Why all the nerfs Paizo?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 923 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

FiddlersGreen wrote:
Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.

Yeah...that's not what the poll is used for.

At least, supposed to be used for.

I definitely wrote:
They don't even have to listen to us every time..

See?

It's supposed to be a guideline, not a determining factor.

How much of the errata has been beat to death in the threads recently?
How much of that would have not changed if we had been able to discuss it beforehand?


FiddlersGreen wrote:
Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.

They already are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:


I don't find it hard to imagine, personally. Not everyone feels Paizo ignore their fan base. If we were polled and the designers went contrary to the majority vote - wouldn't it bolster the claims of those who feel the community is being ignored?

I think the existence of a poll itself isnt going to help. The only way to fix the perception of those who currently feel ignored is either better communication as to why the PDT went the other way or a shift in design direction. Neither of those things requires a poll, but a poll without either of those things gives the potential for the perception to get worse, in my opinion.

An interesting thought. But it all comes down to how they act about the polls.

If the devs dump a poll up provide zero input feedback or discussion whatsoever and then rule against the majority then yes people will believe they're being ignored because they are more or less being ignored.

On the other hand lets say they put up a poll they see a lot of feedback from the community and add on a few follow up questions and have some discussions about why Crane Wing for example is being an oppressive part of the game for some people maybe the skew is 60% CW is fine 40% It's OP and needs to be fixed. The Devs end up going with the 40% and explain why they think this fix will change CW into a better place. They then move the change on to the Errata Playtest section of the forums and wait for feedback on how the ability fairs in some game sessions. Then they see it's too weak and tweak it back up a bit, they run another set of playtests that find it being meaningful without having that never hit element of the original, they then push it "live". I imagine very few people would say they're being ignored that wouldn't be saying that regardless of what Paizo was doing.


Yeah, I'm kind of quibbling, however I personally think it's not the poll helping there but a more collaborative design process (collaborative with the community). I doubt that's cost-effective, but that's a separate issue.

A bit like BigDTBone above - I worry that a poll might be seen as a panacaea, where it's really just papering over a deeper issue.

I'm not really against a poll in principle, but I don't think the current lack of polling is significant to the issue that people are actually objecting to. As such, I'm opposed on a practical level - I think effort would be better directed elsewhere.


Anzyr wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.
I personally believe the rules of anything should always be determined by a minority that is well versed in them. I'd rather have experts making rules then lay people. Allowing a majority to decide the rules of anything is nothing but mob rule.

I think that is what we've got now, a group of experts making rules. It's the other experts that disagree with them where the problem lies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.
I personally believe the rules of anything should always be determined by a minority that is well versed in them. I'd rather have experts making rules then lay people. Allowing a majority to decide the rules of anything is nothing but mob rule.
I think that is what we've got now, a group of experts making rules. It's the other experts that disagree with them where the problem lies.

To be more specific, within that group of experts we have people ready and willing to be open to the community and the person in charge who has failed to interact meaningfully with the community for about a year.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Viatos wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.
They already are.

*COUGH*PFS*COUGH*

Sorry, I was coughing. I meant to say that too many rules are changed simply to fit PFS despite the organized play having its own ban list that it could use to fix its own internal problems, since its model of play is significantly different than that of others.

It's already a vocal minority, PFS GMs.

No one said the polls were absolute, but if you have a 70% margin of people saying "Hey, let's maybe not scorch Crane Wing to the ground??", it should show that there are some people who don't much like the idea of having their entire concept invalidated because PFS encounters don't have the best design work as well as allowance of GM flexibility.


In case anybody wants to get ahold of me or respond to one of my posts, be aware that I'm now hiding this thread.

Nothing in particular against it—it's just really hard to keep up with and I need to kill the temptation to try. :P


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
bigrig107 wrote:
Everyone who knows the rules now should already have the book, or have access to it one way or another. This means it isn't that unbelievable for an individual to ignore the errata, or any FAQ, or any statement from anyone on here.

