| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
An official answer would be nice.
Indeed. However, it appears to be low in priority as we are into the 2nd year of waiting for an answer. Sigh.
An official answer would be nice.Indeed. However, it appears to be low in priority as we are into the 2nd year of waiting for an answer. Sigh.
It does make the whole FAQ request system seem pretty useless. If 378 requests over nearly wo years doesn't merit a response, then what's the point?
Sad, isn't it? Although the many suggestions in this thread do seem to more than adequately deal with any RAW shortcomings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does make the whole FAQ request system seem pretty useless. If 378 requests over nearly wo years doesn't merit a response, then what's the point?An official answer would be nice.Indeed. However, it appears to be low in priority as we are into the 2nd year of waiting for an answer. Sigh.
The point is that for figuring out which FAQ to answer the subtract votes for how hard it is to answer. So having 378 but being so hard that it subtracts 400 puts it in at under 0 FAQs ;)
I am surprised they have not addressed this yet (it has the highest number of FAQs ever so far, I think), for the longest period as well (nearly two years). Considering how often it must come up in PFS, with obvious table variations, you think that even if the solution required an entire blog post, they would have taken care of this issue already.
To compound on this issue, every now and then they release more new bardic masterpieces. That is only going to add more to the list of work required if the solution is drastic enough to warrant significant rewriting of affected bardic masterpieces. The longer they wait to address it, the more work they have to do.
Honestly, I strongly suspect that it will never get resolved officially, because it seems like they have increased their workload. Setting aside the required time for the entire PDT to sit down and examine all of their bardic masterpieces is probably a waste of their work hours if they can instead focus on more putting more books out.
I am genuinely impressed that they produce as much output (the quality is another subject for another day) as they do despite the small number of actual employees (not counting contracted artists and similar contractors). Plus, some of their staff have their own 3rd party business or do independent work as well. That does not even take into account any concerns with achieving a desired work-life balance and ensuring a healthy workplace.
That leaves them with minimal time available to address the FAQs so they focus on smaller issues instead.
Oh well, that seems like it is their business strategy. *shrugs*
CB
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also have a feeling that it's a complicated enough issue that they're worried about Jingasa^3 backlash if it doesn't hit enough points for folks...
The backlash is always going to be an issue, but the longer they wait, the worst it is likely going to be.
To be fair, they kind of hit their own toes with how poorly they worded/designed bardic masterpieces in the first place, and then again with subsequent bardic masterpieces that kind of made it a bit more vague/harder to figure out exactly how bardic masterpieces in general should work.
I have always wondered if they have an intranet for their employees to access to review hot topics for game design or a means to quickly cross-reference previous published materials (such as feats, class abilities, archetypes, etc.) to avoid repetition or mix-ups in developing new materials? I mean, sure, that's the point of the PRD but it doesn't take into account player companions, adventure paths, modules, or even the comics.
CB
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer seems simple: Remove the clause that states that masterpieces count as bardic performances and/or add a clause that allows them to be used in conjunction with normal bardic performances.
From my experience that's the way most people run them. Are there any edge cases to that ruling that makes masterpieces crazy broken?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer seems simple: Remove the clause that states that masterpieces count as bardic performances and/or add a clause that allows them to be used in conjunction with normal bardic performances.
From my experience that's the way most people run them. Are there any edge cases to that ruling that makes masterpieces crazy broken?
My experience is limited, but I haven't seen any abuse, and it's at the cost of either a feat or a spell slot, so the power level should be considered at about that effectiveness, I would imagine?
If any such cases existed, a negative ruling would be the way to go.
On the other hand, if there are any masterpieces that are made utterly useless by not being allowed to continue during a bardic performance, a positive ruling would be the way to go.
If both cases exist, then a more nuanced ruling would be required. I am assuming that the question is complicated enough to make a simple answer impossible, but I do not have enough experience with bards to identify any problem cases.
|
|
Well I understand the apprehension to make a ruling if there's a danger of introducing broken content. The game is full of useless/bad/generally underpowered player options. Pushing a whole suite of player options into that category is disappointing but life ultimately goes on.
