Why all the nerfs Paizo?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 923 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:


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.

Right from the get-go, Pathfinder has been written by veteran players eyeing a solid business case and the opportunity for self-realization. Not only are the Paizo writers not great game theorists, they have repeatedly and consistently shown on this very forum that they are ardently opposed to all forms of theoretical analysis. They write some good Tier 3/4 classes and some engaging characters, but there is no Richard Garfield or Uwe Rosenberg at Paizo.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Age of Nerfs?

Still better than Age of Sigmar.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:
Right from the get-go, Pathfinder has been written by veteran players eyeing a solid business case and the opportunity for self-realization. Not only are the Paizo writers not great game theorists, they have repeatedly and consistently shown on this very forum that they are ardently opposed to all forms of theoretical analysis. They write some good Tier 3/4 classes and some engaging characters, but there is no Richard Garfield or Uwe Rosenberg at Paizo.

They aren't opposed to theocrafting. They just value feedback from actual gameplay higher.


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

I'd have to disagree with you there. House rules are not always used to address something that is viewed as broken or erroneous, and depending on how far you're stretching the definition of undesirable, there's probably an argument there as well.

Jamie Charlan wrote:
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.

I'm utterly convinced that people have gotten so used to categorizing things into groups that they automatically have to group certain posts/arguments in these pre-created groups.

It makes it much easier on their brains to be able to argue against the things they know they're already against rather than actually reading the post and analyzing it.

Jamie Charlan wrote:
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.

And if you put money into the middle of the board, and the person that lands on free parking gets the money, you're no longer playing Monopoly?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:
Not only are the Paizo writers not great game theorists, they have repeatedly and consistently shown on this very forum that they are ardently opposed to all forms of theoretical analysis.

As they should. Do you have any idea who else used statistics? STALIN.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:
Right from the get-go, Pathfinder has been written by veteran players eyeing a solid business case and the opportunity for self-realization. Not only are the Paizo writers not great game theorists, they have repeatedly and consistently shown on this very forum that they are ardently opposed to all forms of theoretical analysis. They write some good Tier 3/4 classes and some engaging characters, but there is no Richard Garfield or Uwe Rosenberg at Paizo.

I'm getting flashbacks to the Pathfinder playtest threads...

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Look, I know there are a lot different opinions, and that's exactly what I am looking for. Different perspectives.

However...

Let's not go the "Who needs rules? I have houserules!", as that is meaningless, and defeats the purpose of owning rules material.

Also, let's not get into "badwrongfun", or other harmful accusations.
That's pointless, rude, and threadlock bait.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
Right from the get-go, Pathfinder has been written by veteran players eyeing a solid business case and the opportunity for self-realization. Not only are the Paizo writers not great game theorists, they have repeatedly and consistently shown on this very forum that they are ardently opposed to all forms of theoretical analysis. They write some good Tier 3/4 classes and some engaging characters, but there is no Richard Garfield or Uwe Rosenberg at Paizo.
I'm getting flashbacks to the Pathfinder playtest threads...

Don't be silly. Paizo just prefers factual playtest evidence over fictional "armchair theorycrafting".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
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."

Some people aren't GMs, so they don't get to make that decision.

Some people are GMS, but would rather not have to make the decision.

For example, I could decide I prefer the new Divine Protection ruling to the original, and email all my players to let them know, and do the same for a hundred other errata, even though 99% of the changes will be irrelevant to the game. Or I could come up with my own version of Divine Protection where they can activate it as an immediate action once per day and it boosts all their saves for one minute, which sounds about right to me. Or I could wait until they decide to take Divine Protection and then tell them it doesn't do what they thought it did because the rulebook they bought is out of date. But I'd rather not have to. I'd prefer it if Paizo did everything perfectly first time. Is that too much to ask?

It is?

Sigh.

At least this helps explain why Paizo has a history of ignoring balance issues - any change leads to massive confusion and anger.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:
But I don't want a game where you 'have to' take some choices. Hence nerfs can be in favor of the players.

