Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the design team's attempts at mitigating power creep.
However, I consider it pretty bad form to have this cycle of creating content that misses the mark and then totally gut it with little attempt to compromise or balance it appropriately. I understand the reasons behind this, but it does leave customers feeling frustrated to have the content they paid for get changed for the worse. I feel erratas should be used to fix mistakes and content that simply doesn't work. Instead, it's used as a way to nerf content that's too powerful in PFS.
In some cases, the errata creates even more problems and confusion than the content as originally printed. Slashing Grace is a great example of this. The errata made the feat even more awkward and broke several items and archetypes for the class that the feat was intended for.
Serisan |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I happen to think the FAQ/errata system is very good for the health of the game. I love the fact that Paizo addresses overpowered items. Do I think some of the nerfs went overboard? Yes. But I'd rather have heavy-handed adjustments than no adjustments at all.
I think one of the fundamental problems is that there's a strong focus on "that's too good, nerf it into the ground" and not enough on "why are the other options for the slot simply not selected?" So much of Pathfinder seems designed around Random NPC #34482 rather than actual characters that it's tough to decipher why it was printed in the first place, but the good items that aren't in the CRB seem to get struck down to NPC status after a couple years.
Ravingdork |
Rysky wrote:*cough* Don't forget the "off-slot" penalty, which pushes it to 3k.graystone wrote:If you find it as loot with the negate already used it should only account for 2k, not for the full 5k the newly made item is worth.The Sword wrote:It acts as +1 ring of deflection as well. Sounds like a nice little item.
Of course if you are scouring the srd for the optimal method of spending gc in the magic mart I'm sure it doesn't look as good as it did.
However for everyone who gets their treasure from loot I'm sure it is a welcome addition.
Yes, an item that gives out the same bonus type as the ring I have a much better chance of finding... And for 3/5th's more GP! Color me unimpressed. And I'm SURE that it's one time only ability wasn't used before I found it as treasure... :P
'Look guys, I found a magic cooking pot of deflection. It's SUPER useful...'
There is no off-slot penalty in Pathfinder...
...unless I seriously missed something.
Rysky |
There's this:Serisan wrote:Rysky wrote:*cough* Don't forget the "off-slot" penalty, which pushes it to 3k.graystone wrote:If you find it as loot with the negate already used it should only account for 2k, not for the full 5k the newly made item is worth.The Sword wrote:It acts as +1 ring of deflection as well. Sounds like a nice little item.
Of course if you are scouring the srd for the optimal method of spending gc in the magic mart I'm sure it doesn't look as good as it did.
However for everyone who gets their treasure from loot I'm sure it is a welcome addition.
Yes, an item that gives out the same bonus type as the ring I have a much better chance of finding... And for 3/5th's more GP! Color me unimpressed. And I'm SURE that it's one time only ability wasn't used before I found it as treasure... :P
'Look guys, I found a magic cooking pot of deflection. It's SUPER useful...'
There is no off-slot penalty in Pathfinder...
...unless I seriously missed something.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
But the rule that applies more here would be the Multiple Different Abilties in the pricing guide, where you multiply lower item cost by 1.5.
Knight_Druid |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this thread by the OP hilarious. In essence no one forcing you to use errata; it's your game, do as you wish. Also, if Paizo didn't publish errata people would complain about that too. I started gaming in 1988 using Palladium Fantasy and Rifts. We never got errata or updated books, and there was plenty of power-creep for new releases. If we didn't like a rule we changed it and moved on.
Consider yourself very fortunate that Paizo spends time correcting mistakes. If you buy the PDF the update is FREE. In fact as far as I can tell all erratta is free. It's like you're looking for a reason to complain. It's not that serious, my friend. Either use the updates or don't.
137ben |
HyperMissingno wrote:Liz Courts wrote:Perhaps putting older versions in parenthesis is an option?voideternal wrote:No.One possible solution to keeping people's home games from being modified inadvertently by changes like these is to make each version of the online rulebooks on the PRD and SRD toggle-able by errata. That way, the home-game GM could declare that they're using the first printing of Ultimate Equipment, and the players can still look it up online.
^ Can you actually do the above as of now?
The problem is, we would have to roll *back* to the original, then roll forward again, reduplicating a lot of hours of work that we really don't have to spare on a team of two people, who already have a lot on their plates. The scope (and content) of the PRD has grown beyond its original vision, and to any sort of versioning efficiently would require restructuring it significantly. It's not impossible, just not really feasible right now.
That being said, I am restructuring what I can when I can to make things less maintenance-heavy (if only so I can focus on building useful tools using the data we have :D ).
Yea, having dealt with large databases before, I believe it would be a nightmare to implement unless the database had been designed to do it from the ground up (a la Wikipedia's Page History feature). That's why I have only ever advocated the selling of un-errata'd PDFs through the store. Much easier to implement and maintain, and it has the added bonus of actually bringing in money for Paizo. Plus, it would be a nice incentive for people who had been using the PRD to buy the PDFs. Did the errata just change something you don't like? No problem, just pay $10 for the original text:) Better for Paizo's finances, better for players with money, and no change from the current policy for people who never spend any money.