On the other hand, broken options create a broken experience - especially in an environment where the GM isn't empowered to rein things in when necessary (like PFS).
I am surprised they have not addressed this yet (it has the highest number of FAQs ever so far, I think), for the longest period as well (nearly two years).
...
This thread does have a lot of FAQ requests, but it isn't even close to the highest number ever.
Whoa, 500+ FAQ clicks? That's kind of scary, but it does make sense given the greater impact that particular nest of problems had. It affected more than just a single class. Ergo, significantly greater urgency to resolve that FAQ. *nods nods*
CB
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread does have a lot of FAQ requests, but it isn't even close to the highest number ever.
Weird, I thought that was going to be a question about a succubus in a grapple.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weird, I thought that was going to be a question about a succubus in a grapple.
This thread does have a lot of FAQ requests, but it isn't even close to the highest number ever.
What's there to question? Grapple the succubus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's there to question? Grapple the succubus.Weird, I thought that was going to be a question about a succubus in a grapple.
This thread does have a lot of FAQ requests, but it isn't even close to the highest number ever.
Do it right, and everyone wins.
Ideally through astral projection as a safety precaution. You get all of the fun and none of the negative side-effects. ;P
CB
My experience is limited, but I haven't seen any abuse, and it's at the cost of either a feat or a spell slot, so the power level should be considered at about that effectiveness, I would imagine?The answer seems simple: Remove the clause that states that masterpieces count as bardic performances and/or add a clause that allows them to be used in conjunction with normal bardic performances.
From my experience that's the way most people run them. Are there any edge cases to that ruling that makes masterpieces crazy broken?
Back to the FAQ please...
The Bold: This would be a rather simple fix!
The Italicized: Because there is no real abuse with Bardic performance as a finite source.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Paizo, please don't answer this one. We like our super long FAQ thread movement.
- Sound Striker had 141 FAQ clicks, 809 posts, and took 526 days to answer.
The thread had heated discussions and PDT early involvement stating the two main interpretations were either too weak or too strong then soliciting resolutions.
- Damage Dice Increases had 565 FAQ clicks, 553 posts, and took 296 days to answer.
The thread wasn't nearly as heated, but also had PDT early involvement saying the answer would be complicated. The community collaberated a "formula" or sorts that was used to answer.
So I think work like Rory's write up should be polished and collaborated to help answer this question.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
FAQ request system seem pretty useless.An official answer would be nice.appears to be low in priority as we are into the 2nd year
379 FAQ clicks, 573 posts, and 602 days and they absolutely have been involved and not forgotten.
This apparently can't be answered without answering some underlying questions regarding Bardic Performaces. I suspect things like "can you activate more than one a turn" and similar debated questions we have today.
The backlash is always going to be an issue, but the longer they wait, the worst it is likely going to be.
Time lowers the backlash as does PDT involvement. This thread has both, so I think the answer will be clean, well reasoned, and have limited backlash.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To compound on this issue, every now and then they release more new bardic masterpieces. That is only going to add more to the list of work required if the solution is drastic enough to warrant significant rewriting of affected bardic masterpieces. The longer they wait to address it, the more work they have to do.
To compound the compounding, they have released several prestige classes lately that add new bardic performances that cost x rounds to activate and last for a while after that (i.e. I'm looking at you, butterfly wings that act like overland flight for the rest of the day Desna-themed bard PrC...) :)
I strongly doubt that their intent for that PrC was to have the bards unable to inspire their fellow party members AFTER they have sprouted their magnificent butterfly wings! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I google search at least once a month to see if this was ever answered. :_(
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To compound the compounding, they have released several prestige classes lately that add new bardic performances that cost x rounds to activate and last for a while after that (i.e. I'm looking at you, butterfly wings that act like overland flight for the rest of the day Desna-themed bard PrC...) :)Where is this from?
