| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Original warpriest playtest says hi as well.Despite my feelings on the lack of a true playtest for the core which I won't go into.
To me their play tests are just a feel good public relations exercise for the fanbase. Otherwise play test or not they simply do their own thing. Which they can do. Then what's the point of a play test. A good example are the gun rules. Almost no one wanted guns targeting Touch AC. In the end despite objections to them. They ended up being printed anyway. That's why I won't participate in any such play tests.
What bothers me the most. They refuse to find or even attempt to try to find the proper middle ground on designing new material. Or nerfs. At this point in the development of the game they should know better. They just don't want to try imo.
Oh, original Warpriest.
MAD as hell, lack of proficiency with their deity's favored weapon, base attack all over the place and a scaling damage die.So much was changed for the better.
And let's not forget that Gunslinger was originally a Fighter Alternative Class, had heavy armor prof, and was very little like what the current version was.
Also, gun rules were NEVER open playtested with Paizo.
They WERE EXPLICITLY NOT under playtest during the gunslinger playtest.
Paizo stated that the gun rules were what they were, and that the class, not firearm mechanics, was the thing in playtest.
.
.
.
That all said, back on topic.
Any errata that we don't know about we don't use.
Any errata we find out about that would particularly damage a character after it's formed we ignore.
Additionally, I don't like some errata simply off of how it affects flavor.
For example, I loathe the Slashing Grace errata because of how I envision Red Mantis Assassins and I dislike the Fencing Grace errata because of the imagery of a fencer wielding a main-gauche or parry dagger.
I dislike Scarred Witchdoctor because I feel like it took a large chunk of the creativity out of the class.
In general, I hate having to keep up with errata.
That's one of the reasons (but far from the whole) that I stopped playing PFS.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep brass knucks able to do enhanced unarmed damage per monk and brawler. Amulets of Mighty fists are nice, but they're really expensive and limit the monk to the same weapon enhancements as a 2h fighter. Knuckle Dusters give them that full range of weapon enhancements that any twf fighter could use without being shackled with minimal dice.
|
Being a better swashbuckler than the Swashbuckler isn't difficult. That class sucks and is nothing more than a dip class at best... Mostly because its designer ignored pretty much all the feedback given during the playtest, as he usually does...
So instead of improving the SB, they nerf all simar options... Because good game design is hard, you guys!
Swashbuckler could have been a decent class. Now it's either going to be a dip as you said or players are going to use other options to build something similar. I just understand their game design process or the devs. Why build a poorly designed class when you can do a good one. It's like Palladium and Rifts. They were complaints of power creep in the early stages of rifts releases so their response was to increase the power creep.
Original warpriest playtest says hi as well.
Well as I said they don't participate in playtest. So I will concede that the new Warpriest is more balanced. A couple of good nerfs don't make the other stuff that was poorly nerfed any better.
Also, gun rules were NEVER open playtested with Paizo.
They WERE EXPLICITLY NOT under playtest during the gunslinger playtest.
Paizo stated that the gun rules were what they were, and that the class, not firearm mechanics, was the thing in playtest.
They have shown they more than willing to nerf something whenever they choose too. If they wanted to they could fix the gun rules. They choose not too imo. Depending on what AP one runs it can ruin a entire campaign. A Gunslinger in Rise of the Runelord and Giantslayer, even most APs is almost never going to miss as it's way too easy to target Touch AC.
|
|
Because they don't feel it is poorly designed. You and I have much different design goals and base assumptions than they do.
If the majority of the feedback from a playtest is " class XYZ sucks". The designer goes ahead and changes nothing. Kind of reinforces that your not listening to the feedback. Your never going to get fans agreeing 100% on a topic. If the majority says a class, option, etc is poorly designed one has to at least take that into account. If your design process is to wait for 100% approval on every aspect your never going to change anything.
At this point the devs can do no better. I'm not cutting them anymore slack for poor choices in terms of feats class, options or anything else they design. Insist on making poor design choices. Even when some fans point out makes a class worse both in the long and short term is asking negative feedback as far as I'm concerned.
