|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you can play the game as not intended all you like, and it isn't doing it wrong by any means, but you also can't complain that the game breaks down at some point under its own weight.
You can say it wasn't intended to be played that way, but the fact remains that we did it and never saw it break down. We saw more breakdown between spellcasters and warriors than actual underpinnings of the game mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda what I was thinking.
Why do people always think they are held to the errata?
One character I have on the boards here, Praetorix, (gestalt cleric/oracle, but not important) was going to take Divine Protection at 3rd level.
After learning that it was completely and utterly useless, the GM for that proposed using the old, or agreeing on something else.
And guess what?
No one from Paizo made him stop.
(Prae has since decided to dip Antipaladin, so the point is moot, for those interested.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What, it's that hard to ignore the errata? Complaining is all well and good, but why would you allow an errata you don't like to hamper your home game in such dramatic fashion?Alas, my group has come to an even simpler conclusion. We were between campaigns, and debating whether to run another Pathfinder game or try something else. Considering the nerf-splosion knocked out a few character ideas people were considering for the next Pathfinder game, we're going to be playing Iron Kingdoms or World of Darkness instead.Im pretty much there. My group is looking at seriously spending a few months of game nights and just rewriting the system. Some borrowing from 3PP (Tome of battle and spheres of power as big ones), some reverting to 3.5 (Including bringing back some favorite classes, PrCs, and feats), some borrowing from Kirthfinder, some of our own houserules from over the years, some from PF unchained, and some from PF unmolested (bard, inquisitor, and alchemist for sure.)
We plan to ground up tinker everything together and format it into a PDF and probably have a few nice copies printed for our own reference and then just play that game forever. We may may work up a "modern/future addendum but that will be our only "splat."
Converting bestiaries and monster manuals will be a chore though!
The point is, we are so dissatisfied with the direction of the game we are willing to take potentially as much as a year of playing time out of our game to fix it because we no longer trust Paizo to get it right.
I feel your pain, brother... I have a pages-long googledoc of house rules and rules fixes... And those are just the ones I bothered to write down. ><'
It's really, really difficult not to be disheartened.
It's not that we can't ignore it so much as it is that all the errata dimmed our enthusiasm for Pathfinder at a time when we were already debating whether or not try out a different game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You pick up a fresh sheet you pick a class and you write a 1 next to it and you begin again.That might be what you do. Me, I've gone to level 30, and would do it again. Anything to avoid retreading that same beaten path of 1st level again.And that is fine. You can go to level 30, you can keep getting more and more and more and more powerful... If that is what you want to do... However you have to understand that the game was never built for that and was never really intended to do that.
So you can play the game as not intended all you like, and it isn't doing it wrong by any means, but you also can't complain that the game breaks down at some point under its own weight.
The Pathfinder sweet spot is between level 5 and level 15.
Disagree on all points.
-TimD
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda what I was thinking.
Why do people always think they are held to the errata?
One character I have on the boards here, Praetorix, (gestalt cleric/oracle, but not important) was going to take Divine Protection at 3rd level.
After learning that it was completely and utterly useless, the GM for that proposed using the old, or agreeing on something else.
And guess what?
No one from Paizo made him stop.(Prae has since decided to dip Antipaladin, so the point is moot, for those interested.)
Well, there's obviously PFS. Which for a lot of us is an easy and generally fun way to play. I especially like how it lets you have a multitude of characters instead of being locked into a single character for months or years at a time.
Then there's the problem of playing in other peoples' campaigns who automatically adopt the errata or who don't even recognize that there was a previous version out there when they look at the recently updated reference sites. Sure, you an change GMs and find a new group, but that kinda sucks.
Then there's the problem of moving between established groups with different houserules. In my experience half of the time the groups have even forgotten what's houserules and what's not, so new players can often be surprised by them in the middle of a campaign after joining an established play group.
Then there's the process of figuring out those houserules as the GM. What do you want to keep? What do you want to toss? If something was errata'd in your previous campaign and people used the old option, do you let them continue to use the old option in a new campaign?
