Why I think the current FAQ / Errata cycle is bad for the health of the game and how to fix it.


Product Discussion

451 to 500 of 555 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Letric wrote:
How is reactionary a problem? It's literally half a feat, Imp Initiative giving +4.
Reactionary is half a feat. You can also take both, giving you a +6 Init before Dex. That is huge. It means your entire party (all sadly bullied as children) can go before any monster gets a chance. They do not, usually, get traits, hmmm?

Exactly.

"Literally half of Imp Initiative" is +2 Init that DOES NOT STACK WITH Imp Initiative, because Imp Initiative does not stack with itself.
Nor is there a trivially available no-pre-req "Greater Initiative" Feat that stacks with Imp Initiative.
If it had a clause "Does not stack with Imp Init" then it would be balanced and still attractive for many characters.

Shadow Lodge

graystone wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
As for Windy Escape, given that it's only accessible to one of the boon races

In PFS. We aren't talking only about PFS are we?

"members of other races can learn to cast them with GM permission"

Because if you're playing in a home game your GM can equally easily rule that the old Jingasa exists...

If you're playing in a home game and complaining, don't use the update.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:
If you're playing in a home game and complaining, don't use the update.

Thanks, but that is kind of missing the point of this thread (as set out in the thread title).


I don't use errata in my game, none of it.


captain yesterday wrote:
I don't use errata in my game, none of it.

So the Luthier's rapier is available for its old 2.5k price?


I don't have second darkness. Is there somewhere else where it's been updated to pathfinder.


Now I'm curious about what changed with it. Was it just the price, or was it something to do with it's one time only power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Now I'm curious about what changed with it. Was it just the price, or was it something to do with it's one time only power.

Just the price. It was 2.5 k for a +1 holy rapier with lots of other goodies.

Just pointing out that there are a lot of good, reasonable, and neccesary errata out there. Antagonize comes to mind for starters.


Touche!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Touche!

with a rapier :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There´s some serious fun going on here^^

One of the reasons many people play PFS is because there´s no GM fiat and obscure "i know everything better" houserules turning out to be terrible ;)

There´s several different reasons the jingasa got nerfed:
-It´s a TianXia flavored item, a thorn in manies side. (minor reason)
-Seemingly, there were too many people using this item, more visibly in PFS, and together with the fates favored trait it was really good for a good price. (Note that it predates both the trait and the other crit avoiding item)
-Some of the people using it showed some personal bad traits, which are also more visibly in PFS, like shamelessly dominating tables and stealing other players fun as well as being overly arguing with GMs. Add in bragging.
-Some GMs and some other players just got tired of this and complained about it.
-Some of those GMs and other players might or might not have similar problems like some of the "bad" players.

Quite a lot very loud and well connected people playing this game have very, very conservative views of how this game has to be played.
Be reasonable, make good arguments, do some networking here and elsewhere and you might get heard too. Paizo showed on more than one occasion that all customers, players and GMs get taken serious.

Personaly i don´t think the jingasa was a problem, i even wished for the inner sea crowd there would be something like a normal knight helmet^^
But i also thought it´s a really good item for casters, halfcasters, monks and others! Saving your sorcerer from that one evil instakill crit when the rest of your crew messed up once again and not taking the valuable (and very necessary) headband slot? Oh yeah!

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Just pointing out that there are a lot of good, reasonable, and neccesary errata out there. Antagonize comes to mind for starters.

Yes - that was a great bit of errata. I like the new version, but the old version was silliness.

"I'm a spell-caster who can stop time and summon up hordes of angels to do my bidding, but you make me so angry that I'm going to run up and punch you in your stupid face!"


BigNorseWolf wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Touche!
with a rapier :)

Very well then, if that's how you want it. But not until after tea. No reason to be uncivilized after all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Exactly.

"Literally half of Imp Initiative" is +2 Init that DOES NOT STACK WITH Imp Initiative, because Imp Initiative does not stack with itself.
Nor is there a trivially available no-pre-req "Greater Initiative" Feat that stacks with Imp Initiative.
If it had a clause "Does not stack with Imp Init" then it would be balanced and still attractive for many characters.