You are assuming that everybody has the same (first) printing of each book -- which in the case of the Core Rulebook is a really dubious assumption, as it has been reprinted six times. Since the errata are incorporated into each new printing (in fact, errata files are usually generated specifically for a new printing), it is quite possible that two or more people in your gaming group could look up the same rule in their personal copies of a given rulebook and see something completely different.

Do you want to go back to the original, unerrataed rules in any Pathfinder rulebook? Well, if you do not have a way to get a copy of the first priting of that rulebook, you are out of luck.


David knott 242 wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:
Everyone who knows the rules now should already have the book, or have access to it one way or another. This means it isn't that unbelievable for an individual to ignore the errata, or any FAQ, or any statement from anyone on here.

You are assuming that everybody has the same (first) printing of each book -- which in the case of the Core Rulebook is a really dubious assumption, as it has been reprinted six times. Since the errata are incorporated into each new printing (in fact, errata files are usually generated specifically for a new printing), it is quite possible that two or more people in your gaming group could look up the same rule in their personal copies of a given rulebook and see something completely different.

Do you want to go back to the original, unerrataed rules in any Pathfinder rulebook? Well, if you do not have a way to get a copy of the first priting of that rulebook, you are out of luck.

Which is why I agreed with the suggestion that Paizo could re-sell the older versions of things.

I'm sure they have the un-errata-ed versions of the PDFs somewhere.


Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.
Yea, it would just be terrible if there were this annoying tiny but vocal group of four people, collectively called the "Pathfinder Design Team", who determined all the rules. Clearly the only solution is for no rules to be written, ever, without the expressed consent of a supermajority of every person who has ever played an RPG.

Replace four people with one person and you got it right... :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is pretty much the end of the line for me with Pathfinder RPG line products and support. Went ahead and canceled my subscription.

I was already leaning this direction after bad experiences with the Mythic Playtest / final product and disappointment with the ACG / Occult Adventures, but this last rush of errata pretty much confirms that the direction that design and development is going isn't somewhere that I'm interested in.

So yeah, I'm done. I have no intention of using this errata or purchasing future hardcovers unless there is some sign that design is really going interesting places again. If I wanted a bunch of books full of classes and feats I'd never use, I'd just go over to my WotC bookshelf.

Less a protest and more just an observation.

Still going to give the two Hells AP's a look though.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The community had dissatisfaction with the quality of the Advanced Class Guide's supplementary material. Many people felt shocked when the errata did more than simply fix it. Worse is that the errata gave some content even more poorly worded, ambiguous rules text. The technical writing and design decisions with supplementary content leaves much to be desired in recent products. Many customers felt like they bought a broken product, and when the company fixed the product a year later, they broke it in a different way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

Access to developers:

Not a big deal either way. Insights into what they are thinking is nice, but hardly mandatory.

FAQ:
a) Keep errata separate from FAQs. FAQs are explaining how the rules work while errata are changes to the rules.
b) Announce new FAQs in the forums, preferably in a dedicated FAQ/errata sticky thread.
c) A blog post or podcast explaining the reasoning behind the decision would be greatly appreciated.
d) End the policy that FAQs are to be construed as narrowly as possible. The underlying rules should be the same in all cases. Exceptions need to be clearly noted in the ability that grants the exception.

Errata:
a) Separate FAQs from errata completely. Do not use the FAQ for stealth errata.
b) Occasionally post proposed errata on the boards. This would leverage a much larger pool of theory crafting and play testing than strictly in house discussions would.
c) Post errata as it occurs, not when there is a new printing. It does not take that much to update the errata PDF. Close that file when a new edition goes to print and open a new one.
d) Announce new errata in the forums, preferably in a dedicated FAQ/errata sticky thread.
e) A blog post or podcast explaining the reasoning behind the decision would be greatly appreciated.

PRD:
No real thoughts here.

Versioned PDFs:
No. This will only breed confusion. There is one set of official rules, that is what should be available.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

Chris, this is a great discussion topic, but I think a brand new thread would do it more justice. The current thread is already pretty long with the whole nerf discussion and many might be avoiding it to avoid a thread which has a lot of negativity, while I think this discussion can be better and more productive without the nerf thread baggage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

It might cut down on the desire for bloodshed unrestrained grar if there's a face to go along with it.

Might.

