Why all the nerfs Paizo?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 923 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Roadie wrote:
The change to the scarred witch doctor is really strange to me. Was there somehow some terrifying cabal of overpowered scarred witch doctors that were using their mighty MAD powers to destroy the stability of PFS?

*SAD powers.

And as far as I know, Scarred Witch Doctor was banned from PFS anyway.

It was an imaginary problem nobody complained about, much like the majority of the nerfs that have come down this week.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
It was an imaginary problem nobody complained about, much like the majority of the nerfs that have come down this week.

Just because people don't make a huge fuss doesn't mean it's an imaginary problem. *Including* the race age changes.

Besides, people were complaining about it - it was just the players complaining that their GMs banned the OP things they wanted to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's not the CharOp people who get screwed by errata. Sure a build or two of theirs get's screwed, but they just go on to experiment with the altered rules or abandon that concept completely.

Its the normal people out there who just want an effective character within their concept.

I agree, although many of us won't notice and probably wouldn't care.

That's not true for everyone though, and as the rules get more complicated (which includes an issue of errata or FAQs which substantially go against the generally held view) the people most likely to suffer are those who care about character effectiveness and inter-class balance but who aren't particularly good at identifying it from a theoretical basis.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I really, really want some public justification for some of these changes. Especially the scarred witchdoctor because it now invalidates a 3PP prestige class I did for Flying Pincushion. The big draw for that archetype was the Constitution based casting. Sure, the change helps the fact that Orcs have a -2 to Int, but the archetype most certainly has lost its cool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
It was an imaginary problem nobody complained about, much like the majority of the nerfs that have come down this week.
Just because people don't make a huge fuss doesn't mean it's an imaginary problem. *Including* the race age changes.

People actually did make a big fuss about the inconsistency of the ages.

And you're correct, what makes it an imaginary problem is the fact that it didn't cause any problems. It was a neat archetype concept, and no more powerful than any other caster.

More HP for less spells per day and skills. Cool.

but the SWD change isn't the one I'm most peeved about, it's just the most recent in a long line of weird, nonsensical nerfs that are here this week.

When was the last time you heard someone say "Oh no! Vanara CLIMB TOO FAST! MY GAME IS RUINED!"?

Or "GASP! This Feat that requires AT MINIMUM a 17th level Slayer (or Rogue 12/Slayer 1) lets them Coup De Grace people as a Swift action on conditions they cannot impose on people! It's too stronk!"

Never. Because they weren't an issue.

The Merciless Butchery one just sticks in my f+~#ing craw like nothing else. I've spent a good deal of time trying to find a way to make that Feat worth using. It was a fun challenge, and I intended on making a character that used it one day even if I had yet to figure out a build it'd actually be viable in (working theory was an unarmed using Slayer who nabbed Stunning Fist at high levels and dropped a bunch of Feats on upping the DC).

It was cool, it was JUST useful enough that it might be worth taking in some parties, but not in any way overpowering and they decided to kick the damn thing before I got a chance to even attempt it. For what reason?

Who knows.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how none of these discussions can go by without people insulting the side complaining. Because there's no middle ground between "I want everything to be nerfed!" and "Heh heh, I can't wait to introduce my Pun-Pun PC into PFS..."


Rynjin wrote:
*SAD powers.

No, MAD. Int is still needed for bonus spells.

Rynjin wrote:

but the SWD change isn't the one I'm most peeved about, it's just the most recent in a long line of weird, nonsensical nerfs that are here this week.

When was the last time you heard someone say "Oh no! Vanara CLIMB TOO FAST! MY GAME IS RUINED!"?

Or "GASP! This Feat that requires AT MINIMUM a 17th level Slayer (or Rogue 12/Slayer 1) lets them Coup De Grace people as a Swift action on conditions they cannot impose on people! It's too stronk!"

Never. Because they weren't an issue.

Completely agreed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't have minded if some of the options were nerfed. But instead they were buried and left to die. Admittedly, some of them were overpowered. But now they might as well not even be options. There are definitely some strange, nonsensical nerfs as well (such as the Vanara climb speed).