The fewer changes you've got to make in your campaign the less work there is all around. It's nice when things don't need to be fixed!
I don't think any individual change is a problem in a home game, but when there's a lot of them, the labor required to track your rulings as a GM adds up.
Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble!we should riot
That was such a rousing rabble.
What did they nerf this time?
*Sees the Scarred Witch Doctor mentioned*
...really? They actually nerfed a caster instead of a melee type?
Not really a nerf, more like a habitat destruction.
There are certain terrible elder beings geting seriously invoked here.
But let's let the sleeping gods rest ay?
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
And people wonder why Mark's the only dev team member that even bothers talking to the message boards. =P
Nobody ever wants to take credit for starting the fire. I've found this to be a very bad policy when making rules however. When you cannot explain or justify the why, you must expect people to assume the worst. It's human nature.
Maybe if the rules team actually did something crazy like discuss the rules, why they wanted to change them, and so forth, people would be more receptive. However lately it looks like they don't actually care about the game anymore and haven't even cracked open their own books since the FAQs are an utterly disgusting mess.
When you don't interact with your community other than to release questionable changes, often with no apparent reason, how else do you expect to be perceived?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.
A simple blog post detailing some of the more in depth changes (witch doctor, Wyroot, paragon surge even) when errata comes out would be really nice.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can't do that, since apparently posting blog posts is an exhaustive process for the web team (what?) and have a limited word count (seriously what?).
And expecting them to start a normal forum thread about it is just RIGHT out.
They always have some new excuse for WHY they can't communicate with the community any. It's gotten old.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda what I was thinking.
Why do people always think they are held to the errata?
One character I have on the boards here, Praetorix, (gestalt cleric/oracle, but not important) was going to take Divine Protection at 3rd level.
After learning that it was completely and utterly useless, the GM for that proposed using the old, or agreeing on something else.
And guess what?
No one from Paizo made him stop.(Prae has since decided to dip Antipaladin, so the point is moot, for those interested.)
Even people who own books will reference the PRD and pfSRD. That does change.
The lifeblood of the game is new GMs and new GMs tend not to make sweeping houserules because they don't believe they understand the game better than the devs.
Asking to keep your older stronger version makes you look like a munchkin. Many would rather just scrap the character and make one that is rules legal.
Many enjoy the illusion of shared experience by playing with the same rules as everyone else.
The list goes on and on.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And people wonder why Mark's the only dev team member that even bothers talking to the message boards. =PNobody ever wants to take credit for starting the fire. I've found this to be a very bad policy when making rules however. When you cannot explain or justify the why, you must expect people to assume the worst. It's human nature.
Maybe if the rules team actually did something crazy like discuss the rules, why they wanted to change them, and so forth, people would be more receptive. However lately it looks like they don't actually care about the game anymore and haven't even cracked open their own books since the FAQs are an utterly disgusting mess.
When you don't interact with your community other than to release questionable changes, often with no apparent reason, how else do you expect to be perceived?
Totally agree here, more communication is what we've needed forever, and since we have a rather small number of the dev team that seem to interact with the forum as a whole (thus limiting the amount of feedback they're privy to), the same mistakes keep being made, and there's a sizable portion of people who do view these as mistakes.
How many times do we have to say "You KILLED this option!" before it's understood that they can't keep chopping things off at the knees and saying "We left it with thighs, it can still walk."
I almost feel like Crane Wing was the beginning of the end for this, although the re-ratta'd Crane Wing was a desperate (and really futile for what the feat used to do) attempt to make it seem like they did take things into account. They made it 3.5 dodge, which is almost insulting when PF joked about how worthless Dodge was when they changed it in the transition.
Give people a poll or something when you're talking about errata, give us a chance to chime in, don't TELL us what we want when it's growing more and more obvious that you're getting this wrong.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe if the rules team actually did something crazy like discuss the rules, why they wanted to change them, and so forth, people would be more receptive.