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

One. Page. Dear gods one page.

I have no idea where half of the faq's are. They're stored on individual books, and not always on the book you'd think they would be. The FAQ on altering class features for archetypes is on the core rule book... which doesn't even deal with archtypes.

I'd like to see why things were changed. A lot of the recent errata has been "wth?" levels of why something changed. If one ability was causing the need for a nerf to the bonus class abilities.. change that ability, not the entire class.

The "this paragraph this sentence replace this.. on that page on this sentence replace that..." format is great for an editor, but as a player it gives me NO idea what i'm looking at unless i can put two things up on my screen at the same time and pen something in, cross something out, and then read it.

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

Quote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

I like how pfsrd does it: you have the real text, the old text is there with a strike through through it.

Quote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Still dealing with that new fangled fire thing. Not my area of expertise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:

This is pretty much the end of the line for me with Pathfinder RPG line products and support. Went ahead and canceled my subscription.

I was already leaning this direction after bad experiences with the Mythic Playtest / final product and disappointment with the ACG / Occult Adventures, but this last rush of errata pretty much confirms that the direction that design and development is going isn't somewhere that I'm interested in.

So yeah, I'm done. I have no intention of using this errata or purchasing future hardcovers unless there is some sign that design is really going interesting places again. If I wanted a bunch of books full of classes and feats I'd never use, I'd just go over to my WotC bookshelf.

Less a protest and more just an observation.

Still going to give the two Hells AP's a look though.

I'm not a subscriber but I'm very much feeling the same. The scenario, module, adventure path and campaign setting are all really solid product lines in my view and I look forward to future releases. The RPG line on the other hand comes off as being poorer quality relative to other Paizo products and unstable and unpredictable as well. When it comes right down to it it's not something that I want to build characters around anymore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Additional communication is certainly good... But I think the core issue has proven to be words going in one ear and out the other unimpeded when communication was being done in the first place.

One big advantage of playtests is the ability to throw a piece of meat into a forum, and freely collect the results from hundreds of rabid data-eating beasts mangling their way through every little orifice of the mechanics being tested.

Often, not only are the problems singled out, but all the work showing how this was proven accompanies it, as do various fixes and suggestions. All that's left is to pick your favorite out of the reasonable ones and that's it, you're done!

But if, instead of using all that data, you ignore it like the average beancounter two floors up wants us to do with OSHA, you end up with nothing fixed. nothing repaired.

All that time, all that work, all that arguing and math and brainstorming... all of it just burned off in the wind.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my two groups has dropped Pathfinder in favor of GURPS, a system I highly recommend to people here.

The other one is going to be playing through Carrion Crown before we switch back to good old D&D 3.5e for at least one future campaign.

Liberty's Edge

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.

I couldn't agree more.


Debatable at best. It also made the archetype less interesting.

Shadow Lodge

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

You obviously haven't paid attention to the 3PP offerings and support. Paizo doesn't make high-level stuff specifically because it doesn't sell as well as low-level stuff. Not because high-level is not meant to be played.

3PP isn't Paizo. What they did/do doesn't matter.

Nobody said its not meant to be played but it isn't supported. Not supported means not intended. A GM can run it, certainly, but its not ideal.

You notice Paizo's not done an AP for level 20-30 yet.

I often find it far more ideal than Paizo's offerings.

Dreamscarred Press puts out better mechanics.
Kobold Press has a better campaign setting.
Frog God Games puts out better adventures.


"Paizo's not done an AP for level 20-30 yet" - What was Wrath of the Righteous, then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

You obviously haven't paid attention to the 3PP offerings and support. Paizo doesn't make high-level stuff specifically because it doesn't sell as well as low-level stuff. Not because high-level is not meant to be played.

3PP isn't Paizo. What they did/do doesn't matter.

Nobody said its not meant to be played but it isn't supported. Not supported means not intended. A GM can run it, certainly, but its not ideal.

You notice Paizo's not done an AP for level 20-30 yet.

I often find it far more ideal than Paizo's offerings.

Dreamscarred Press puts out better mechanics.
Kobold Press has a better campaign setting.
Frog God Games puts out better adventures.