I know! It's truly awful that there are must-have options in the system! I keep seeing melee characters take power attack, wizards take spell focus, archers take precise shot...

Sarcasm aside, I am generally bemused at a premise of balance and reducing must-have options when some especially egregious cases remain in the Core Rulebook and are untouched.
I understand why they exist, however. So I add the caveat I am aiming to amuse more the gearing to argue here.

Snowblind wrote:
Don't be silly. Paizo just prefers factual playtest evidence over fictional "armchair theorycrafting".

Are you suggesting that theorycrafting is not a valid form of analysis? Because I'd have to say that sitting down and performing mathematics is our most concrete method of determining why, say sacred geometry, is terribly problematic.

That is an extreme example, but I'd contend theorycrafting is extremely valid (and useful) data.


Snowblind wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
Right from the get-go, Pathfinder has been written by veteran players eyeing a solid business case and the opportunity for self-realization. Not only are the Paizo writers not great game theorists, they have repeatedly and consistently shown on this very forum that they are ardently opposed to all forms of theoretical analysis. They write some good Tier 3/4 classes and some engaging characters, but there is no Richard Garfield or Uwe Rosenberg at Paizo.
I'm getting flashbacks to the Pathfinder playtest threads...
Don't be silly. Paizo just prefers factual playtest evidence over fictional "armchair theorycrafting".

The fact that they call it "armchair theorycrafting" is a pretty strong sign that they're not doing it, probably because they're not that good at it.

Oh, wait, you were actually agreeing with me, weren't you?


Physically Unfeasible wrote:

It's truly awful that there are must-have options in the system! I keep seeing melee characters take power attack, wizards take spell focus, archers take precise shot...

Spell Focus comes in a variety of flavors, but (pretending you weren't being sarcastic) I'd agree with the other ones being a bad thing. If they're must-have, it's either a sign they're either overpowered, or that the characters who need them should get them for free. "I want to play a bard who's good with a bow - so I have no real choices to make about what feats to take for several levels."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm okay with things getting nerfed, even the martial options. To be honest, a lot of the stuff that got nerfed I felt was appropriate. Or at least didn't do great harm.

My only real wish is that casters would get more nerfs.

Hell, if Paizo just published a book called "The Book of Caster Nerfing", I'd buy that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greetings from your friendly neighborhood pixie. Just sending a message from my new home in Leng.

I decided that these changes are so bizarre that Leng just made more sense to me than this place :p

Cheers lol


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I'm okay with things getting nerfed, even the martial options. To be honest, a lot of the stuff that got nerfed I felt was appropriate. Or at least didn't do great harm.

My only real wish is that casters would get more nerfs.

Hell, if Paizo just published a book called "The Book of Caster Nerfing", I'd buy that.

I see things the opposite way. I like people having awesome things so I want there to be more awesome things to get. I just want martials to get their fair share. I want to see martials elevated as opposed to mages cast down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've played 3.5e and Pathfinder for quite a while, and come to the conclusion that you can't nerf casters without snapping the game in half.

Thus far the only real solution I've seen is buffing the melee classes, but there are so many opposed to the idea that it just probably won't ever happen.


I am pretty sure Paizo uses a serious amount of theory when building their rules. There are obvious hints like the statement 'trait is worth half a feat' and if you look closely, you will find a favored class bonus being equal to a fourth or sixth of a low level feat - often, not always. In the race respective class builder you find advice like 'create a clear concept first' - advice coming from a mixture of practical and theoretical thinking, in my opinion.

chaoseffect wrote:
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.

Because it's a feat. A feat is supposed to increase player power by a certain amount. Not too little, else it wouldn't be interesting for most players. Not too much, or we end up with overpowered choices.

Let's check the new Merciless Butchery:

a) Allows coup de grace also against cowering or stunned opponents.
b) Reduces necessary time to a standard action, meaning you can move on to the next target / away etc..

That's quite good for a level 11 / 15 feat - personally I'd take it.

