn't referring to it in a positive light.

Whether it is positive or negative there are some aspects of the game that people would like corrected with martial characters against spellcasting characters and I would define the goal to correct that as an agenda even if one isn't "devious or unworthy".

I also have an agenda, I would like people to hold off on reinterpreting what other people have said. Or at the very least not also make the argument that they want the devs to be more involved or talk more as they do so.

I feel that if that one line was insulting as being interpreted here and looked at the many posts here in the same way then removed those of similar nature, there would be virtually nothing left in this thread.

Generally, the creative director of a publishing company is held to higher standards than some random dude on the internet. I don't agree with the way some people in this thread have been acting either on both sides of the argument but those people aren't trying to appeal to a consumer base.

Furthermore, it's incredibly disingenuous to say that Jacobs' statement could have been anything other than derogatory. English is a subtle language in which context often times means more than the actual printed words, and if Jacobs' intent wasn't to insult a large part of Paizo's most dedicated customers then he should have written his response differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

May I suggest that closing the threads before flying to gencon does sound exactly like the worst kind of bait and switch we all anticipated?

Maybe leaving it open to vent a bit it's the better solution.
Besides, getting "someone" to give a look at this thread even during the event could be a good idea to at least make the community know that the issue is being given proper consideration instead of being swept under the rough of having to sell the new book at the convention.
Just a suggestion.
For clarity, I'm not abandoning the thread for Gen Con. As it is I am the only current "someone" available, and while I'm happy to address issues and questions here, I cannot in good conscience give our community exhausted and delirious responses resulting from the very long hours worked in this past week holding down the fort. Unfortunately not actually a robot :)

I demand a Chris Lambertz robot it take up the slack! :)


Kinda seems like this is getting off-topic, should we maybe make a new thread for KC to add to his index instead of continuing to make him debate on this one?


BigDTBone wrote:
You might not find those goals devious or unworthy, but you aren't the creative director and we aren't quoting you.

Correct. But for the a good number of the posts the creative director wasn't being quoted as opposed to a variation with more inflammatory phrasing.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Generally, the creative director of a publishing company is held to higher standards than some random dude on the internet. I don't agree with the way some people in this thread have been acting either on both sides of the argument but those people aren't trying to appeal to a consumer base.

Furthermore, it's incredibly disingenuous to say that Jacobs' statement could have been anything other than derogatory. English is a subtle language in which context often times means more than the actual printed words, and if Jacobs' intent wasn't to insult a large part of Paizo's most dedicated customers then he should have written his response differently.

I can accept that as fair, but, if what he said was truly, insulting, derogatory, then it wouldn't be necessary do not believe it would need to do anything but stand on it's own. Here though it gets reworded to be more insulting.

Could have he said it better? Probably? I don't see the insult in it, but maybe if I held that opinion, I would see it differently. With the way this is the best answer would have been: "I decline to respond." I've seen him post similarly, apologize, step out, and still see people years later point to his post complaining about his post.

How can we get to point where Paizo is more willing to answer these kinda of questions while not berating them for daring to answer these kinds of questions?

The Exchange

This thread has gone through so many transformations I hope Chris is taking notes for the staff to read about when they get back. Because while there are many great points that have been made throughout, I think at this point, they'll take a look at the most recent posts and give a confirming nod acknowledging people are once again complaining about disparity between martials and casters and move on.

Long/short of it is that I'd rather see this thread refocused onto constructive advice for Paizo PR and company rather than continuing to devolve into an argument about the different in power or about how powerful a second level spell may be.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Codanous wrote:

This thread has gone through so many transformations I hope Chris is taking notes for the staff to read about when they get back. Because while there are many great points that have been made throughout, I think at this point, they'll take a look at the most recent posts and give a confirming nod acknowledging people are once again complaining about disparity between martials and casters and move on.

Long/short of it is that I'd rather see this thread refocused onto constructive advice for Paizo PR and company rather than continuing to devolve into an argument about the different in power or about how powerful a second level spell may be.

Yeah, I've said my piece as far as this thread goes, my opinions are known, so I think another thread would be helpful to gauge the general consensus of the forum. Remember, no one's saying the forum's the 'majority', but the forum does represent people who are invested enough in the game to want to discuss it, which makes them generally a more loyal and critical lot. Getting feedback from these people would be quite beneficial.

Here's hoping the PFSRD gets the Kineticist up soon so I can have something work on.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Work on... like, some kind of kineticist upgrade book?

Keeping on that 'car' analogy, this errata's reactions are basically people getting the car back from the shop and going "WHERE THE F*** ARE MY WHEELS", getting told "woah there. they did good work, and you should be grateful they changed the oil like that"

Which leads a lot of people to immediately think "F*** OFF ASSHO*E, I WANT MY F***ING WHEELS BACK", causing others still to start thinking "why are they so damn rude to the mechanics"... And then there's the lot that still see the axles and are thinking "But aren't THOSE the wheels right there?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Chris

Are you taking notes to give to the devs when they get back or are you planning to just point them at the thread?

I honestly think the notes idea would be a better choice in this case.

Also would it be possible for us to see said notes so we know our most important points are covered? In particular I really want more participation from Jason in the community.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So back in Mechwarrior Online they had a really cool system for dev communication.

Every month they would post a thread like "December's burning questions" and players would post once in the thread with 1 question they really want answered by the devs. Following that people would go in and hit favorite on the questions they liked the best. After a weak the thread would be closed and the top 5 liked questions would be sent to the chairs of the devs and they would write a response.

I think something like this would be perfect for improving communication between the devs and the community. It's great because things can be very current unlike the FAQ system.

A splat book can get released with a feat like Sacred geometry and come the monthly burning questions thread we would be able to get a response from the devs on it.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

So back in Mechwarrior Online they had a really cool system for dev communication.

Every month they would post a thread like "December's burning questions" and players would post once in the thread with 1 question they really want answered by the devs. Following that people would go in and hit favorite on the questions they liked the best. After a weak the thread would be closed and the top 5 liked questions would be sent to the chairs of the devs and they would write a response.

I think something like this would be perfect for improving communication between the devs and the community.

On that note, I would just hope that the devs would answer with their named accounts. Even if you did like 8 questions and each dev got 2 (random draw) and responded with their named accounts that would be sooooooo much better than Mark posting using the PDT account. The PDT account was created to buffer the designers from the community it really should only be used for FAQs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves lol

It's already hard enough to get them to do 1 FAQ a week, so 5 burning questions a month might even be pushing it let alone 8 :)

Maybe 4? 1 for each week in the month. Sure it will be essentially as much work as the FAQ system, but I think the devs can make the extra push to communicate effectively with their customers.


Jamie Charlan wrote:

Work on... like, some kind of kineticist upgrade book?

Keeping on that 'car' analogy, this errata's reactions are basically people getting the car back from the shop and going "WHERE THE F*** ARE MY WHEELS", getting told "woah there. they did good work, and you should be grateful they changed the oil like that"

Which leads a lot of people to immediately think "F*** OFF ASSHO*E, I WANT MY F***ING WHEELS BACK", causing others still to start thinking "why are they so damn rude to the mechanics"... And then there's the lot that still see the axles and are thinking "But aren't THOSE the wheels right there?"

And then someone else is like, "Isn't that his dad he's screaming at, who gave him the car in the first place, and did all that work on it free of charge? And all he ever pays for is gas? Man, I'd light his car on fire if I was in his place."

601 to 650 of 923 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the nerfs Paizo? All Messageboards