Seconded on Dreamscarred and Kobold


Seth Dresari 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.
I couldn't agree more.

In power, sure I guess. They just had to remove a flavorful and cool/unique mechanic for a retread of a feature given to the elemental races. Woho... :(

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Kobold, it is simple, since the day I even came here there has been nothing but people accusing Paizo of things.

"Paizo loves Casters and hates Martials." Being the biggest one.

Perhaps that's due to the fact that Paizo tends to start casters at a higher tier than martial characters.

And from there they nerf martial options that border on mediocre, while in general ignoring the overpowered caster options (scarred witch doctor being an exception rather than the rule).

I really only see a few options for why that seems to be such a reoccurring trend for Paizo:

1. It's purposeful. They really don't give a s#@# about martial characters, and truly want to promote Pathfinder as THE CASTER EDITION, but without actually admitting to it. This is the EVIL option.

2. It's not purposeful. They just really suck at trying to balance the game. This is the INCOMPETENT option.

...

I've tried to think of other options that paint them in a more positive light...but I'm really having a hard time coming up with anything. I'm sure some of the Paizo Defense Force members will come up with SOMETHING, no matter how ridiculously improbable.

Gorbacz ?!? (Bonus points if you can manage a defense of Paizo that doesn't rely on you trying to villainize WotC.)

Shadow Lodge

Chris Lambertz wrote:
stuff

What would be the possibility for making the PDFs of every printing for books in the RPG line available?

IE, if you purchase the PDF for the Core Rulebook (either seperately or as part of a subscription), your downloads would include versions for each of the 1st-6th printings?

I think it would also alleviate some agro if the errata documents, instead of just providing the errata, provided a brief reasoning behind why the errata was made.


Kthulhu wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Kobold, it is simple, since the day I even came here there has been nothing but people accusing Paizo of things.

"Paizo loves Casters and hates Martials." Being the biggest one.

Perhaps that's due to the fact that Paizo tends to start casters at a higher tier than martial characters.

And from there they nerf martial options that border on mediocre, while in general ignoring the overpowered caster options.

I really only see a few options for why that seems to be such a reoccurring trend for Paizo:

1. It's purposeful. They really don't give a s+&! about martial characters, and truly want to promote Pathfinder as THE CASTER EDITION, but without actually admitting to it. This is the EVIL option.

2. It's not purposeful. They just really suck at trying to balance the game. This is the INCOMPETENT option.

I've tried to think of other options that paint them in a more positive light...but I'm really having a hard time coming up with anything. I'm sure some of the Paizo Defense Force members will come up with SOMETHING, no matter how ridiculously improbable. Gorbacz ? (Bonus points if you can manage a defense of Paizo that doesn't rely on you trying to villainize WotC.)

So options for them are either evil or incompetent. Even in the best possible light those are the only options available to describe them.

It brings to mind similar banter about WotC working on 4th edition. Then for Paizo working on Pathfinder RPG. Then again on WotC working on 5th edition. Why should I care about defending Paizo from you if I had long since found it pointless defending WotC from others? Is this alright because you villainization is right and theirs was wrong?

I have a friend who can say nothing good about WotC no matter how I tried to convince him and eventually, I just have to give up even though he is a friend. What do I say to a stranger in defense of a company that they just don't like?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:

So options for them are either evil or incompetent. Even in the best possible light those are the only options available to describe them.

It brings to mind similar banter about WotC working on 4th edition. Then for Paizo working on Pathfinder RPG. Then again on WotC working on 5th edition. Why should I care about defending Paizo from you if I had long since found it pointless defending WotC from others? Is this alright because you villainization is right and theirs was wrong?

I have a friend who can say nothing good about WotC no matter how I tried to convince him and eventually, I just have to give up even though he is a friend. What do I say to a stranger in defense of a company that they just don't like?

Like I said, I TRIED to come up with other options, but I'm just not seeing any. I don't WANT to think of Paizo as either evil or incompetent. I'd love it if they were so good that Pathfinder was, at the very least, among my most favorite RPGs, instead of one that keeps slipping further down the list.