As I said before it's a great public relations exercise as it makes the fans think their feedback means something. When in reality just like any other rpg company they do their own thing.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the majority of feedback is from people that don't follow your design philosophy, then you would have to change your philosophy to make them happy. It may look as if you are not listening to the feedback, but that doesn't mean you aren't. Listening does not mean following.
Now, I probably agree with your view of the situation more than the alternative I've proposed here. But arguing about which unprovable position Paizo holds is a fruitless discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I felt like the last two playtests were fairly responsive. The occult classes turned out respectably, and the vigilante was adjusted.
Yeah, I think the Medium was the exception here due to time and page space constraints. Hopefully they get around to releasing the Harrowed Medium. I think I remember Owen saying he wanted to do it at some point but I think he probably can't for the moment since it's hard to fit something that big into a Player Companion.
The Vigilante definitely had feedback taken into account for the final release. Players using the Stalker specialization were particularly happy towards the end of the playtest if I recall correctly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The avenger however, was really hurting for love.
As was the warlock.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The avenger however, was really hurting for love.
As was the warlock.
The avenger is all righteous anger and fury.
The warlock makes dark pacts with vile forces.I guess you could say, they're looking for love...
... in all the wrong places.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the majority of feedback is from people that don't follow your design philosophy, then you would have to change your philosophy to make them happy. It may look as if you are not listening to the feedback, but that doesn't mean you aren't. Listening does not mean following.
Now, I probably agree with your view of the situation more than the alternative I've proposed here. But arguing about which unprovable position Paizo holds is a fruitless discussion.
Maybe it's just me and I'm too hard on the devs. Yet more and more unless it's the hardcovers I'm not finding a majority of the new material exciting or worth a look. I cut back on the companions as I have been reading less and less options that I'm interested in. Between a lack of nerfing something properly and too much. Not much for me at least interesting. After the APG it feels like the newer stuff is not up to par to me at least.
It just feels like fans asking for both good crunch and fluff keep getting ignored. I get they want to keep power creep under control. That ship has sailed imo. Offer balanced yet also options worth taking. Divine Protection I would have reduced the bonus added to saves by half. Now it's not even worth taking if the DM offers it for free. Or even pays you to take it.
In games I run: I ignore all of them.
PF is better without errata/FAQ than it is with all of them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to share what I'm currently ignoring, but TOZ got to it back on page 2 :-P
That being said, I'm not getting a good read on Scarred Witchdoctor and Divine Protection are broken or not because the whole party is over powered without them. 5d6 drop lowest, 1s-2s count as 3s were a bad idea...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Protected by the SNOWS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with the daring champion is that they get (even after errata) both precise strike and challenge. Whose idea was it that they should get double their level to damage? It's absurd.
It's actually not nearly as absurd as it first seems if you compare Challenge to Weapon Training + Gloves of Dueling + Weapon feat(s). At level 10 a Daring Champion is picking up +10 damage (plus some kind of other bonus, like +3 attack) on a challenge, while a Swashbuckler can be running with +6 damage (and +4/5 attack) from constant options. When both classes are already doing over 20 damage, it's not that big a difference.
It's not unlike the issue of whether or not a finesse character needs dex-to-damage to be viable - when you actually calculate how things add up, it's often pretty different from the first impression. I remember seeing someone calculate the numbers several times over when I mentioned that for his purposes an elven curved blade and 14STR was entirely competitive in damage with Dervish Dance scimitar.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about the Take-10 Non FAQ nerf?
They said it was not a change, yet they give the GM free reign to disallow Take-10 where RAW it was allowed. Now I have to risk failure, just because the GM thinks it makes it dramatic?
I also find it odd that there are no simple non-lethal weapons. They are either martial or exotic. My ninja cannot attack someone with non-lethal without choosing to burn a feat, get penalized by non-proficiency, provoke an AoO, or take a -4 penalty on the attack.
Pazio, please make a simple non-lethal weapon.
/cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about the Take-10 Non FAQ nerf?
They said it was not a change, yet they give the GM free reign to disallow Take-10 where RAW it was allowed. Now I have to risk failure, just because the GM thinks it makes it dramatic?
I also find it odd that there are no simple non-lethal weapons. They are either martial or exotic. My ninja cannot attack someone with non-lethal without choosing to burn a feat, get penalized by non-proficiency, provoke an AoO, or take a -4 penalty on the attack.
Pazio, please make a simple non-lethal weapon.
/cevah
This one annoyed me. It would have been better for me if they had just errata'd the rule to say a GM may apply the take 20 limitations on failures to take 10. At least it would have been an actual ruling vs saying "we won't do anything to clarify our intent when we wrote this rule".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Vanaras get to keep their climb speed at 30. Seriously, was nerfing it to 20 actually necessary? I find it very hard to believe that some GMs had a problem with them being fast climbers.
This was literally just fixing a typo; check their bestiary entry, they were always supposed to be 20.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I'm wondering if there should be a topic compiling these pre-nerf rules. Especially as with some of these cases I don't know if my books are the old or new printing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was there an errata to Fencing Grace that nobody told anyone at Paizo about?
Benefit: When wielding a rapier one-handed, you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The rapier must be one appropriate for your size.
Nothing there about what you're doing with your other hand, just that you can't do it if you have two hands on your rapier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was there an errata to Fencing Grace that nobody told anyone at Paizo about?
Nothing there about what you're doing with your other hand, just that you can't do it if you have two hands on your rapier.
Benefit: When wielding a rapier one-handed, you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The rapier must be one appropriate for your size.
It was reprinted in the new intrigue book to work just like slashing grace does.
SO they didn't actually errata the original source, but did an end run and just printed different rules for it elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a pointless nerf. It's not like Fencing Grace was all that good. It already restricted you to a specific weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a pointless nerf. It's not like Fencing Grace was all that good. It already restricted you to a specific weapon.
Well, it's certainly a significant kick in the pants for my prospective dual-effortless-lace-rapier Warsighted Elven Lorekeeper of Battle. Oh wait, nevermind, Agile weapon. Carry on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a pointless nerf. It's not like Fencing Grace was all that good. It already restricted you to a specific weapon.Well, it's certainly a significant kick in the pants for my prospective dual-effortless-lace-rapier Warsighted Elven Lorekeeper of Battle. Oh wait, nevermind, Agile weapon. Carry on.
Agile assumes easy access to enchantments and forever locks you into a single weapon. Far from a satisfying solution.
'Here is this special weapon that you need to hurt the big bad. What, why can't you use it? Oh, it wasn't enchanted so you could use the correct stat and you'll be -5 to hit and damage with it... So can someone that doesn't use a rapier all the time use it?'
I'll agree with wraithstrike: Pointless. IMO it's just to make other dex options seem better [swashbuckler/unchained rogue] instead of fixing a perceived imbalance in power. They where pretty quick to axe the con casting of the scarred witch when the occult book came out. This time, they had to use a loophole by reprinting it as they'd never update the old book with errata. Just lame in every way...
Agile assumes easy access to enchantments and forever locks you into a single weapon. Far from a satisfying solution.That was a pointless nerf. It's not like Fencing Grace was all that good. It already restricted you to a specific weapon.Well, it's certainly a significant kick in the pants for my prospective dual-effortless-lace-rapier Warsighted Elven Lorekeeper of Battle. Oh wait, nevermind, Agile weapon. Carry on.
I was mostly just being glib. I actually really don't like the idea of items that entirely make or break characters.
Of course as I mentioned above, I'm not at all a fan of making the "strength-dumped warrior" an easy, general thing either. Blanket dex-to-damage is rather absurd conceptually; it's also typically unnecessary, and completely devalues all kinds of interesting concepts that don't use it. If I create a dual-rapier Oracle, I'll suck it up and take 14STR so that damage comes out decent with buffs. I'd much prefer that to a system where a min-maxer who trashes strength and wields two light weapons with "Deadly Agility" or whatever will just utterly overwhelm all other TWF concepts.