Reactionary is fine, there are more powerful traits. I think there are a lot more traits that do effectively nothing, so you look around and say "I guess I will just take reactionary instead"

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Exactly.

"Literally half of Imp Initiative" is +2 Init that DOES NOT STACK WITH Imp Initiative, because Imp Initiative does not stack with itself.
Nor is there a trivially available no-pre-req "Greater Initiative" Feat that stacks with Imp Initiative.
If it had a clause "Does not stack with Imp Init" then it would be balanced and still attractive for many characters.
Reactionary is fine, there are more powerful traits. I think there are a lot more traits that do effectively nothing, so you look around and say "I guess I will just take reactionary instead"

I'm with you.

I refuse to take Fate's Favored as I think it's OP (less so with Jingasa gone) so assuming that I don't want a non-class skill I take either

1. Armor Expert if it's a character in light armor so that I can wear a mithril breastplate without burning a feat.

2. A boost to my will and/or fort save.

3. +2 Initiative feats (either reactionary or the elven one) - especially if I have SA.

And that's pretty much it 80% of the time. There are a few other niche ones which are handy, like the extra dagger damage, and Bullied is handy for tripper monk builds. A few others. (Plus a couple of OP combos - like empowered Shocking Grasp which is still in a level 1 slot.)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Scavion wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Which means it hasn't been forgotten. If you meant it being forgotten because no one uses it...well Paizo does tend to go overboard on the nerf department.

When 99% have forgotten it but the 1% have not, then it actually has been forgotten.

Considering I've seen PC with the feats post errata, it isn't "forgotten" due to being sucky. I've contemplated using it and I know others that use it. It's just no longer the "Got to take 2 levels of Master of Many Styles to get Crane Wing action" required builds.

Ssalarn wrote:
Paizo doesn't take the time to reflect on their errata ... but I think it's important to recognize exactly what's being argued and why.

I don't think any of that is true. I don't think they do knee jerk unthoughtful changes ignoring their customers. In fact, I believe it is the opposite. They just have the bravery to ignore the vocal minority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think its a minority, vocal or otherwise, thats going to junk the jingasa in its current form.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ssalarn wrote:

let's try and not manipulate my words to alter my stance.

You don't know that the people you addressing are a minority

Please accept my apology for both.

It seems I misunderstood your points, and frankly I'm still confused about your first point. I just do think they consider the posters on here, their PFS leadership roles which has direct access to thousands of tables of GM/player feedback, and their own views. I don't think they ignore that combined wisdom.

As to the minority, I'm trying to understand why there seems to be no one unhappy playing the game at the stores I've played, at the conventions I'm played/GMed, and it seems to only be here online.

Also, even looking to Magic as an example of a game where the players play despite a possible majority complaining about the actions taken by the maker of the game, the game itself, cards created, bans that happen, etc. People still play, they just complain about the maker. I don't see the same level of complaints about Paizo. At least in my world.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
MisterSlanky wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Paizo doesn't take the time to reflect on their errata ... but I think it's important to recognize exactly what's being argued and why.
I don't think any of that is true. I don't think they do knee jerk unthoughtful changes ignoring their customers. In fact, I believe it is the opposite. They just have the bravery to ignore the vocal minority.
I've met Mark Seifter on countless occasions. I can assure you that Mark has reflected on the errata more than any of us have. You may not like his solutions, but his solutions are absolutely not made in a vacuum. You meet him and you'll know this.

And see, this is why I don't like being misquoted. Mark and I are friends. We've gamed together, we've discussed design together, and we actually have pretty similar opinions on a lot of things (except I seriously crave red meat, and I don't like pasta enough to eat it in the quantities he and Linda do).

I don't believe that the design team fails to think through their decisions (and anyone who's met Mark knows he doesn't fail to think through anything, dude is literally one of the three smartest people I know), I just think that it's very apparent that their design philosophies, reached to match some very specific goals, will always have the unintended result of creating reactions like those seen here. I've spelled out why above, including why people who don't actually know Mark and the others would reach the conclusions they do about their decisions.