Trouble is the player base has a hard time being civil talking over thigns even amongst themselves. And given the comments here I for one wouldn't want to leap into the acid bath when a bucket of salt looms overhead.
| 33 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.
You're right, we can communicate this better. I'm actively trying to see what my team can do on this front while everyone is at the show. This doesn't change previous issues, but rest assured it's not being ignored.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.A simple blog post detailing some of the more in depth changes (witch doctor, Wyroot, paragon surge even) when errata comes out would be really nice.
I was thinking shortly before. Kind of like what Goblinworks did in PFO (too soon?). A heads-up on stuff like this before reprinting would help mitigate a flawed reprint.
They can't do that, since apparently posting blog posts is an exhaustive process for the web team (what?) and have a limited word count (seriously what?).
And expecting them to start a normal forum thread about it is just RIGHT out.
They always have some new excuse for WHY they can't communicate with the community any. It's gotten old.
Paizo has always had a record of being very open and helpful, with the sole, major exception of dealing with rules complaints (which I believe have been hit-and-miss). I wouldn't write them off just yet. Paizo is perfectly capable of adapting—big as the company's getting, they're still great at acting small. The untrusting, contemptuous, borderline petulant attitudes this thread has begun to host aren't going to encourage it, though.
NINJEDIT: HA!
Even people who own books will reference the PRD and pfSRD. That does change.
This. Inconsistencies can be a real pain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trouble is the player base has a hard time being civil talking over thigns even amongst themselves. And given the comments here I for one wouldn't want to leap into the acid bath when a bucket of salt looms overhead.
Maybe if the rules team actually did something crazy like discuss the rules, why they wanted to change them, and so forth, people would be more receptive.
I do it all the time. It's good for the soul. :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trouble is the player base has a hard time being civil talking over things even amongst themselves. And given the comments here I for one wouldn't want to leap into the acid bath when a bucket of salt looms overhead.
Maybe if the rules team actually did something crazy like discuss the rules, why they wanted to change them, and so forth, people would be more receptive.
If you don't want to talk to people to get an idea of feedback, you shouldn't be in a business in where such feedback is important. You can say that they'd be attacked, but no matter what happens, there's going to be derision, it's sadly considered standard of the internet.
Saying "I don't wanna be yelled at" is a very weak way for a company to act when they could actually be getting useful input from others about their decisions, especially when decisions are being challenged as foolish.
Seriously, they need to bite the bullet or just admit they don't value customer input as much as they claim to with these public playtest and other such things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.You're right, we can communicate this better. I'm actively trying to see what my team can do on this front while everyone is at the show. This doesn't change previous issues, but rest assured it's not being ignored.
Personally, I appreciate your civility in this matter if nothing else.
Paizo has always had a record of being very open and helpful, with the sole, major exception of acknowledging rules complaints. I wouldn't write them off just yet. Paizo is perfectly capable of adapting—big as the company's getting, they're still great at acting small. The paranoid, contemptuous attitudes this thread has begun to host aren't going to encourage it, though.They can't do that, since apparently posting blog posts is an exhaustive process for the web team (what?) and have a limited word count (seriously what?).
And expecting them to start a normal forum thread about it is just RIGHT out.
They always have some new excuse for WHY they can't communicate with the community any. It's gotten old.
You sound just like I used to when defending Valve as they got bigger and bigger and started talking to the community less and less and making more and more questionable design decisions.
I was wrong there.
Here's hoping I'm not right this time.
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.You're right, we can communicate this better. I'm actively trying to see what my team can do on this front while everyone is at the show. This doesn't change previous issues, but rest assured it's not being ignored.
Thanks Chris.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.A simple blog post detailing some of the more in depth changes (witch doctor, Wyroot, paragon surge even) when errata comes out would be really nice.
I agree, it would be nice to have some background on why the changes were made and what the mindset is on the changes.
That said, given threads like these and others (Crane Wing comes to mind) they may be waiting for the villagers to stop waving pitchforks and torches around before trying to talk to the masses.