They may overwhelm other twf options(don't have a position on this), but that doesn't say much. It's telling to me that every experienced tabletop gamer I know won't entertain that option in pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They may overwhelm other twf options(don't have a position on this), but that doesn't say much. It's telling to me that every experienced tabletop gamer I know won't entertain that option in pathfinder.
As I mentioned before, for most classes that do well with TWF, strength-based and 17DEX for feats isn't really that different than dex-based and 16STR for damage. They tend to fall behind two-handing when haste is involved, depending on how many static buffs a class gets. When you've had a lot of legitimate down-time to waste at work and start to just run all sorts of build-numbers, a lot of things many "experienced gamers" wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole aren't at all as bad as they seem - they're just not as easily optimized and don't have quite as high a ceiling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason they would overwhelm TWF is because TWF has that idiotic Dex prerequisite that serves no purpose other than weaken an already underpowered combat style.
Dex to damage requires 2 feats to acquire, two feats the Str-based warrior could use to boost their own damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They may overwhelm other twf options(don't have a position on this), but that doesn't say much. It's telling to me that every experienced tabletop gamer I know won't entertain that option in pathfinder.As I mentioned before, for most classes that do well with TWF, strength-based and 17DEX for feats isn't really that different than dex-based and 16STR for damage. They tend to fall behind two-handing when haste is involved, depending on how many static buffs a class gets. When you've had a lot of legitimate down-time to waste at work and start to just run all sorts of build-numbers, a lot of things many "experienced gamers" wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole aren't at all as bad as they seem - they're just not as easily optimized and don't have quite as high a ceiling.
Okay, I think you're missing the part where experienced Gamers look at the damage potential of twf and realise that the conditions under which you benefit from those numbers is vanishingly small and thus, not worth the enormous investment. That's not even accounting for the extremely unlikely circumstance that you have somehow maintained two good weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What really hurts TWF is the 2nd -> 3rd nerf. That is getting one additional attack per round in all combat situations to only getting it on full round attacks.
A tricky fighting style available only to warriors and rogues is that of fighting with two weapons simultaneously. The character chooses not to use a shield in favor of another weapon, granting him a greater number of attacks, with a penalty to his attack rolls (rangers are exempt from the attack roll penalty).
When using a second weapon in his off-hand, a character is limited in his weapon choice. His principal weapon can be whatever he chooses, provided it can be wielded with one hand. The second weapon must be smaller in size and weight than the character's main weapon (though a dagger can always be used as a second weapon, even if the primary weapon is also a dagger). A fighter can use a long sword and a short sword, or a long sword and a dagger, but he cannot use two long swords. Nor can the character use a shield, unless it is kept strapped onto his back.
When attacking, all characters but rangers suffer penalties to their attack rolls. Attacks made with the main weapon suffer a -2 penalty, and attacks made with the second weapon suffer a -4 penalty. The character's Reaction Adjustment (based on his Dexterity, see Table 2) modifies this penalty. A low Dexterity score will worsen the character's chance to hit with each attack. A high Dexterity can negate this particular penalty, although it cannot result in a positive modifier on the attack rolls for either weapon (i.e., the Reaction Adjustment can, at best, raise the attack roll penalties to 0).
The use of two weapons enables the character to make one additional attack each combat round, with the second weapon. The character gains only one additional attack each round, regardless of the number of attacks he may normally be allowed. Thus, a warrior able to attack 3/2 (once in the first round and twice in the second) can attack 5/2 (twice in the first round and three times in the second).
Because you don't get a second attack after a move, your damage is less than it was with the 2nd ed rules. After moving, I can use my shield to block, but if that same hand holds a weapon, I cannot attack? Reality disagrees.
Less a pet peeve and more of a disappointment.
/cevah
|
|
Dex to damage requires 2 feats to acquire, two feats the Str-based warrior could use to boost their own damage.