I want to like Paizo. And hell, in terms of adventures and customer service, I do. The rules design, however, is making me like even the adventures less.

If I didn't want to like them, I probably wouldn't be as vocal in my criticism. I'd just say "Eh, Paizo sucks anyway" and move on to a game that doesn't seem intent on sabotaging itself.


Kthulhu wrote:

I really only see a few options for why that seems to be such a reoccurring trend for Paizo:

1. It's purposeful. They really don't give a s#@% about martial characters, and truly want to promote Pathfinder as THE CASTER EDITION, but without actually admitting to it. This is the EVIL option.

2. It's not purposeful. They just really suck at trying to balance the game. This is the INCOMPETENT option.

...

I've tried to think of other options that paint them in a more positive light...but I'm really having a hard time coming up with anything. I'm sure some of the Paizo Defense Force members will come up with SOMETHING, no matter how ridiculously improbable.

Gorbacz ?!? (Bonus points if you can manage a defense of Paizo that doesn't rely on you trying to villainize WotC.)

There is a third possibility. It is that you, Kthulhu, are part of an Evil-aligned conspiracy whose goal is to destroy the game, the hobby, and the entire world. Everything you say is Objectively wrong by virtue of you having said it, since your statements are just an effort to conceal the Conspiracy. Therefore, both possibilities (1) and (2) are wrong, since you, a mastermind in the Conspiracy to Destroy the World, stated both of them.

Now, I tried casting Detect Evil on you, and it said that you are not Evil. Obviously, though, the laws of magic themselves are merely a part of your Conspiracy, and are attempting to cover up your guilt.

If you attempt to present evidence that you have NOT orchestrated a Conspiracy to destroy the hobby (and the world), you will in fact be providing evidence for a cover up.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Definitely would help to have like 1-3 sentences to go with each piece of errata. Surely there's a lot of dev conversation that goes into it, perhaps just show us the winning reasoning.

Shadow Lodge

Slightly more plausible than I was expecting.

However, you should know that am the Great Kthulhu. As such, I am beyond your pitiful concepts of good and evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Blazej wrote:

So options for them are either evil or incompetent. Even in the best possible light those are the only options available to describe them.

It brings to mind similar banter about WotC working on 4th edition. Then for Paizo working on Pathfinder RPG. Then again on WotC working on 5th edition. Why should I care about defending Paizo from you if I had long since found it pointless defending WotC from others? Is this alright because you villainization is right and theirs was wrong?

I have a friend who can say nothing good about WotC no matter how I tried to convince him and eventually, I just have to give up even though he is a friend. What do I say to a stranger in defense of a company that they just don't like?

Like I said, I TRIED to come up with other options, but I'm just not seeing any. I don't WANT to think of Paizo as either evil or incompetent. I'd love it if they were so good that Pathfinder was, at the very least, among my most favorite RPGs, instead of one that keeps slipping further down the list.

I want to like Paizo. And hell, in terms of adventures and customer service, I do. The rules design, however, is making me like even the adventures less.

If I didn't want to like them, I probably wouldn't be as vocal in my criticism. I'd just say "Eh, Paizo sucks anyway" and move on to a game that doesn't seem intent on sabotaging itself.

Same here. As much as I give negative feedback, I really WANTED to like Paizo, and still kind of do.

I also find it mildly amusing that I'm agreeing with Kthulhu on things, considering how some past discussions had gone. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blazej: I like the company, I just hate what they have been doing lately. Different thing. If I truly hated paizo, I've got better things to do than get pissed off at the endless series on nuclear strike nerfs rained down on the game I love. It hard to see the good things with all the mushroom clouds blotting out the sun... :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jamie Charlan wrote:

Additional communication is certainly good... But I think the core issue has proven to be words going in one ear and out the other unimpeded when communication was being done in the first place.

One big advantage of playtests is the ability to throw a piece of meat into a forum, and freely collect the results from hundreds of rabid data-eating beasts mangling their way through every little orifice of the mechanics being tested.

Often, not only are the problems singled out, but all the work showing how this was proven accompanies it, as do various fixes and suggestions. All that's left is to pick your favorite out of the reasonable ones and that's it, you're done!