The Aasimar/Ifrit/Sylph FCB nerfs are the worst offenders. I would have been fine with a nerf to +1/4 honestly. But +1/6? This means that the best you can ever have is a +2 effective level at level 12+, which is basically meaningless. Because at level 18, when you can finally get +3, that puts you beyond max level anyway, which doesn't do anything. And for a standard PFS character's 11-level career, they'll only ever see a whopping +1 effective level. There is zero reason to take these FCB options at all now.


Is 20 ever declared as an absolute max anywhere?

I agree the nerf is silly, but I've never seen anything suggesting you could not have an effective level of over 20 for X feature. [Granted there are many features whose benefits are either called out at specific levels, or come in at a level pattern that would not end on 21]


Roadie wrote:
The change to the scarred witch doctor is really strange to me. Was there somehow some terrifying cabal of overpowered scarred witch doctors that were using their mighty MAD powers to destroy the stability of PFS?

Our new kineticist overlords need everyone with high CON, so the other CON caster class had to die. There can be only one! :P


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Is 20 ever declared as an absolute max anywhere?

I agree the nerf is silly, but I've never seen anything suggesting you could not have an effective level of over 20 for X feature. [Granted there are many features whose benefits are either called out at specific levels, or come in at a level pattern that would not end on 21]

It's pretty ambiguous. Some abilities are worded such they intuitively work past 20th level. Others follow a simple pattern, but instead call out specific levels so RAW, they stop at 20. In either case, I've had DMs rule that you cannot have an effective class level over 20. In any case, expect table variation.


We should make a new thread and FAQ the question: Will we ever get justification for errata?


What did they nerf this time?

*Sees the Scarred Witch Doctor mentioned*

...really? They actually nerfed a caster instead of a melee type?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is Paizo going the way of D&D 5e? Meaning: "We want to see less bonuses over the course of 20 levels"? Maybe they'll start reducing all the inherent bonuses and emulate the lower, more capped game play of 5e?

OR: Maybe Paizo is trying to get people to challenge authority by coming out with more and more absurd decisions until people simply say: "Enough! I'm not listening to you any more because you're fricking crazy!"

The Exchange

No need for justification... I'll admit I didn't see the Nixie's Lure change coming but it was my only character who hadn't been errataed in PFS after all. Meanwhile Dazing Spell is still legal.


So, kind of a tale of two changes here.

A local VL just completed Eyes of the Ten with a playtest Mesmerist last week. They rushed the series so he could complete it before the book was released, knowing that the class would be changed as soon as the Occult Adventures book hit the streets. While he didn't know what would change (and, upon reading the release version, he said that he actually came out ahead), he knew that he didn't want to have to relearn a character in the middle of a level 12 adventure. In that regard, he was probably a singular case in PFS. I doubt any other playtest characters have done EotT before their book dropped.

By comparison, ACG has been out for almost a full year as of today. There are literally thousands of players who use various classes and feats from the book. To them, the changes seemed arbitrary in some cases. There was a significant outcry in the PFS community for rebuilds because entire characters were invalidated with single erratum (Slashing Grace, particularly). In some regards, it sort of felt like playing Calvinball. The changes here have HUGE impacts across the player base in PFS. Pre-errata, I honestly felt that ACG was better balanced than the CRB - an unpopular opinion, I know - and I'm left feeling slightly shaken about my confidence in future releases because of such an extensive errata. Not only that, but it was practically released in silence. Nobody at my local game shop had heard about it until I pulled out a printed copy of the errata and asked if players had ACG features on their characters. That's a tough pill to swallow as a Society GM.

ARG, though, has been out for at least 3 years now. This is the first errata we've seen for it. Were there problems? Sure. Mask of Stony Demeanor was obviously undervalued. Was anyone really complaining about Aasimar FCBs, though? Again, seems pretty arbitrary. At least that got an email out, though.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Lots of justification would be nice, actually. Imagine, if you will, that instead of piles of threads like this one, we got actual answers to our questions?