Someone upthread -- Lemmy I think -- said something to the effect of when you don't think they hear you that you start yelling (I'm typing from memory, so forgive me if I misquote Lemmy). The issue is that there is a lot of yelling right now and dire predictions of just never playing again and how this is all horrible.
Maybe they are looking back over the errata or maybe they aren't. They aren't keeping us up to date on what they are doing, which is a bit troublesome, but the posts keep coming and the bile continues to build. I'd suggest -- and be ignored -- that people should take a breath and relax and try to address it with a bit calmer voice after GenCon. I seriously doubt you'll get a post or reaction other than locked threads until after they get back.
Edit: And Chris ninjas me, so maybe you will get a reaction. I still suggest calm.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can't do that, since apparently posting blog posts is an exhaustive process for the web team (what?) and have a limited word count (seriously what?).
And expecting them to start a normal forum thread about it is just RIGHT out.
They always have some new excuse for WHY they can't communicate with the community any. It's gotten old.
I will say it is odd how anti-transparent they are about the whole process of game design and the errata/FAQ process.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a consumer stand-point because it isn't exactly like this type of business has a lot of big industry trade secrets that transparency would ruin.
I hope after Gen Con that we find out some more information about this. However I am not holding my breath, the fact that these were errata's and not FAQs gives them a certain finality to them.
You sound just like I used to when defending Valve as they got bigger and bigger and started talking to the community less and less and making more and more questionable design decisions.
I was wrong there.
Here's hoping I'm not right this time.
If the Golem starts sporting a conspicuous nozzle on the back of its head, we'll know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd almost like to go back to 3.5, as that was a system I knew, and it certainly wouldn't be changing unless I deemed it necessary.
Yessssss. Come back to ussssss!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.A simple blog post detailing some of the more in depth changes (witch doctor, Wyroot, paragon surge even) when errata comes out would be really nice.
Also a great idea. Also, as I mentioned up thread, there is likely going to be an ACG blog that should tie in with when we begin shipping the second printing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless something is a outright problem or miss print things should stay as published. Having so many different versions out in the wild are a pain in the butt. You also fall into what pathfinder started out to not do...make books obsolete. Originally it was you could use your 3.5 books. If something is a little over the top unless it is game breaking let it be. If you feel there are so many issues that need correcting then maybe it is time to go back to the drawing board and use all the lessons learned and do Pathfinder version 2. Do not try to build a system that is free from cheese and exploits of the power gamers that path has been tried and that is what led you to making Pathfinder in the first place.
Problem with that is what is an outright problem? To who? There are "outright problems" and "broken" material that people don't agree on. Paizo clearly thinks some things were broken or needed tweaking, and others don't. Some people believe that things are broken or need tweaking and Paizo doesn't. Who gets to decide?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd almost like to go back to 3.5, as that was a system I knew, and it certainly wouldn't be changing unless I deemed it necessary.Yessssss. Come back to ussssss!
And THEN I would patch in all the PF rules that I thought worked better, constructing a Frankenstienian monstrosity of core and house rules! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also a great idea. Also, as I mentioned up thread, there is likely going to be an ACG blog that should tie in with when we begin shipping the second printing.It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.A simple blog post detailing some of the more in depth changes (witch doctor, Wyroot, paragon surge even) when errata comes out would be really nice.
Can I also suggest a poll for changes with different ideas for errata? For some of the playtest, we were given a poll for how we enjoyed or didn't enjoy classes as well as other questions to presumably fine tune them. I think it'd be better if we felt like the design team was actually considering more than one option (which is burning it to the ground and sending its parents a bill for the match that they did it with) when they made errata and changes.
| 1 person 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..."
I do dislike that. I still don't feel like interacting with the thread since on the side complaining are people insulting Paizo and staff.
Not suggesting complaining needs to be insulted.
I don't feel like saying anything to critisize Paizo not because I believe their perfect, but because of the other people on that side of the argument. I'm reasonably confident that someone here could call out that the Paizo writes and edits books while completely wasted and the general reaction from the thread would be "huzzah, I think you nailed it" or silence from people who don't agree, but certainly will not argue with people on their own side.