But if, instead of using all that data, you ignore it like the average beancounter two floors up wants us to do with OSHA, you end up with nothing fixed. nothing repaired.

All that time, all that work, all that arguing and math and brainstorming... all of it just burned off in the wind.....

Actually, one thing that I've been wondering: With all of the advice for nerfs and buffs for the playtest versions being ignored (and Paizo seemingly doing the opposite in many cases, providing nerfs where buffs are needed and vice versa), why hasn't anyone taken matters into their own hands and put together alternate versions of these classes (at least the ACG and OA stuff) based on the feedback given in the playtests?

Honestly, it could be rather interesting to see how it would turn out. Perhaps an alternate Kineticist based on the playtest feedback? (Hell, if I did such a thing, I'd probably rub it in Paizo's face that I can do their job better than they can.)

Shadow Lodge

Icyshadow wrote:
I also find it mildly amusing that I'm agreeing with Kthulhu on things, considering how some past discussions had gone. XD

Damn it! Now I have to reconsider my position!

Shadow Lodge

Maybe this is stealth marketing for Unchained Volume 2: Nerfs Undone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Blazej: I like the company, I just hate what they have been doing lately. Different thing. If I truly hated paizo, I've got better things to do than get pissed off at the endless series on nuclear strike nerfs rained down on the game I love. It hard to see the good things with all the mushroom clouds blotting out the sun... :P

Yeah, all the negative feedback isn't coming in because people hate Paizo. It's because we care about the company and want to see them stop going down a path that's damaging the game we all love.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also possible that their priorities for what they consider a good game do not match up with your priorities for what you consider a good game. This is, of course, a very subjective determination in many cases.


Do PDFs update with the errata?

Shadow Lodge

Yes. Which is why is suggested having the ability to download PDFs for older printings in a post above.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

Like I said, I TRIED to come up with other options, but I'm just not seeing any. I don't WANT to think of Paizo as either evil or incompetent. I'd love it if they were so good that Pathfinder was, at the very least, among my most favorite RPGs, instead of one that keeps slipping further down the list.

I want to like Paizo. And hell, in terms of adventures and customer service, I do. The rules design, however, is making me like even the adventures less.

If I didn't want to like them, I probably wouldn't be as vocal in my criticism. I'd just say "Eh, Paizo sucks anyway" and move on to a game that doesn't seem intent on sabotaging itself.

I don't find myself really believing that. I understand the internet is a medium where tone and emotion is often lost and warped. But, I picture a poster I am reminded of from years ago, who would post into WotC threads, comment on the "less than optimal nature" of WotC and 4th edition D&D. Instead of making some final attack on moderation he might have said, "I want to like Wizards of the Coast. I really had a great time with 3.5 and I see it just going down hill with 4th edition. I wish D&D was my favorite RPG and that is why I am so vocal in declaring how horrible they are now. It is because I want them to be my favorite again. -R***"

I play games with elves and dragons and that seems like the most implausible fantasy I would deal with in any given day.

Of course he would love it if WotC implemented all the changes he wanted. I might just jump back to being their biggest fan. But I find it hard to frame months of posts like that as "I just wanted them to get better."

That is what I get from posts like the one you just made. I could try producing an argument that martial vs. caster disparity isn't as big an issue as noted, at least in the games I have had and give the reasons why I think that is the case. But I feel that would be just as productive as trying to convince R*** that 4th edition wasn't the devil.

graystone wrote:
Blazej: I like the company, I just hate what they have been doing lately. Different thing. If I truly hated paizo, I've got better things to do than get pissed off at the endless series on nuclear strike nerfs rained down on the game I love. It hard to see the good things with all the mushroom clouds blotting out the sun... :P

I do get that.

But Paizo is either evil or incompetent (with their application of mechanics regarding martial vs. casters).

That is not expressing any like for the company. That is describing nothing but disdain for the company. If I pointed at any other person in thread I think would (and should) get an appropriately negative reaction. If I did the same to many a 3rd party publisher, I would be called out on that as well. Not just because those companies are people or better, but because it is insulting.