Of course players don't want their powers to be taken away - I am no exception. But the alternatives are worse:

a) Ignoring major imbalances causes said railroading.
b) Indirect nerfing (in the case of Merciless Butchery: e.g. slayer's sneak attack of slayer doesn't stack with other classes') upsets the players even more when discovered because they feel tricked.
c) Improving other choices can open a can of worms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I'm okay with things getting nerfed, even the martial options. To be honest, a lot of the stuff that got nerfed I felt was appropriate. Or at least didn't do great harm.

My only real wish is that casters would get more nerfs.

Hell, if Paizo just published a book called "The Book of Caster Nerfing", I'd buy that.

I see things the opposite way. I like people having awesome things so I want there to be more awesome things to get. I just want martials to get their fair share. I want to see martials elevated as opposed to mages cast down.

I disagree whole-heartedly actually. You see, the game is already trouble enough to manage with just full casters have their cadre of ridiculous powers. If were discussing the possibility of incorporating abilities that will increase non-casting classes power levels to the same point...the game will lose all hope of balance or being playable. As it is, the game only works well if the casters restrain themselves (once you get above level 12 or so). Most adventure paths already require reworking to compensate for mere PC optimization (on both the part of casters and non-casters). If we increase the minimal threshold for PC power, this will only get worse. As such, I am opposed to it.

Nerf the casters.

Or heck, just cut out the last 8 levels of every class, and rework all the monster in the bestiary (because I still want to fight cool things like Solars, but I want to have a chance at winning too).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, Paizo ignores MOUNTAINS of actual play experience. From 3.5. Martial Versatility and Sacred Geometry are both examples of concepts that are known, empirically, to be terrible: Martial Versatility for the vague wording, Sacred Geometry for metamagic cost reduction.

Also, ignoring how utterly broken the effect is, the execution of Sacred Geometry is totally, utterly terrible. You're asking a player to not just perform math operations, but to solve an actual math puzzle, while the entire table is waiting for him, and the price of conceding in the interest of keeping the game flowing is steep. It's blindingly obvious to anyone with any experience with well-designed games that this ability should end your turn, you do the calculations while other people have their turn, and you reap the benefits (or not) on your next turn. Just like well-designed board and card games almost universally have you draw new cards at the end of your turn, not the beginning, so you can plan while others execute.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
Right from the get-go, Pathfinder has been written by veteran players eyeing a solid business case and the opportunity for self-realization. Not only are the Paizo writers not great game theorists, they have repeatedly and consistently shown on this very forum that they are ardently opposed to all forms of theoretical analysis. They write some good Tier 3/4 classes and some engaging characters, but there is no Richard Garfield or Uwe Rosenberg at Paizo.
I'm getting flashbacks to the Pathfinder playtest threads...
Don't be silly. Paizo just prefers factual playtest evidence over fictional "armchair theorycrafting".

The fact that they call it "armchair theorycrafting" is a pretty strong sign that they're not doing it, probably because they're not that good at it.

Oh, wait, you were actually agreeing with me, weren't you?

Poe's law strikes again.

Yes, my post was sarcasm. I was agreeing with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The tone of a text can be harder to read than the tone of a voice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:

Because it's a feat. A feat is supposed to increase player power by a certain amount. Not too little, else it wouldn't be interesting for most players. Not too much, or we end up with overpowered choices.

Let's check the new Merciless Butchery:

a) Allows coup de grace also against cowering or stunned opponents.
b) b) Reduces necessary time to a standard action, meaning you can move on to the next target / away etc..

That's quite good for a level 11 / 15 feat - personally I'd take it.

Why would you take it or even its prerequisite? The feat is worthless on its own as the classes that can take it have no reliable means of generating cowering or stunned, at least without heavy build investment. If we are assuming party aid in pulling of a successful use of Merciless Butchery, then why do we even need Merciless Butchery? Casters can already setup coup de grace attacks for anyone via Hold Person, sleep effects, and similar abilities after all, and that comes online starting as early as level 1.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
I disagree whole-heartedly actually. You see, the game is already trouble enough to manage with just full casters have their cadre of ridiculous powers. If were discussing the possibility of incorporating abilities that will increase non-casting classes power levels to the same point...the game will lose all hope of balance or being playable.