UnRogues and Whirling Dervishes can do it with zero feats.
In any case, the whole 'argument' is that the restrictions on dex to damage are unnecessary / overly-restrictive. Thus, citing those restrictions to argue that the style is not CURRENTLY over-powered is beside the point. In order to make a case for the restrictions being 'wrong' you'd have to show that dex to damage wouldn't be unbalanced if restrictions like requiring feats were removed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funnily enough, there's a new feat that let's you make standard action attacks with both weapons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funnily enough, there's a new feat that let's you make standard action attacks with both weapons.
It would be nice if we could get this option without pre-requisites like 2 feats we're now never going to use, and ensure that we can't do this before level 12.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funnily enough, there's a new feat that let's you make standard action attacks with both weapons.It would be nice if we could get this option without pre-requisites like 2 feats we're now never going to use, and ensure that we can't do this before level 12.
Seriously, we have to have such a crappy option and terrible feats? Poor form again, Paizo, poor form...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dex to damage requires 2 feats to acquire, two feats the Str-based warrior could use to boost their own damage.UnRogues and Whirling Dervishes can do it with zero feats.
No... They just require an specific class selection, which is an even bigger investment and an even more restrictive prerequisite. Notice how you don't need any specific class to be a good two-hander or archer.
TWF is a very weak combat style, even if you have ranger bonus feats. It requires a lot of investment, both in feats and in gold, just to remain relevant. The only thing weaker than TWF is TWF with two different weapons.
In any case, the whole 'argument' is that the restrictions on dex to damage are unnecessary / overly-restrictive. Thus, citing those restrictions to argue that the style is not CURRENTLY over-powered is beside the point. In order to make a case for the restrictions being 'wrong' you'd have to show that dex to damage wouldn't be unbalanced if restrictions like requiring feats were removed.
You can't prove a negative. Those who claim it'd be overpowered that should have to provide the evidence.
But again... What makes Dex-to-damage so powerful? AC? Can't be, because heavier armor limits dex-to-AC and Bracers of Armor are pretty expensive, on top of taking an item slot. Reflex saves? It's the least relevant save; Initiative? Sure, that's useful... Though not as much for martial classes.
And the Dex-based characters pay for all those little advantages by spending two feats and having lower damage output, CMB and carry capacity. Good luck trying to carry your weapons and armor + gear with Str 10.
What exactly is the problem of a character investing two feats to have lower damage output but a small advantage on Initiative and Reflex saves?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's a discussion on the nerfs and why they weren't ever needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this entire thread has come down to again optimization instead of having fun.
You're also incorrectly assuming the two are mutually exclusive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this entire thread has come down to again optimization instead of having fun.
Set your feats on fire. It's fun. If you don't you're a dirty min/maxer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I think you're missing the part where experienced Gamers look at the damage potential of twf and realise that the conditions under which you benefit from those numbers is vanishingly small and thus, not worth the enormous investment. That's not even accounting for the extremely unlikely circumstance that you have somehow maintained two good weapons.They may overwhelm other twf options(don't have a position on this), but that doesn't say much. It's telling to me that every experienced tabletop gamer I know won't entertain that option in pathfinder.As I mentioned before, for most classes that do well with TWF, strength-based and 17DEX for feats isn't really that different than dex-based and 16STR for damage. They tend to fall behind two-handing when haste is involved, depending on how many static buffs a class gets. When you've had a lot of legitimate down-time to waste at work and start to just run all sorts of build-numbers, a lot of things many "experienced gamers" wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole aren't at all as bad as they seem - they're just not as easily optimized and don't have quite as high a ceiling.
Is it full attacks that you're referring to as a 'vanishingly small' situation, or are you referring to something else? How 'extremely unlikely' is it that a character can maintain two decent weapons? Why does this issue always end up with talk of the sky falling because a given option is often not quite as optimal?