I hate the middle ground her because the posts on both sides are loud and I don't want to condemn or condone anyone involved.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And people wonder why Mark's the only dev team member that even bothers talking to the message boards. =PNobody ever wants to take credit for starting the fire. I've found this to be a very bad policy when making rules however. When you cannot explain or justify the why, you must expect people to assume the worst. It's human nature.
Maybe if the rules team actually did something crazy like discuss the rules, why they wanted to change them, and so forth, people would be more receptive. However lately it looks like they don't actually care about the game anymore and haven't even cracked open their own books since the FAQs are an utterly disgusting mess.
When you don't interact with your community other than to release questionable changes, often with no apparent reason, how else do you expect to be perceived?
I suspect they expect to be hated and reviled no matter what they do, and so they just shrug and roll with it.
I don't think endlessly arguing with angry nerds on the internet is actually part of their job duties =P
(Though if it actually was? Man, talk about sisyphean tasks...)
(Incidentally, if you want to see terrible errata? Check out WotC's Tome of Battle errata.
After about 4 paragraphs, it suddenly becomes errata for a completely different book.
WotC never bothered to fix it.
That is what it looks like when a company no longer gives a damn =P)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ten years from now, you will all look back fondly on the days when the Dodge Feat provided a flat +1 dodge bonus to AC instead of the newly revised Dodge feat that now gives you a +1 bonus to reflex saves during a full moon and has 'Skill Focus(Profession: Baker)' as a prerequisite... And also requires you to be a Gnome.
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..."I do dislike that. I still don't feel like interacting with the thread since on the side complaining are people insulting Paizo and staff.
*Cough*
Yeah, shortly after I said that, the tomatoes really started flying from my side. Whoops.
People on one side do target folks on their own sides that get too nasty, though. Paizo's community is usually pretty good at that much.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to add myself to the list of folks calling for rationality and civility. Do I like the changes, well, in fact, no I don't. Am I going to start insulting or complaning at the Paizo staff, in fact, no I am not. I would ask, nae, implore, everyone to do the same. We solve nothing by making the Paizo staff angry or relucatant to engage with their fans. (aside point, it is indeed possible, for non PFS players and GMs to not use the changes, we are free to do that. I can understand PFS players being upset about some changes in so far as they cannot in legal play ignore them, but the rest of us, if we do not feel a change suits us, can, and I suggest, rather than raging out, we simply do that instead, I know I will be.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even people who own books will reference the PRD and pfSRD. That does change.This. Inconsistencies can be a real pain.
It would be absolutely brilliant if the PRD would let you choose a printing when looking through each book, much like the Python documentation lets you look at the documentation for any released version.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect they expect to be hated and reviled no matter what they do, and so they just shrug and roll with it.
I don't think endlessly arguing with angry nerds on the internet is actually part of their job duties =P
(Though if it actually was? Man, talk about sisyphean tasks...)
(Incidentally, if you want to see terrible errata? Check out WotC's Tome of Battle errata.
After about 4 paragraphs, it suddenly becomes errata for a completely different book.
WotC never bothered to fix it.
That is what it looks like when a company no longer gives a damn =P)
Again, if they're not going to look for feedback and are only looking for praise, that's not helpful. It's still their responsibility to have a concept of what their customers want, and no, they don't have to engage us on the forums, it's actually impressive that they do. I don't want to take away from that, but if they're not keeping at least a light hand on the pulse of the forum (as it seems like it's important to them), they're ignoring valuable feedback.
And just because WOTC gave lacking eratta for one of the LAST books in their print run doesn't give Paizo a free pass unless this is also one of the last books in this version's print run. I'd hope for Paizo to be better than WOTC, not point out the other's failures and say "Hey, at least we didn't screw up THAT badly."
I just want to feel like my input matters as much as anyone else's, and that said input is being considered rather than the disastrous implementation of this errata that as Ryujin said earlier "Feels like it was put out now so they wouldn't have to deal with the initial backlash."