I'm more for setting the Barbarian/Bloodrager as the litmus test for martials than saying every class must be on par with Wizard. If all martial classes had as much love as Barbarian, but in their own unique way, then I personally would be mostly content.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:


Let's check the new Merciless Butchery:

a) Allows coup de grace also against cowering or stunned opponents.
b) Reduces necessary time to a standard action, meaning you can move on to the next target / away etc..

That's quite good for a level 11 / 15 feat - personally I'd take it.

Of course players don't want their powers to be taken away - I am no exception. But the alternatives are worse:

a) Ignoring major imbalances causes said railroading.
b) Indirect nerfing (in the case of Merciless Butchery: e.g. slayer's sneak attack of slayer doesn't stack with other classes') upsets the players even more when discovered because they feel tricked.
c) Improving other choices can open a can of worms.

Your analysis is critically flawed. Merciless Butchery allows you to make a CdG as a Standard Action. That is ALL the feat does. Making CdG against a Cowering or Stunned enemy is an ability of the prerequisite feat.

The old Merciless Butchery allowed you to kill-secure an already disabled opponent and still be able to do something (full attack or move-and-attack, but not use Studied Target on the new enemy). It's a decent ability, but Dastardly Finish + Merciless Butchery should really just be ONE advanced talent.

The new Merciless Butchery allows you to spend your entire round to kill-secure an already disabled target withing movement range, or to kill-secure an already disabled target and take a move action.

Those are VASTLY different abilities.

(Besides, the new Merciless Butchery was published in D&D 3.0, available to 1.st level characters, and nobody ever took it.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading Sacred Geometry makes me want to kick puppies.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If anything, they increase the availability of options at the tables I play at, as the options were banned previously.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
If anything, the increase the availability of options at the tables I play at, as the options were banned previously.

If the feats are so bad that no one will ever take them then are they really worth calling options?


Icyshadow wrote:
The tone of a text can be harder to read than the tone of a voice.

I know. That's why Poe's Law exists, after all.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing that drives me absolutely bonkers is that they keep nerfing the few interesting and good options martial characters get. It is starting to feel like they are actively trying to force players into certain tired old playstyles.

It is ostensibly about power balance, but Power Attack is still the same old must have, go-to feat for anyone who wants to be able to hurt things.

Meanwhile, the interesting Caster archetypes get nerfed into oblivion, but the CRB Wizard is still just sitting there smiling.

I just don't get it. I used to really like Paizo's design philosophy. Even when they missed the mark a little what they were doing still felt like an improvement.

I haven't felt that way in a while. Its getting to the point that I'm considering jumping ship and moving on to 5th edition. I don't want to do that because I don't actually enjoy learning new systems all that much, but at this point I have lost a lot of confidence in Paizo's ability to put out balanced and interesting content.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have been skeptical about Pathfinder for a long time, and I am sure I've made that clear before. The recent direction only makes me wanna go back to 3.5e that much harder.


@Casual Viking: You are right, half of the benefit is already handed out with Dastardly Finish.

@chaoseffect: I'd take both feats because they can be situationally useful. Yes, a caster can cast Hold Person etc.. But he is not that great at Coup de Grace. This is the point where teamplay shines: He neutralizes foes, my slayer kills them. And, thanks to Merciless Butchery, the slayer can move on to the next target, to kill off one opponent per round.

It won't always work respective other tactics can be better sometimes, but that's good - else it would become quite boring. And a slayer has more options than a powerful Coup de Grace.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
I have been skeptical about Pathfinder for a long time, and I am sure I've made that clear before. The recent direction only makes me wanna go back to 3.5e that much harder.

Yeah, a party of a Healer, Warmage, Truenamer and 3.5 Swashbuckler is all the rage that Pathfinder lacks.

Especially when they face a bunch of un-errated Nimblewrights.