I actually think you two (Ssalarn and MisterSlanky) would enjoy gaming together if you met in person. :)

I remember Ssalarn's #1 pet peeve being the fact that there's no option to explain negative consequences to a creature incapable of emotions logically and without fearmongering in such a way that it will capitulate to you, since it's immune to fear, and at the time, I said something like "I think we can have you covered on that...wait for it."

For reference if this doesn't make sense, see Ultimate Intrigue Skills in Conflict.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't blame malice, nor lack of reasoning for the nerfing of the Jingasa of the poor sucker who bought it.

However I do still take issue with the justification of taking the 'fortune' out of the fortunate soldier. If a luck bonus to AC is game breaking because it raises AC for the cheap. We'd better nerf the dodge feat, the dusty rose ioun stone, defender of the society etc.

And the magic item creation rules, while we're at it.

If the issue is (as many suspect) Fate's Favored, then 'fixing' the Jingasa of the useless item is akin to a trait/feat appearing in Inner Sea Races that adds one to the crit multiplier, then going back to the CRB and dropping the scythe to a X3, but leaving the picks still at X4 because the 'damage scales too fast'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't think its a minority, vocal or otherwise, thats going to junk the jingasa in its current form.
Which I believe is beside the point. The item was changed.

The item was nerfed into oblivion. And that's part of the problem. Items that are a little out of line get whacked below even the the less than useful average for items.

Quote:
It needed a change.

Why? Because it was game breaking? It wasn't.

Because it was overpowered? It wasn't. It was just good
Because it was underpriced? Take a few k onto it.
Because it was popular? Of course it was. All the other items in slot are either terrible for melee or just terrible.

It might have needed a tweak. It got thrown through a woodchipper.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:
It needed a change.
Why? Because it was game breaking? It wasn't.

The luck bonus to AC was the main problem, and the fact it could be worn by those with the highest AC.

If they changed it to not stack with Full Plate/Shield Fighters, then it would have been fine to remain.

Leaving it as a luck bonus with or without Fate's Favored would have been a mistake.

I don't really see an issue also changing the critical, but that is probably my bias. Despite owning the item on every character I've ever played by level 5 to 7. I don't think I've ever used the 1/day ability. To me the item was a simple "5000 gp for +1 AC or +2 AC with Fate's Favored" item. The 1 or 2 AC only changed when it was bought (after or before dusty rose.) Since Dusty Rose, Jingasa, Ring, and amulet of NA are all non-negotiable purchased for those that can use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quoting Jiggy's list here

+1 armor (1k)
+1 shield (1k)
+1 ring (2k)
+1 amulet (2k)
+2 armor (3k)
+2 shield (3k)
+2 DEX belt (4k)
jingasa (5k)
ioun stone (forget the color/shape, 5k)
+3 armor (5k)
+3 shield (5k)
+2 ring (6k)
+2 amulet (6k)
+4 armor (7k)
+4 shield (7k)
+3 ring (10k)
+3 amulet (10k)
+4 DEX belt (12k; probably get this sooner since it's not just for AC)
And so on.

It doesn't alter your AC gains radically if you're spending the AC on a hat and then your armor and then the shield and then the ring.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Defender of the Society isn't an issue because it's Fighter only. Is it really good and therefore standard issue for every Fighter? Sure. Is that a problem? No.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

let's try and not manipulate my words to alter my stance.

You don't know that the people you addressing are a minority

Please accept my apology for both.

It seems I misunderstood your points, and frankly I'm still confused about your first point. I just do think they consider the posters on here, their PFS leadership roles which has direct access to thousands of tables of GM/player feedback, and their own views. I don't think they ignore that combined wisdom.

I think that PFS represents a power block of gamers, and it's probably the largest number of unified voices, but based on what I know of Paizo sales numbers (and granted, it's not like I have access to their account books), as well as the number of forums and other venues frequented by Pathfinder players, I'm not entirely convinced that actually represents a majority of players. It just represents the largest group capable of conveying united opinions.