Will you be more likely to get a reaction because of how "loud" the posters were here? Would they have been less likely to respond if there was less hate per word? I certainly hope not since this is not the forum tone I particularly enjoy, but I don't know. Maybe the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the raging poster gets appropriately balanced clarifications.

I like to think that calmer posts, not necessarily less posts, would get Paizo to that goal just as quickly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kip Shades wrote:

Actually, one thing that I've been wondering: With all of the advice for nerfs and buffs for the playtest versions being ignored (and Paizo seemingly doing the opposite in many cases, providing nerfs where buffs are needed and vice versa), why hasn't anyone taken matters into their own hands and put together alternate versions of these classes (at least the ACG and OA stuff) based on the feedback given in the playtests?

Honestly, it could be rather interesting to see how it would turn out. Perhaps an alternate Kineticist based on the playtest feedback? (Hell, if I did such a thing, I'd probably rub it in Paizo's face that I can do their job better than they can.)

People do, but, additional materials or homebrews are just alternatives to the main rule-set. They're certainly handy, but they in no way repair the problem for the main game.

If your car breaks down, you can rent or buy another car, which is fine, but doing so does not magically mean the one that broke down is suddnely completely functional again. Not without fraud, that is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To anyone who says that caster martial disparity doesn't exist or is a lot smaller than we think.

I've played in a game where RAW was followed to the letter and the Sorceror was allowed to use only Paizo published materials.

It ended with
-All the other players hating the fact that they were essentially the casters pack of disposable goons.
-The caster player sad that he would never be allowed to use his knowledge and system mastery to produce a character like that in one of our games again.

If the disparity doesn't exist in your games you have one of three things going on

1. You are using houserules
2. There is some sort of unspoken gentlemans agreement aknowledging that just because it's RAW it doesn't mean it's right
3. Your caster players don't have the mechanical knowledge to leverage their narrative might.


Kthulhu wrote:


Like I said, I TRIED to come up with other options, but I'm just not seeing any. I don't WANT to think of Paizo as either evil or incompetent. I'd love it if they were so good that Pathfinder was, at the very least, among my most favorite RPGs, instead of one that keeps slipping further down the list.

I want to like Paizo. And hell, in terms of adventures and customer service, I do. The rules design, however, is making me like even the adventures less.

If I didn't want to like them, I probably wouldn't be as vocal in my criticism. I'd just say "Eh, Paizo sucks anyway" and move on to a game that doesn't seem intent on sabotaging itself.

Option 3:

You are a part of what is known as, "The vocal minority" which tends to also be the primary user of secondary game contacts. Namely roughly 1 out of every 10 players are major forum junkies and actually go to forums to comment.

You are biased and see what you want to see, however you tend to also be in the company on forums with others who share your bias and your in-depth interest.

Namely, while you complain about Martial/Caster disparity the real gaming population in general simply doesn't care. Pathfinder sales tend to support that.

If Pathfinder was so bad, as you claim, and has been bad for as long as you claim, then sales would drop off. They haven't.

Option 4:

Paizo doesn't really care about 1:1 balance in a tabletop RPG. That is conventional wisdom actually among tabletop RPGs. There does not need to be balance between classes because, as a game of imagination, it is common wisdom that it is up to the GM to craft stories that allow each character to shine.

We also know that plenty of people are still perfectly content to play "Martials" in-spite-of the supposed balance issue. Thus it makes no sense for Paizo to spend the resources and time trying to buff Martials or nerf Casters because the supposed disparity isn't harming the game.

Option 5:

Imbalance can actually help the game. Yes, for a significant percentage of players these disparities are actually a good thing. They see them as the, "Hard mode" and want an "Added challenge" to the game. Namely they want to be the awesome normal who can sometimes stand up to the God-like Wizard, it is more difficult, it is hard, and they aren't equal so when they are able to do it they feel a sense of accomplishment.

That is actually standard game design logic. In a non-competitive game (which Pathfinder is) then it is totally possible to have "weaker" and "stronger" classes. This goes on the assumption that some players want to play "weaker" and "stronger" classes which we know is indeed an existent thing.

401 to 450 of 923 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the nerfs Paizo? All Messageboards