Grand Lodge

-“I disagree, you’ve merely misinterpreted part of the Nerf Problem. If you reread the core rulebook, you will see that you can use the Rule 0 to solve this particular problem.”

According to the examples, this is NOT a Oberoni Fallacy.

BUT, i agree about how damaging this can be on PFS.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks like we are going to need another index KC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

Poe's law strikes again.

Yes, my post was sarcasm. I was agreeing with you.

Well that's egg on my face.

Diffan wrote:
Reading Sacred Geometry makes me want to kick puppies.....

...I'd recommend not being that invested.

Also, I'd recommend a different way to de-stress. I mean, what did the puppies do?!
I am being silly.

chaoseffect wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
If anything, the increase the availability of options at the tables I play at, as the options were banned previously.
If the feats are so bad that no one will ever take them then are they really worth calling options?

Does the set(trap options) belong to the set(options)?

Doomed Hero wrote:

The thing that drives me absolutely bonkers is that they keep nerfing the few interesting and good options martial characters get. It is starting to feel like they are actively trying to force players into certain tired old playstyles.

...
I haven't felt that way in a while. Its getting to the point that I'm considering jumping ship and moving on to 5th edition. I don't want to do that because I don't actually enjoy learning new systems all that much, but at this point I have lost a lot of confidence in Paizo's ability to put out balanced and interesting content.

Personally, while I've heard it called "everyone's 2nd favourite game" (which is a claim you don't have to exist on one ship), I would counter that Pathfinder remains a fun system. The presence of Occult Adventures would at least say that new options are coming in. And I haven't heard massive complaints about its balance...yet.

What has to be considered is that the ACG really was a surprising blip. At its release, you can find a number of posts lamenting it being overpowered, people saying they ban the book at their tables, etc. The fact that was hit so heavily is probably a move to rebalance.
Now, the ARG has mostly been lamented over a couple of things. But those things were (apparently) considered very strong. Stuff slips through, that's completely expected. Playing Devil's advocate here, but generally - I'd say the erratas are attempts to rein in imbalanced things.
That fact this cuts off playstyles is lamentable, but like the Eldritch Knight being terrible and all-but-replaced by the Magus, one can only hope the design space is actually appreciated, considered, and used.
Otherwise, nah - indefensible. Missing an already painted out target completely (as opposed to forgivably missing a bulls-eye) would be daft. If X is already demonstrably fun, it seems a salient interest to look at emulating X. Even if X has problems (hence emulate, not repeat).

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

That's the thing though. It's not just the ACG or its errata. It's been a pattern for quite awhile. Either options are too strong. It not worth taking. Or nerfing to the point it's not worth taking. Absolutely no middle ground IMO. I don't think it's that hard to make a feat/class/ class feature both worth taking and not too powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually wouldn't contend that for a sizable chunk of content. Indeed, it's seemingly impossible to counter-argue it. However, I will contend that a majority of released content has been balanced, and usable. Part of the problem I would say however, is that there are plenty of sacred cows right at the baseline of the system (Wizards.) who significantly sit above the deemed optimization level. So to put it, were it not for there being some significantly powerful options in the Core, some under-powered content would get a look-over.


memorax wrote:
That's the thing though. It's not just the ACG or its errata. It's been a pattern for quite awhile. Either options are too strong. It not worth taking. Or nerfing to the point it's not worth taking. Absolutely no middle ground IMO. I don't think it's that hard to make a feat/class/ class feature both worth taking and not too powerful.

This is why, like Tormsskull, I use PF - or any system - as a guideline and not as law. I almost always design my own campaign, tell my own story, and tweak the system to reflect that world. When a system keeps adding rules - new feats, traits, classes, archetypes, mechanics, whathaveyou, I try to allow my players to bring them in if they are attracted to them, but some I have to nerf or ban outright because they don't fit my game.

Then there are the components that are simply broken, and I have to ask: WHO the heck came up with this? And didn't they see how this could be abused? So, again, I house-rule.

This isn't unique to Pathfinder. I simply have been using PF because that's what the majority of my players know and use. I've been pushing for 5e, but they haven't wanted to switch.