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok man, that is a little out of line.
This isn't a subscription based service. This isn't an MMO. Tabletop RPG companies don't often do the kind of face time you see from MMO and DOTA-style game devs.
Did TSR send out newsletters when they added/changed something? White Wolf/Onyx Path doesn't. Hasbro doesn't/didn't. WotC doesn't/didn't.
You're lucky Paizo even does an eratta at all. Back in the day they'd have just released "Advanced Pathfinder" and have told you, "You want rules updates? Buy our new book!"
And forget an SRD, that would have *never* been allowed. Lawsuits would have been filed so fast the legal department would be half dead from blood loss due to papercuts.
To be perfectly frank... Paizo doesn't owe you anything in that regard.
Oh wow, you're telling me someone wanting a business that operates now to consider ways to improve is out of line? Why not bring up other examples?
"Back when cars came out, they didn't even HAVE safety standards, it was your fault if you died, not a car that exploded from a stiff wind. And now you want seatbelts? Selfish much?"
It's almost as though business practices have changed, and the SRD is a holdover from 3.5, this isn't a paizo thing, and the PFSRD is really maintained a lot better than the official one if we're even considering that the official SRD could be maintained better.
Paizo may not owe us anything, but we sure as hell don't owe Paizo anything if they're not willing to meet the standards we have for spending money on a hobby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly I'm not a fan of these changes either. There does seem to be a great deal of things that got nerfed to the ground. Divine Protection for example, is quite powerful but I think making it a once per day "decide before you roll" ability is taking things too far in the other direction.
There also seems to be some options that I'm just not sure needed nerfing. Take Twist Away for example. It seems that the only people getting a benefit that could be considered too powerful for a feat were Rogues. Pretty much everyone else, already has a high fortitude save already and will probably prefer taking other options. Not to mention Rogues certainly needed it to have more than one good save.
I'm not sure Paizo needs to "justify" their actions but I do think more communication would be helpful before the erratas are released so we don't have all of these nerfs dumped on us with no explanation. It's quite frustrating to have to rebuild current characters especially if they.
Furthermore, while Pathfinder has many options I do think they should consider which aspects make a particular option too powerful rather than nerfing the whole option. With Divine Protection as an example, it's certainly too powerful for an Oracle but why not remove "Mystery" from the prerequisites rather than nerfing the option as a whole?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing more talk about hostility than I am seeing of actual hostility.
Just because you are having trouble calmly critiquing someone else's points doesn't mean you should start talking about the tone of, "their side".
Everyone here is an individual speaking their own minds. No one is responsible for the what OTHERS are saying.
People can also be hostile and have their post deleted. That doesn't make what they were complaining about invalid. There might actually be real reasons for people being annoyed.
I for one am having trouble myself. I play pathfinder for quite some time. I want to have fun with it, but every trash options intentionally balance to be trash "less there be the dreaded power creep" is making the game less and less fun. I dislike how some of my most haphazard characters contribute far more than characters that require hours of build research and group thinking to put together. One of my groups is at level 16 right now. Someone decided that they were going to roll swashbuckler after their investigator to the collective sigh of the group. Since that character is going to get carried just so it can die trying to do whatever it was built for against encounters designed to handle our 8 person party. OUR group had less trouble in 3.5 keeping martials relevant. Mainly because everything was SOOOO borked that if you set the borked limit at a certain point everyone could build to that. The campaigns where martials fell on their face was when we went the Paizo route and just banned all bork. Which left martials as basically useless because you need to break them to keep up with vanilla casters played by an invested player /rant
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can't do that, since apparently posting blog posts is an exhaustive process for the web team (what?) and have a limited word count (seriously what?).
And expecting them to start a normal forum thread about it is just RIGHT out.
They always have some new excuse for WHY they can't communicate with the community any. It's gotten old.
Ok man, that is a little out of line.