I live on an island called Bremerton about an hour and fifteen minutes away from Paizo HQ. When I first moved here, I was leaving a rapidly expanding PFS group in Spokane, and I was excited to start growing a PFS community here. Unfortunately, the established gaming community had apparently already had someone try to set up PFS, and it went so poorly that people literally made the same face when they said "PFS" that I make when I bite into a persimmon. I'm still not entirely clear on what poisoned the well, but it was bad. That didn't stop everyone from playing Pathfinder though; there were still 5 or 6 people meeting three times a week to play Pathfinder and loving their games. Instead of pressuring people on the PFS front, I ended up starting an event I called "Third Party Thursdays" where I'd preview classes from books like Dreamscarred Press' "Ultimate Psionics" or Ascension Games' "Path of Shadows" and adventures from AAW, Four Dollar Dungeons, and more.

It probably says something about how badly the well was poisoned that I got entrenched GMs to allow 3pp content before they'd run PFS scenarios.

Now, thanks in no small part to Rachel Ventura, her husband Jason, and contributions from Legendary Games as I dealt with medical issues and wasn't able to fulfill all the responsibilities of organizing materials and events, that group of 5 is closer to 20, and it was closer to 30 before a bunch of deployments happened (Bremerton is a military town), and several of these people are GMs who also have their own separate groups that they run at the college. This is a reasonably large community of gamers for a small town, they all love Pathfinder, they all have fairly cohesive opinions about it, but the only venue where their voices are currently heard is here, on the forums.

Having been born and raised in Alaska, traveled the world in the Army, and having lived in 14 states during my adult life, I don't think situations like the one in Bremerton are uncommon; some people have never heard of PFS, some don't have enough support in their area or lack a FLGS to host, etc. All of these home gamers are still playing Pathfinder, still have their own opinions on it, and may very well outnumber the players who are represented by the more unified voice of PFS.

Quote:


As to the minority, I'm trying to understand why there seems to be no one unhappy playing the game at the stores I've played, at the conventions I'm played/GMed, and it seems to only be here online.

I'll tell you, there's a few things wrong with the thought process here.

1) Just because you don't like the design direction of errata, doesn't mean you can't have fun playing the game. Pathfinder is still a huge game with a plethora of options, so it's still possible, arguably easy even, to find something you can enjoy. That doesn't mean you aren't going to be upset that some portion of those options has been functionally removed.

2) Disagreement doesn't equal hate. In the same way that I have staunch Republicans and equally staunch Democrats at my table but everyone manages to be friends and enjoy each other's company, you can disagree with what a company is doing without feeling the need to go burn their books in the town square. Sometimes you shake your head and roll with it, sometimes you drive 15 minutes to Silverdale and play 5E for a while. I would hope that the number of people who stay and play just to spread the hate if they're actually miserable is very small.

3) Going back to my original point in this thread-

Not everybody has the advantage of getting to travel to conventions or live right near Paizo HQ, so they don't have any insight to the general opinions or attitudes of the PDT.
The Paizo errata policies are built on a process of incremental design and maintaining the... I'm going to use the word "sanctity" because I was up until 2am last night and can't think of the right word - maintaining the sanctity of the CRB. From perspective A, these are smart design goals, because they're easy to enforce and maintain the value of their core rules source.
From perspective B, this design philosophy is going to consistently lead to errata that feels biased against martial characters, because in a way, it is. It's easy to say that "A +1 luck bonus to AC that takes up a non-defense slot" is better than other similarly priced options (though as I noted earlier, there are some narrower options that may provide equal or greater benefit), it's harder to actually define how powerful a more open-ended mechanic, like many spells, might be. Color spray is still color spray despite probably having more threads about how necessary and powerful it is than the jingasa by a massive margin. There's a lot of variables to color spray (saving throws, positioning, the fact that its power naturally phases out over time, monster types with immunity, etc.), so it's never going to be clear cut that it's powerful, or too powerful, especially since it does completely different stuff than its peer options. Add to that that it's a CRB mechanic, and it's probably very safe. Compare to the jingasa, a non-CRB item with more equivalent points of comparison for performance, which is much more easily singled out and changed.