Right now we aren't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pahlok wrote:
There are definitely some strange, nonsensical nerfs as well (such as the Vanara climb speed).

Not really so nonsensical- they clearly wanted the Bestiary 3 entry and the ARG entries to match. (Not to mention the Vanara ARG entry and the Climb racial trait from the race builder.)


Kudaku wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Kudaku wrote:


HOLY S%*! they killed the scarred witch doctor. It casts off Intelligence now. Wow, that one is massive.

Actually, Fierce Intelligence is a Buff. A half-orc Scarred Witch Doctor can start with a 22 casting stat at first level post errata.

Being Constitution-based made for a truly unique full caster playing experience. Scarred Witch Doctors played entirely differently from any other full progression arcane caster in the game, which I rather enjoyed. I also really liked that we got genuinely orc-like witches - ie orcs could have shamanistic spellcasters that were powerful without being particularly bright, wise or charismatic.

Though yes, the 22 baseline is going to be terrific for yet another "hide in the back and spam Quickened Ill Omen+Ice Tomb"- brainiac half-orc witch. Yawn.

Wait, waddya mean the Scarred Witch Doctor was unique? I have seen some Scarred Witch Doctors, and literally all of them were just the standard Slumber spam, only even more SAD than usual.


BTW, they nerfed Vanaran climb speed, not because it was too strong, just because it broke its own definition according to the race builder in the back of the book.

I think anyone in FPS should get a respec if these changes altered them, and if you aren't in PFS and don't like the rules, don't worry about them. It doesn't alter alter my current game (or any campaign I've ever played) so it's tough to feel upset or get worked up about it.

Its a bit of a bummer for the elemental races, since I thought they were kind of weak anyway. And I don't think this it broke the Witch Doctor (they did give them nice compensation), it just took away their gimmick. Now they are just another archetype, as apposed to being that one freak archetype that broke the normal attribute rules. Again, oh well, nothing a free respec can't fix.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:

Lots of justification would be nice, actually. Imagine, if you will, that instead of piles of threads like this one, we got actual answers to our questions?

Right now we aren't.

That's because they decided to dump all this shit right before the whole team headed to Gen Con in the hopes that by the time they got back, everything would blow over.

In other words, someone at Paizo took a PR 101 class and thinks they're clever.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I have noticed an increasing trend, in almost all recent errata, that to change, or clarify, anything, it has been a drastic Nerf.

Even when it makes no sense. Even when it favors casters. Even when it creates more confusion.

Nerf.

What are your thought on this?

Will all things weaken, especially for non-casters, or will there be some kind of balance?

Will we see some of our favorite things, become the old Prone Shooter?

What do you think this means for the future?

How will this effect your gaming experience?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the most broken game I have ever played because of balance.

Anything that nerfs casters is good

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

This is the most broken game I have ever played because of balance.

Anything that nerfs casters is good

That's not what usually get's nerfed.


I make no comments on what is usually nerfed


I think it's ridiculous. Makes you feel like Paizo will never deliver on that old promise of making 3.5e thrive as they advertised back in the day. I do wonder what they will do once power creep gets out of hand.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Power Creep" has been usually caster exclusive. They still get nerfed, but it's not that bad a blow.

Anything martial, usually gets nerfed to oblivion, if even feels worth taking, for anything other than a very unique build.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, even things that are a more off build, and not nearly as strong, as the common "strong" builds, get nerfed.

It always seems to get harder to make "outside the box" PCs, without being The Load, after an inevitable nerf comes along.

For some, they must covet their minor effectiveness, for as long as they can, as they know it will eventually be taken all away, or suddenly, none of the mechanics meet the flavor anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone who believes that the rules should be treated as guidelines, all of the complaining about nerfs always surprises me. Why people feel the need to stick to RAW in all things boggles my mind.

If you don't like a change, don't use it. If you read a rule you don't like, change it. Its super easy.