This isn't a subscription based service. This isn't an MMO. Tabletop RPG companies don't often do the kind of face time you see from MMO and DOTA-style game devs.
Did TSR send out newsletters when they added/changed something? White Wolf/Onyx Path doesn't. Hasbro doesn't/didn't. WotC doesn't/didn't.
You're lucky Paizo even does an eratta at all. Back in the day they'd have just released "Advanced Pathfinder" and have told you, "You want rules updates? Buy our new book!"
And forget an SRD, that would have *never* been allowed. Lawsuits would have been filed so fast the legal department would be half dead from blood loss due to papercuts.
To be perfectly frank... Paizo doesn't owe you anything in that regard.
First off, I don't give the tiniest flying f!@$ what Hasbro, WoTC, White Wolf, or any other company did or did not do.
I care about what Paizo is doing (or not doing, as the case may be).
Because you're right. This isn't an MMO or subscription based service.
It's a much smaller business than that. The entire playerbase of Pathfinder could comfortably log on and play on a single WoW server together.
Which is why communicating with their playerbase is MORE important, not less.
They can't afford to alienate a significant chunk of their players.
Because hey, guess what? We don't owe them anything either. Not a dime.
The difference here being is I can comfortably survive without buying Paizo products, as can everyone else who pays Pathfinder.
Paizo, on the other hand...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can't do that, since apparently posting blog posts is an exhaustive process for the web team (what?) and have a limited word count (seriously what?).
And expecting them to start a normal forum thread about it is just RIGHT out.
They always have some new excuse for WHY they can't communicate with the community any. It's gotten old.
Ok man, that is a little out of line.
This isn't a subscription based service. This isn't an MMO. Tabletop RPG companies don't often do the kind of face time you see from MMO and DOTA-style game devs.
Did TSR send out newsletters when they added/changed something? White Wolf/Onyx Path doesn't. Hasbro doesn't/didn't. WotC doesn't/didn't.
You're lucky Paizo even does an eratta at all. Back in the day they'd have just released "Advanced Pathfinder" and have told you, "You want rules updates? Buy our new book!"
And forget an SRD, that would have *never* been allowed. Lawsuits would have been filed so fast the legal department would be half dead from blood loss due to papercuts.
To be perfectly frank... Paizo doesn't owe you anything in that regard.
Oh wow, you're telling me someone wanting a business that operates now to consider ways to improve is out of line? Why not bring up other examples?
"Back when cars came out, they didn't even HAVE safety standards, it was your fault if you died, not a car that exploded from a stiff wind. And now you want seatbelts? Selfish much?"
It's almost as though business practices have changed, and the SRD is a holdover from 3.5, this isn't a paizo thing, and the PFSRD is really maintained a lot better than the official one if we're even considering that the official SRD could be maintained better.
Paizo may not owe us anything, but we sure as hell don't owe Paizo anything if they're not willing to meet the standards we have for spending money on a hobby.
I don't think any of the three arguments are applicable and/or fair.
Rynjin: I think Chris has tackled this pretty well already just by posting and saying they're working on it, so I'm not gonna pile on any more.
HWalsh: I'm getting a little tired of seeing "Don't like, don't read" used as an actual defense. That's valid against people talking about how ruined their home games are by errata, but not against people just pointing out how problematic the errata is. I'm also a little tired of people comparing Paizo to "inferior" publishers, as if that exempts them from making mistakes that should be questioned. Just because Paizo is the bestest RPG company in the world doesn't mean they can't screw up from time to time. ;D
N. Jolly: Comparing an RPG publisher to a manufacturer of huge metal objects that crush people like tissue paper is a little bit absurd. It kind of speaks of the attitude of your whole post: Technically accurate, but put in a way that's melodramatic and bizarrely hostile.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I think I've got them all aggroed on me. Now I can lead them out of the room so you guys can go in, get the treasure, then come back and bail me out!
...guys?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin: I think Chris has tackled this.
I don't think so, since similar things have been said in the past and little has come of those promises as of yet except more promises to do the thing they promised to do a while back.