This leads to two more problems though. The first is that many people feel the CRB itself is imbalanced, and this is a perspective I actually share. Pathfinder, with its multitudes of variables, numerous types of defenses, immunities, movement modes, etc. favors having multiple flexible class features, such as spells, over more potent but more limited options. A Fighter will typically only ever be able to target two defenses, AC and CMD. A Wizard can target AC, CMD, Touch AC, Fortitude, Reflex, Will, and they have some options that can change encounters without them ever having to target a defense at all. There's definitely some system mastery gating that evens the spread for the majority of players (it's hard to go too wrong with a Fighter, while you can go very wrong with a wizard), but system mastery isn't the hurtle it used to be, what with the internet and all. I'll avoid wandering too much further down that path in this thread though, and get to the point. Because people view the CRB as inherently imbalanced, and feel that this is fairly easily mathematically borne out, they're not going to see more powerful options that favor martial classes as overpowered, they're going to see them as a welcome addition to the game closing an existing gap. If that option is later taken away, they're not looking at the value of the jingasa vs. some other magic item, they're looking at the value of their character who was using the jingasa now that they've lost the option. The Fighter who no longer has even a 1/day use for his immediate action, the Rogue who's back to getting his face stomped in every time he tries to set up a flank because his already tenuous AC is poor again, etc. They're looking at a "wider" picture (I put wider in quotes because I'm not going to presume that the view is truly wider in a greater economic sense, just in a game impact for their playstyle sense) of what that item meant for characters they felt were already working at a disadvantage.

The second issue is directly tied to the first and I've already touched on it a bit earlier in this post, and a few times earlier in this thread. Because the design team focuses on simple incremental design fixes, the options they fix are going to almost always be martially oriented, because those are really the only simple and incremental fixes the game offers, with a few exceptions of spellcasting options where you can directly trace issues in the math to core problems with the ability's actual function. Combine this errata trend with the previously mentioned perspective that the game was already imbalanced the moment it hit print, and you get the never-ending cycle of Crane Wing's, jingasa's, and whatever other errata item leaps out as having been a greater benefit to martials than spellcasters causing threads and "Paizo hates martials" rallies. I know that's not true, but I think it's a very clear path to see how their decisions will inevitably lead to that conclusion for some people, and that's unlikely to change as they continue to execute their errata under the same premises.

Quote:


Also, even looking to Magic as an example of a game where the players play despite a possible majority complaining about the actions taken by the maker of the game, the game itself, cards created, bans that happen, etc. People still play, they just complain about the maker. I don't see the same level of complaints about Paizo. At least in my world.

Magic has always been a bad comparison for Pathfinder. The very nature of M:TG changes on a yearly or faster basis; fast decks are good, fast decks are bad, weenie decks are good, weenie decks are bad, control decks are too slow, control decks rule the game, this goes on and on. Their engine is built on having an evolving base that keeps the game fresh and sells new cards every quarter.

Pathfinder is the opposite; each book builds on the book before it, rather than cycling that book out of use, and every single player has access to the entire wealth of options, rather than a randomly selected subsection of those options determined by luck and how many booster packs they opened. People expect Magic to change, they expect Pathfinder to offer consistency. When someone's Magic card is cycled out of current play block, they knew that was coming months in advance, and they probably even had notice on what would be replacing it. When someone's favorite Pathfinder option disappears, not only were they not expecting it, but they have zero adjustment period between the time it goes away and the time its replacement becomes official. They went to bed one night thinking that miracle cards would always be part of the game, and woke up to a world where miracle cards no longer exist, and the replacement option is hot, hot crap they'd never intentionally waste money on. The expectation, development, and release cycles between the two games are completely different, and while people may complain about changes in Magic, they see that punch telegraphed from a long way off, whereas Paizo's errata changes frequently feel like a sucker punch in the blind spot for the people who've been negatively impacted by them.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

Jingasa, a non-CRB item with more equivalent points of comparison for performance, which is much more easily singled out and changed.

Because people view the CRB as inherently imbalanced, and feel that this is fairly easily mathematically borne out, they're not going to see more powerful options that favor martial classes as overpowered

Long post, well written, enlightened me on a number of points. I'll touch on a couple of points.