The avatar-thieving frost witch is referring to the sphere singer prestige class from Paths of the Righteous. ^_^
|
|
This isn't a bard problem, it's a bardic masterpieces problem. Bard is fine, it's the tacked on masterpieces that are causing the issue.Let's agree to disagree here. Masterpieces, as a feature, belong to the bard class. It's the (as far as i know) only exclusive optional shiny toy the class has. Interweaving magic and music. Such a great idea, so much potential!
And yet most of the masterpieces are very niche, unclearly written or both. To let such glaring holes of rule consistency exist for such a long time, looks to me as if the developers just don't care about the bard class.
On top on that, the fact that new masterpieces are released just leaves me baffled. When developement effort is spent into this feature, isn't it too much to ask for clarifying how masterpieces are really meant to be played in the first place?
The fact that they're still putting out Bardic stuff including Masterpieces and are watching thread kinda kills the "they don't care about the Bard" thought.
|
|
There's dozens of Masterpieces from dozens of sources from dozens of authors, and they all do something completely different. And there's no telling how much or how little each one was playtested since again, all by different authors, not a singular author or team even.
Mark Seifter has posted in this thread, the PDT is aware of it, they want to answer it, but they want to give it the right answer since it'll be the answer not only for every single masterpiece currently out but for every one that comes out after.
So again, that they acknowledge this thread and continue to heavily support the Bard kills the "don't care about the class" logic, just because they don't give a quick answer on an optional feature doesn't mean they don't care.
|
|
Because there's not a "clear idea of the rule mechanic" because every single Masterpiece does something completely different. The answer to them isn't a simple universal yes/no.
Bards are not required to take Masterpieces, Bards do not automatically get Masterpieces, they are completely optional. So not getting an answer yet on these specific optional rules does not mean the Bard is not heavily supported and it also means the Bard is not unplayable until a FAQ manifests. They still have plenty of spells and Archetypes and more are being put out.
Do I want this to get FAQed? Absolutely, which is what this thread is for, requesting Masterpieces to be FAQed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I share your assessment, I doubt that there was clear well-thoughtout idea about what masterpieces are ment to be. The big thing is that masterpieces came with Ultimate Magic and even those first ones are unclear and are subject of the questions in this thread. Didn't the team communicate with each other or playtest their rules? We are not talking about following publications and other authors/teams, but about the very introduction of the optional mechanic!I can't say whether or not there was a much more concise ruling on how they all functioned when they were first introduced and much fewer in number since that was before I got into Pathfinder and the Design Team has changed since then but I would like to believe there was. Could be wrong though.
Spells and archetypes are nothing special and not a very good measure for support of a class.
We are going to completely disagree on this.
The fact that they're still putting out Bardic stuff including Masterpieces and are watching thread kinda kills the "they don't care about the Bard" thought.
Are you in PR for United Airlines, by any chance?
Paizo customer: "Paizo has sold me a bunch of broken rules elements that I don't know how to use."
Rysky: "The fact that they have acknowledged this issue for years and still put out more broken rules elements without fixing it shows they care."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that they're still putting out Bardic stuff including Masterpieces and are watching thread kinda kills the "they don't care about the Bard" thought.Are you in PR for United Airlines, by any chance?
Person sitting in the ruins of his house after a hurricane "Why has god forsaken me!?"
Rysky: "The fact that god is still sending rain and is watching everything you do proves he still loves you."
Great, but couldn't Paizo show that love with gentler rains and an explanation of or apology for the past hurricanes?
I'm gonna step in for a moment here. I have seen the figurative S@#$storms that come with high publicity FAQs. Every time they write one you have an upset vocal group the bigger the issue the bigger the group. And the more things in that ruling that don't quite make sense or sound off if it was rushed the more likely we end up with another flurry or "Meta-physical hands" situation where every thread that comes up has it brought up and argued there.
I'm gonna step in for a moment here. I have seen the figurative S@#$storms that come with high publicity FAQs. Every time they write one you have an upset vocal group the bigger the issue the bigger the group. And the more things in that ruling that don't quite make sense or sound off if it was rushed the more likely we end up with another flurry or "Meta-physical hands" situation where every thread that comes up has it brought up and argued there.