So I come here to these forums and follow the treads to see: Who else is having issues? What are their solutions? And is this a trend?

Lately, there is a definite trend happening with Paizo. Errata - fixes and patches - have been creating more problems than they solve, often with little seeming reason. That is, I can't figure out WHY they are doing something. But the trend does indicate an awareness that the system has problems. Now I want o see if the creators can come up with a good, effective solution. Otherwise, I lose faith and resort to even more house-ruling, which is where I'm at.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with basing adjustments (read: nerfs and/or buffs) on theory crafting is that theory crafting often uses scenarios which require either the players to have psychic powers (every spellcaster selects spells which are always 100% useful in the upcoming situations and never casts a spell early resulting in a wasted slot) or unrealistic expectations (the party can always stop and rest for 8 hours no matter what) or is always at the highest (and most rarely played) levels (an 18th level caster can do x, y, or z) or are just flat out not-fun options that realistically no group but the most powergamey group with the most apathetic GM (Instead of going in the dungeon we stay outside and summon minions that do it for us, which means the GM shouldn't give us any experience and literally results in him playing with himself for 3 hours) would do.

Real game experiences with real situations are much more valuable.

Sovereign Court

3 people 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

I'm sorry - but you obviously haven't played a lot of systems. Many make even high level Pathfinder (which I generally avoid due to balance reasons among other things) look as balanced as Chess.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

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

Anything that nerfs casters is good

I'm sorry - but you obviously haven't played a lot of systems. Many make even high level Pathfinder (which I generally avoid due to balance reasons among other things) look as balanced as Chess.

Heh, that reminds of RIFTs Glitter Boys. Or on the other side of the sepctrum, 1ed WFRP spellcasters.


Exalted 2.0 was one of the most unbalanced systems that I have ever seen, and actually broken to the point that it was severely limiting on the players (as in, most of your wickedly cool godly abilities are terrible, because anyone actually challenging can perfect defense it for much less, and everyone went around with paranoia combos including perfect defenses just so that it didn't happen to them).

Despite all this, it was still amazingly fun.

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Merged threads since they're basically the same topic, going back through to look at comments to provide best feedback I have right now. Please be patient.

Community & Digital Content Director

23 people marked this as a favorite.

To preface this: I am not a member of the rules team, and I cannot speak to their decisions for what to change in the game. However, I can try to provide the best insight I can into our internal process with the knowledge I *do* have. Everyone posting here is interested in or passionate about the game in varying degrees), so I have left all posts in tact. I get that some people are venting and it's a perfectly understandable reaction, but from this point on, I'd ask that all posters in this thread try to keep their cool.

Quote:
Why is it nerf season?

I certainly understand how it can seem that way, since we've rarely had errata release this quickly back-to-back. However, it's just a coincidence that we've had several reprints come in such a short timespan. It was not a "sekrit" plan by our Design Team. Historically (the Advanced Class Guide is the exception), they are outside the tail end of the errata release process because it's purely prompted by inventory numbers and when we receive a shipment.

Quote:
I always forget where to look for the errata, could someone please link it?

The errata document is located here.

Paraphrased wrote:
"The Design Team personally hates X, Y, or Z"

Can't speak to this point (not a rules person, sorry!). I do know that every team in this building puts the best foot they can forward. We're not perfect, but we are listening. In general, though, please don't make blanket statements about the character or personal details about any member of our staff. Nobody in this discussion actually *knows* our staff, and it's just not cool to make assumptions about any individual and their personal motives and performance.

Quote:
How does it work for people who do Pathfinder Society organized play? Does everything change each time they update errata?

This probably won't receive an official answer until after Gen Con, but I'd suggest reading this post and this one by John Compton for some level of answer.

Paraphrased wrote:
Was the scarred witch doctor changed for "X, Y, or Z"?

Can't answer this one, our Design Team will be able to provide better feedback post-Gen Con.