I'm one who prefers martial to casters and in a way I know about the unbalanced way they are compared.

I never considered the imbalance in the CRB as something that needs to be fixed, so I now understand many of those posting over the weekend reasons for doing so.

For me, I've always balanced the caster vs martials via "per day" resources. Casters can run out. I don't like playing martials that "run out". This also probably contributes to me placing virtually no value in any limited resource. For example, the Jingasa. I always paid 5000 gp for the AC and never considered a single GP of that the 1/day ability I'd never use.

In PFS, I've never used a "one use" boon on a chronicle and I can't imagine a scenario where I'd remember to look one up and use it. They simply have no value to me, ever. It's my play style I'm sure.

Thanks again for the post. Here is to hoping we all can get past the errata and look forward to the newer books. Despite knowing some will have new Jingasa items that will need errata.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
I am hugely in favour of errata. It shows Paizo are reflective in what they do, which is always a good thing and hopefully that they listen to feedback from their customers, which as a business if you dont do will eventually end up with you going down the toilet!
People aren't complaining that Paizo does errata, they're complaining about the nature, direction, and result of the errata that is produced.

Actually, there have been several people this week who have indeed complained about the fact that we issue errata at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And they are wrong. You guys are a class act. Issuing errata is a minefield, and lots of people get unhappy no matter what you do, but you do it well. My compliments. Going without errata is far worse than losing a +1 luck bonus to AC helmet.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
I am hugely in favour of errata. It shows Paizo are reflective in what they do, which is always a good thing and hopefully that they listen to feedback from their customers, which as a business if you dont do will eventually end up with you going down the toilet!
People aren't complaining that Paizo does errata, they're complaining about the nature, direction, and result of the errata that is produced.
Actually, there have been several people this week who have indeed complained about the fact that we issue errata at all.

I think those are mostly 'if the errata trend is that they are always THIS bad, why have errata at all...' type comments. Or 'errata is for mistakes, not changing/balancing items so no THAT kind of errata' or 'my ACG is more useful as a paperweight after the errata; bad errata'.

I don't think anyone truly wants mistakes unfixed, they just complain about the need for them in the first place and the severity and type of 'fixes'.


CWheezy wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Exactly.

"Literally half of Imp Initiative" is +2 Init that DOES NOT STACK WITH Imp Initiative, because Imp Initiative does not stack with itself.
Nor is there a trivially available no-pre-req "Greater Initiative" Feat that stacks with Imp Initiative.
If it had a clause "Does not stack with Imp Init" then it would be balanced and still attractive for many characters.
Reactionary is fine, there are more powerful traits. I think there are a lot more traits that do effectively nothing, so you look around and say "I guess I will just take reactionary instead"

I wasn't addressing what you or anybody including myself assesses as "fine" power level,

I was addressing the specific claim it is "literally half of Imp Initiative" which it fails the test of.
"Half a Feat" is in fact the purported power target of Traits, so that should be the target here, which is missed.
Whether there are other traits which are more or less powerful is irrelevant to whether this meets stated power target.
If those other ones are more or less they should also be adjusted to meet the target.
Maybe that wont' happen, but claims of "literally half of Imp Initiative" are trivially disproven.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
I am hugely in favour of errata. It shows Paizo are reflective in what they do, which is always a good thing and hopefully that they listen to feedback from their customers, which as a business if you dont do will eventually end up with you going down the toilet!
People aren't complaining that Paizo does errata, they're complaining about the nature, direction, and result of the errata that is produced.
Actually, there have been several people this week who have indeed complained about the fact that we issue errata at all.

Ah. In that case let me amend my statement to "I think the reasonable bulk of players with issues with some of the errata that has been released aren't actually against the presence of errata at all, but with the nature, direction, and result of some of the particular errata that is produced." For reasons discussed at length already.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

James,

Your attempts to dismiss my statements as 'irrelevant' show you lack the ability to address them effectively.

Fortunately since the 'luck' bonus also has existed since 3.5, you have conceded the point that it is not the issue in question.