Sticking with my since edited god-theme: "Paizo works in mysterious ways. Don't forget to renew your subscriptions tithe on the way out."
Or with my new product-quality theme: "The Bardic Masterpieces situation is so screwed up it cannot realistically be fixed. Subscribe to our AP line to receive monthly delivery of more inconsistent, screwed up Bardic Masterpieces that will further complicate this complete mess!"
And maybe people should, there's some other good stuff in there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope I'm actually one of the more vocal against bad rulings or the constant nerfs you can check my posting history on that. But I hated post "Hands of effort" every single rules thread having someone pop up and ask "Do you have enough hands of effort for that" or "Better ask about any unwritten rules" or just "HANDSSSS!!!!!".
Unwritten rules was the biggest steaming pile of crap we have ever seen in a ruling. Hands down. But that doesn't excuse people thread crapping and derailing every other thing on the message boards. If you don't like a ruling by all means write a good post explaining your position and the rules backing it, but don't get other threads not even related to your argument locked.
As for masterpieces no one said it's unfix-able it's an issues of preserving function and balance together as so many people have pointed out in this thread. The last thing we want is a massive nerf to masterpieces that make them unusable but some of them are measured in a way that makes running them at the same time as Bardic Music unrealistic.
If you like so many others lately hate Paizo so much why remain. Is it just to thread crap every single chance you get? Have you tried emailing them or posting in a customer service thread? Or do you just exist to be a thorn in other poster's sides?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo customer: "Paizo has sold me a bunch of broken rules elements that I don't know how to use."
Personally, I've never thought there was much real question about how masterpieces were intended to work / no 'broken rules element' to begin with.
Of course, that doesn't stop there from being controversy... but there have been a lot of FAQs which come down to 'the obvious answer is correct'. Answers out of left field are much rarer, and generally the result of a decision to change things.
I have to chime in to add that I believe Masterpieces add a lot of potential flavor that other class features do not. I love the idea and I loved the original response about Masterpieces and Performance using the same source, but not being the same thing--I know that was rescinded, but it would have gone a long way to fixing this unique addition to the Bard.
I love being able to summon thunder via Bardic Performance (Vindictive Soliloquy) instead of using a broken archetype (Thundercaller). Blinding evil outsiders (Clamor of the Heavens)?! Summon true daylight and plant growth (Pallavi of Nirvana's Blossoming)?! Salt and heat blast (Dumbshow of Gorroc)?! Spell Kenning for bards (should be a class feature anyway! Arrowsong's Lament)?! This is the sort of stuff I want to be able to do with my bard without using spells--Music as Magic! We have it now! Let's fix it so it is actually usable.
To compound the compounding, they have released several prestige classes lately that add new bardic performances that cost x rounds to activate and last for a while after that (i.e. I'm looking at you, butterfly wings that act like overland flight for the rest of the day Desna-themed bard PrC...) :)Where is this from?
Paths of the Righteous (2 or more bard PrCs in there... each with new bardic performances...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you need to realize the time they have for FAQs. I'm pretty sure it's like MAYBE 1 hour a week. now take 5 minutes to review what the top 5 issues are, decide which to try and answer for that Friday, spend time answering it, use remaining time to discuss bardic masterpieces.
That or they are using the tactic that they don't want to decide, at least not yet, because they want all interpretations to maintain a legal claim.
like we have gauntlets, mithral, this, to name a few that we've had word that they've looked at and came close on some to having an answer, and then changing their minds and wanting to come back to it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it seems like most people would prefer an ad hoc solution to the masterpiece they use. It seems to me that there is no solution that will fit all masterpieces. They seem to be all their own little feature.
This is a similar issue to damage size changes, where there were multiple different progression tables and multiple adventure paths that used them.
|
People saying Masterpieces are the domain of just the bard are wrong. Any class that gains bardic performance can access them by spending a feat for each one.
Also, the idea of leaving the interpretation of the mechanics to the GM just doesn't work in PFS - characters either get swapped out with a disagreeable GM, or players look at the option as too subjective to be worth playing. Vague rules don't fly in PFS.