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

Absolutely untrue. Because we received the second printing of the Advanced Race Guide right before the show, we elected to bring it along with us. Because people *right now* are able to purchase it there, it would be totally unfair to just say "surprise! new printing!" without providing the actual errata document and update our digital versions for people unable to attend. Either route we would have taken would have probably resulted in some form of upset, and this is the decision we made. It may not seem like the *best* one, but it absolutely was not chosen so we could ignore everyone over the convention weekend.

Paraphrased wrote:
Why not provide downloads of older printings? What about the PRD?

Honestly, I don't think we've been asked this before that I can recall. I believe we don't do this because we'd prefer people have access to the most current version when they purchase and having a large amount of download package options may be overwhelming/confusing. It is *technically* feasible, but I can see a number of reasons this can start getting hairy. For the PRD, I do agree that having visual indicators for what *is* errata-ed content is probably a good idea, but is a large project that I couldn't give you any sort of ETA on.

Paraphrased wrote:
Comments about the Advanced Class Guide in particular...

As Erik pointed out in one of the ACG threads, we'll likely have a blog with some level of explanation regarding errata once we start shipping the physical books. This particular hardcover had it's errata released outside of our usual process, some level of feedback has been provided by our team prior to leaving for Gen Con, but I'd expect more from us after the show and when that blog shows up.

I really hope that these answers help provide some insight for the time being, and I'll keep an eye on this thread in case there is a question I can answer. Again, we do appreciate you guys and your feedback (even the negative), but be cognizant that specific answers about rules are going to be difficult for us to provide until next week at the earliest.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for trying to answer what you can, Chris.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thanks for trying to answer what you can, Chris.

Seconded. Even without design specific feedback, the information provides a valuable level of context.

I'd think (giving benefit of the doubt) it was already going to be so, but I stress a desire that the explanation is comprehensive. Even at the risk of waiting longer. Mostly to create useful grounds for the inevitable responding (good/bad).

Liberty's Edge

In Exalted defence if does say from the start that the players are going to be powerful. It's not a rpg where a first level character starts wearing only a codpiece while carrying a rusty dagger. Do attacking all surprised means gamers reading the book are simply not paying attention IMO. Rusts on the other hand if it ever gets a revision could be a decent set of rules. Too bad they allowed anything and everything including the kitchen sink in terms of new rules and classe.

That being said after suffering through all the nerfing in PF. Sometimes it's refreshing to play a rpg that routinely tosses balance outside the window IMO.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cheers Chris!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

The problem with basing adjustments (read: nerfs and/or buffs) on theory crafting is that theory crafting often uses scenarios which require either the players to have psychic powers (every spellcaster selects spells which are always 100% useful in the upcoming situations and never casts a spell early resulting in a wasted slot) or unrealistic expectations (the party can always stop and rest for 8 hours no matter what) or is always at the highest (and most rarely played) levels (an 18th level caster can do x, y, or z) or are just flat out not-fun options that realistically no group but the most powergamey group with the most apathetic GM (Instead of going in the dungeon we stay outside and summon minions that do it for us, which means the GM shouldn't give us any experience and literally results in him playing with himself for 3 hours) would do.

Real game experiences with real situations are much more valuable.

That's just not true.

Yes, there are threads about what 20th level characters can do, and I consider those to be useless noise (because there is in my actual play experience almost nothing left of the game past level 15 or so, just increasing amounts of duct tape).

But there is plenty of useful theorycrafting even at very low levels. For example, pointing out that for any reasonable attack bonus vs. AC numbers, Powerful/Deadly sneak reduces expected damage, or that Death or Glory is an unbelievably terrible feat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Recently the errata that has occured, Crane Wing/Riposte, Scarred Witch Doctor, FCBs, etc. make me glad I avoid PFS like the plague and stick to homebrew. Being able to avoid errata that makes 0 sense to me or my table makes me happy, though I won't deny a little schadenfreude watching things burn. I love Pathfinder and am a staunch supporter of it, but I agree there are things that get "fixed" that make me feel someone needs an anime style gutpunch for breaking nice things.

151 to 200 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