If you're a PFS player and don't like the change, stop playing PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I forgot the name of the fallacy you are invoking...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oberoni Fallacy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No fallacy - I'm not implying the game is perfect because house rules can be made. I'm stating my opinion that I am surprised people try to stick exactly to the RAW. There's a big difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, if one choice is overly strong ('overpowered'), you are somewhat railroaded to take it. Either by your own desire to be strong, by your fellow players ('why didn't you take this one??') or by the GM who challenges you so much that you need everything you can get.

I see that overpowered choices are comfy - you just have to find them and then can easily ignore the others. Given the amount of choices in Pathfinder (e.g. more than 2000 feats and 2000 spells), it's not surprising everyone tries to simplify.

But I don't want a game where you 'have to' take some choices. Hence nerfs can be in favor of the players.

And there are good nerfs, e.g. restricting the evolution points of the Primal Companion Hunter. While I still would love a good class / archetype / feat chain to apply many evolutions to my character, I don't want cheese...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It does feel like they want every feat to be Anticipate Dodge or Landing Roll.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

I believe there are some good nerfs.

Especially, when it comes to PFS.

For me, some just make no sense.

Also, the "don't play PFS", and "just houserule" are valid, but meaningless points.

It is as meaningless as "play something else".

Besides, this about recent trends, odd changes, and vast nerfs in general.

Not a "should I even play this game?" discussion.

Grand Lodge

Also, any game is "perfect", with the right houserules.

It's a silly thing to say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
No fallacy - I'm not implying the game is perfect because house rules can be made. I'm stating my opinion that I am surprised people try to stick exactly to the RAW.

I'm a GM. My players, mostly inexperienced, are using characters they created from virtually the whole of the available ruleset - Aasimar, Unchained Monks, etc.

In order to audit their characters properly, I have to check through multiple errata PDFs to see if anything's changed, and if they have, I have to decide whether to use the original version or the nerfed version or invent my own version. Not using strict RAW means I have to make game balance decisions about everything. You want to use Slashing Grace? Fine, just let me run the DPR numbers and then I'll tell you how it should work.

Or I guess I could just be lazy and let them run their character however they think it works...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Also, any game is "perfect", with the right houserules.

Excellent example of why its a good idea to actually read posts.

Matthew Downie wrote:
In order to audit their characters properly, I have to check through multiple errata PDFs to see if anything's changed, and if they have, I have to decide whether to use the original version or the nerfed version or invent my own version. Not using strict RAW means I have to make game balance decisions about everything. You want to use Slashing Grace? Fine, just let me run the DPR numbers and then I'll tell you how it should work.

Once again, this is just my opinion. What does auditing a character "properly" mean?

Do you actually think that the Paizo developers have come up with perfectly balanced mechanics with the content that they have created?

Usually people that want to stick strictly to the RAW are using the RAW as a shield; if a player/GM complains about something, its easy to say "That's the rule!"

If that's why you want to stick exactly to the RAW, that's fine. If your players are expecting that the RAW trumps the GM, then sticking the RAW is probably a good idea.

Personally, I know what is balanced for my group better than Paizo does. If you prefer to stick to the RAW to use it as a shield, or because you truly believe the Paizo developers have found perfect balance, or for whatever reason, that's dandy.

I was simply stating that I'm surprised how many people espouse these views rather than seeing an errata/rule/whatever and thinking "interesting, but not going to use that."


7 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to mention house ruling should never be something used to sell a rpg. I think all of us as members of the hobby sometime or another house rule. Many of us prefer to use RAW. It's why I buy a the rpg in the first place. Try selling a new car and then telling people that the brakes need work. The tires need to be rotated etc. good luck selling it. It's not so much the errata. So much that their no middle ground. No finesse. Either something remains too strong. Or becomes not worth taking. Rarely is if both effective and worth taking IMO. Paizo errata process reminds me of a scene from the movie Armaggedon. When the Russian cosmonaut picks up a big wrench. Then says " this is how we fix things on MIR station" and begins to randomly swing and smash his wrench.

They keep making the same mistakes. Why should some of the fans give them a free pass. Get the errata process right or expects the complaints to continue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hear Hear.
If things weren't broken, or at least seen as erroneous or undesirable, they wouldn't get houseruled in the first place.