Therefore, I fear every argument you have made, by your own standards, is 'irrelevant'.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:


As for the unfun of playing MERP, I am sure I can't agree with that. There seems to be quite a few people who like it and find it fun. And whether death should come only as a consequence of bad planning and strategies, well, that is an opinion you are quite entitled to. Different people want different things from the game.

I'm a huge fan of MERP -- the most streamlined, playable version of Rolemaster out there. I also really liked what ICE did with the lore, which is now kind of the EU of the Tolkien-verse.

The fact that anything involving combat was very swingy and potentially lethal was part of the point of the system -- I have seen a housecat kill a warrior with a blow. (I think a double zero on a class E slashing crit promoted to a class C crit, where another double zero meant death. Welcome to Chartmaster.) So you learn to avoid combat when possible or make it as short and overwhelming as possible. That was the system that pushed us into learning how to set serious ambushes. Good times.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quoting Jiggy's list here

+1 armor (1k)
+1 shield (1k)
+1 ring (2k)
+1 amulet (2k)
+2 armor (3k)
+2 shield (3k)
+2 DEX belt (4k)
jingasa (5k)
ioun stone (forget the color/shape, 5k)
+3 armor (5k)
+3 shield (5k)
+2 ring (6k)
+2 amulet (6k)
+4 armor (7k)
+4 shield (7k)
+3 ring (10k)
+3 amulet (10k)
+4 DEX belt (12k; probably get this sooner since it's not just for AC)
And so on.

It doesn't alter your AC gains radically if you're spending the AC on a hat and then your armor and then the shield and then the ring.

Many of those numbers are WAY off. The corrected values are below:

+1 armor (1k)
+1 shield (1k)
+1 ring (2k)
+1 amulet (2k)
+2 DEX belt (4k)
+2 armor (4k)
+2 shield (4k)
jingasa of the fortunate soldier (5k)
dusty rose prism ioun stone (5k)
+2 ring (8k)
+2 amulet (8k)
+3 armor (9k)
+3 shield (9k)
+4 DEX belt (16k)
+4 armor (16k)
+4 shield (16k)
+3 ring (18k)
+3 amulet (18k)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Actually, there have been several people this week who have indeed complained about the fact that we issue errata at all.

Because of how it makes options non-options in the worst way sometimes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be far more palatable if the original content were still available somewhere online, but the SRD sites all update and make that stuff impossible to find. If each errata'd entry had the original form in notations somewhere it would be less of a problem for home groups because we could just choose which version we wanted to use..

Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:


Many of those numbers are WAY off. The corrected values are below:

They really weren't. They were in reference to the increased cost, not to the total cost.

Upgrading armor from +1 to +2 costs 3k, and so that's the cost you should consider when choosing your next purchase.


Ravingdork: They're not off. They're how much they cost you to upgrade. So if a ring +1 is 2k and a ring +2 is 8 k, that 1 point of AC costs you 6k. If there's an ac booster that costs 7k, upgrading your ring is better than buying it


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
And they are wrong. You guys are a class act. Issuing errata is a minefield, and lots of people get unhappy no matter what you do, but you do it well. My compliments. Going without errata is far worse than losing a +1 luck bonus to AC helmet.

And I restate: Stop with the false dilemma.

Good errata > Bad errata and No errata > Bad errata =/= No errata > Errata


Sundakan wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
And they are wrong. You guys are a class act. Issuing errata is a minefield, and lots of people get unhappy no matter what you do, but you do it well. My compliments. Going without errata is far worse than losing a +1 luck bonus to AC helmet.

And I restate: Stop with the false dilemma.

Good errata > Bad errata and No errata > Bad errata =/= No errata > Errata

It's no false dilemma. If people complain about having errata in the first place, which was the exact claim I answered in my post, then that is a suggestion that there should be no errata at all. That would be disastrous to the game, in my opinion - which is what I gave.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Errata are supposed to be for the correction of actual errors. If there are a few serious problems out there, then I agree it should be changed. But a lot these remain a mystery; even if they needed to be fixed (which I don't believe) they should have been fixed not eviscerated.

451 to 500 of 555 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Why I think the current FAQ / Errata cycle is bad for the health of the game and how to fix it. All Messageboards