Generally speaking, you can use many classes to create a basic TWF character that does somewhat worse with single attacks and somewhat better with full attacks. On just a basic Fighter, there's a reasonable balance between 2-hand, strength-TWF and dex-TWF; 2-hand is more efficient and produces the best single attacks, finesse with modest strength doesn't do as much damage, and if you want damage to be competitive you need some strength. Go figure.
I'm really not automatically opposed to dex-to-damage options, and I wasn't clamoring for a Fencing Grace change. I just find people blow things way out of proportion when claiming that easy dex-to-damage is desperately needed to make dex-based characters work, and they ignore potential issues it creates.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TWF has a few significant disadvantages:
- Much more expensive to acquire weapons (about twice as much so, compared to two handed weapons)
- Struggles more with DR and hardness, especially material based DR at lower levels
- Shackles you to full attacks earlier in the game
- Requires two hands, which hampers spellcasting and certain special abilities (such as Lay On Hands)
- Requires heavy feat investment
- Necessary feats have heavy ability score prerequisites (which hamper certain options)
For these reasons (and a couple more situational ones) most savvy players are pretty unimpressed with Two-Weapon Fighting as an option.
Dex-to-damage being broken or overpowered is also a pretty commonly touted myth. Even if you hand out Weapon Finesse for free and make Dex to Damage a feat, two handed Strength-based fighting still has the edge with stronger offense and better ranged options (though a Dex focused combatant has somewhat better touch AC and higher Reflex).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
TWF has a few significant disadvantages:
- Much more expensive to acquire weapons (about twice as much so, compared to two handed weapons)
- Struggles more with DR and hardness, especially material based DR at lower levels
- Shackles you to full attacks earlier in the game
- Requires two hands, which hampers spellcasting and certain special abilities (such as Lay On Hands)
- Requires heavy feat investment
- Necessary feats have heavy ability score prerequisites (which hamper certain options)
For these reasons (and a couple more situational ones) most savvy players are pretty unimpressed with Two-Weapon Fighting as an option.
Indeed, I've crunched out god-knows how many hypothetical characters and seen how the disadvantages play out, along with the potential advantages.
My general assumption about weapons is that all things being equal, enhancement is likely to be "-1" on one or both due to needing two; secondary equipment may suffer to keep weapons more equal.
DR can definitely be an issue.
"Shackled" to full attacks is an extremely over-dramatic way to say "single attacks deal one-handed damage". For something like a mid-level Fighter running the usual static bonus parade, we're talking about maybe a ~25% difference opposed by a full-attack payoff. Or to frame it in a more sarcastic way: 'God help those characters that only ever do one-handed damage; they must be useless.'
Requiring two hands, if it's an issue, can be negated with double weapons, glove weapons, unarmed strike, or light shield; or mitigated with Quick Draw.
Feat investment is heavier than two-handing something. Compared to all sorts of other ways to spend feats, it's not particularly shocking.
The ability prerequisites are annoying; for someone who has to save vs. nausea when creating a character that doesn't start with an 18 primary-stat, I'm sure it must be agonizing. Well, unless they just use Dual Talent Human. Or just use an item for a little bump.
I actually wouldn't mind seeing TWF get a little better; I don't think "here you go, strength is irrelevant for any kind of melee damage if you please" is the way to go about it. Regardless, a player who thinks "TWF has issues and is sometimes bad; therefore TWF is always bad" is a victim of an absurd degree of over-generalization. Whether it's bad/doable/good depends entirely on the build.
Dex-to-damage being broken or overpowered is also a pretty commonly touted myth. Even if you hand out Weapon Finesse for free and make Dex to Damage a feat, two handed Strength-based fighting still has the edge with stronger offense and better ranged options (though a Dex focused combatant has somewhat better touch AC and higher Reflex).
"Overpowered" is an issue in context. An easy, general dex-to-damage feat is a giant middle finger to a ton of build concepts that would prefer not to use it. Incidentally, you left out initiative as well as AC and/or mobility on your list of dexterity benefits. Of course, many people couldn't care less; they're only interested in straight optimization however they can get it, and there's nothing wrong with that per se.