A rule, imbalance or other factor *CANNOT* be said to be fine just because one can house-rule it. The very act of house-ruling it means the rule (or rule set) has been rejected in favor of something else. You are no longer playing by the same rules.

If you replace all the pieces with colored discs and have them capture and move all in the same way, you're no longer playing chess.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

But... But... You can always house-rule stuff! Who cares if the game is poorly designed? It's not like we pay for these rules... Oh, wait!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly why the "you can just houserule it" argument is a fallacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Besides, this about recent trends, odd changes, and vast nerfs in general.

Ok, if you want to stay on that general level, let me throw in more bits about game design.

Good game designers have multiple sight angles on their games. One is the practical player angle: 'What's fun about this game?', 'What choices feel right?' etc.. That's something veteran players are very familiar with - sometimes more than the designers.

Another angle is a more theoretical one, with abstract concepts like 'return of investment', 'diminishing returns', 'power curve' and 'interesting choices'. Veteran players can be somewhat familiar with such things, but in average they have a harder time to view the game from that angle. So they can miss why a change was necessary.

There are more angles (business, self-realization via game design etc.) which impact a game designer's actions, but I suspect the 'odd' changes are mostly the result of the theoretical angle.

If you want, give me a concrete 'odd' change (or a few) and I will try to figure out where it comes from. I can't promise I get it done, but it would be a nice exercise.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Exactly why the "you can just houserule it" argument is a fallacy.

Pfff... Non-sense! These paying customers are too entitled! It's like they think it's a game designer's job to design a good game. :P

It's like when you go to the theater and see a bad movie. You have no right or reason to complain just because you paid for it... After all, you can simply write your own fanfic and make it a better story than the movie itself!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:
If you want, give me a concrete 'odd' change (or a few) and I will try to figure out where it comes from. I can't promise I get it done, but it would be a nice exercise.

Merciless Butchery. Used to allow a swift action coup de grace, now standard action.

If you don't multiclass then it would pretty much be a Slayer only feat and would come online at level 15. If you multiclassed Slayer with a full Sneak Attack progression class, the earliest you could take it is level 11. With either option there is no way to easily get enemies cowering, helpless, or stunned, at least without investing so heavily that you might as well have just made a normal character and killed them the old fashioned way. Why bother to nerf it? How does removing the possibility of a highly specialized build to maybe do a cool thing at high levels, the levels where the game is often comparable to rocket tag anyway, improve the game? Note we are deep into the levels where save or die and save or you might as well be dead are practically everywhere.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

To me it mainly feels like Jason Buhlman has lost sight of the players. To put it in Austin Powers terms, he has lost his mojo.

In the last three books (ACG, Unchained, and OA) the classes he designed directly have all been mechanically boring, overpowered, underpowered, or uninspired.

This wouldn't be a problem normally, but he's the head designer. Everything that's published in the core line goes through him. The buck stops with him. I feel this has played a significant role in why even classes written by other designers have failed to live up to their potential. Also why the errata was made entirely of nerf footballs.

This post will be deleted by the time I log in tomorrow I bet.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, I have noticed an increasing trend, in almost all recent errata, that to change, or clarify, anything, it has been a drastic Nerf.

Even when it makes no sense. Even when it favors casters. Even when it creates more confusion.

Nerf.

What are your thought on this?

Will all things weaken, especially for non-casters, or will there be some kind of balance?

Will we see some of our favorite things, become the old Prone Shooter?

What do you think this means for the future?

How will this effect your gaming experience?

It seems inevitable to me, since an overly strong option can ruin a game but an overly weak option can gather dust, so I suspect the former will always attract more attention.

It won't affect my gaming experience because balance isn't desirable to me. I could imagine it being a real drag if you put lots of effort into character building though - especially if you play in an environment where you can't negotiate.


This isn't about Nerf guns?

Come on! Can't you people come up with your own names for shit, you gotta steal everyone else's terminology:-)

Wait a minute, are RPG gamers the Milly Vanilly of hobbyists:-D

101 to 150 of 923 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the nerfs Paizo? All Messageboards