Heck, if you wanna go the full-on Lucasfilm route, you could charge more for the original "theatrical-release" PDFs than for the errata'd "canon" PDFs, and assume anyone who cares about the differences is enough of a fan to pay extra:D
(But then, that might not work as well because rabid Pathfinder fans aren't nearly as numerous as rabid Star Wars fans.)
Darksol the Painbringer |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this thread by the OP hilarious. In essence no one forcing you to use errata; it's your game, do as you wish. Also, if Paizo didn't publish errata people would complain about that too. I started gaming in 1988 using Palladium Fantasy and Rifts. We never got errata or updated books, and there was plenty of power-creep for new releases. If we didn't like a rule we changed it and moved on.
Consider yourself very fortunate that Paizo spends time correcting mistakes. If you buy the PDF the update is FREE. In fact as far as I can tell all erratta is free. It's like you're looking for a reason to complain. It's not that serious, my friend. Either use the updates or don't.
No one except the PFS GMs who are required to enforce and impasse the Errata onto you, as well as any newbie GM who looks the rules up online.
Then again, considering PFS is the balancing point that Paizo uses their errata for, everyone in PFS should be absolutely ecstatic about these changes.
Oh wait...
N. Jolly |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knight_Druid wrote:I find this thread by the OP hilarious. In essence no one forcing you to use errata; it's your game, do as you wish. Also, if Paizo didn't publish errata people would complain about that too. I started gaming in 1988 using Palladium Fantasy and Rifts. We never got errata or updated books, and there was plenty of power-creep for new releases. If we didn't like a rule we changed it and moved on.
Consider yourself very fortunate that Paizo spends time correcting mistakes. If you buy the PDF the update is FREE. In fact as far as I can tell all erratta is free. It's like you're looking for a reason to complain. It's not that serious, my friend. Either use the updates or don't.
No one except the PFS GMs who are required to enforce and impasse the Errata onto you, as well as any newbie GM who looks the rules up online.
Then again, considering PFS is the balancing point that Paizo uses their errata for, everyone in PFS should be absolutely ecstatic about these changes.
Oh wait...
Or that any new player or person who doesn't have a hard copy or pre-errata copy of the PDF in question won't be able to use the pre-errata version because all online sources (PRD, PFSRD, AoN) will update to the new printing, thus making yet another collection of worthless items that will languish in the massive pile of unused magic items. Statements like this really show a lacking awareness of how content is handled since not everyone can always access pre-errata material due to how information is updated with little incentive for actually having the pre-errata version still listed online.
I seriously never thought I'd see a crane winging of this magnitude again.
Mighty Squash |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that some items were a little too good for their price, but this just adds another book to the pile of heavy objects I have purchased from Paizo that become more trouble than they are worth to use.
Going to a PFS game and knowing that I can't trust the text of the books I have bought to even correctly indicate what things do is somewhat offensive.
I think the lesson may be that it really is time to stop giving Paizo my money.
Chess Pwn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:Knight_Druid wrote:I find this thread by the OP hilarious. In essence no one forcing you to use errata; it's your game, do as you wish. Also, if Paizo didn't publish errata people would complain about that too. I started gaming in 1988 using Palladium Fantasy and Rifts. We never got errata or updated books, and there was plenty of power-creep for new releases. If we didn't like a rule we changed it and moved on.
Consider yourself very fortunate that Paizo spends time correcting mistakes. If you buy the PDF the update is FREE. In fact as far as I can tell all erratta is free. It's like you're looking for a reason to complain. It's not that serious, my friend. Either use the updates or don't.
No one except the PFS GMs who are required to enforce and impasse the Errata onto you, as well as any newbie GM who looks the rules up online.
Then again, considering PFS is the balancing point that Paizo uses their errata for, everyone in PFS should be absolutely ecstatic about these changes.
Oh wait...
Or that any new player or person who doesn't have a hard copy or pre-errata copy of the PDF in question won't be able to use the pre-errata version because all online sources (PRD, PFSRD, AoN) will update to the new printing, thus making yet another collection of worthless items that will languish in the massive pile of unused magic items. Statements like this really show a lacking awareness of how content is handled since not everyone can always access pre-errata material due to how information is updated with little incentive for actually having the pre-errata version still listed online.
I seriously never thought I'd see a crane winging of this magnitude again.
But of course! We can't have people actually have an item that they like consistently for a slot. Only the Big 6 can claim their spot. Anything else must be random and only okay, nothing else can be a staple.
Quandary |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a 2.0 Pathfinder is interesting to think about from a business perspective.
Pros
Cons
1. People keep playing your old system and never buy into the new one.The #1 con was bolded for emphasis. That's the biggest one. It's basically what happened when 4e was released and is where Pathfinder came from.
Except there's no reason that just like PRPG 1.0, PRPG 2.0 could be "broadly" BW-compatable with PRPG 1.0 (but perhaps not so much 3.5 anymore). Just like PRPG 1.0, that doesn't mean 100% compatability, some stuff just won't work (but most will have clear conversions/alternatives), some technically works but is superfluous... But you largely CAN still use alot of your existing library.
If you don't see the errata as a Pathfinder 2.0 or 2.12354, I don't know what to tell you.
So... People are complaining about alterations to this or that Wondrous Item, so that is equivalent to core mechanic alterations or even core class changes? Huh? I mean, there is no question that pre or post Errata the item in question is fully compatable with the game, so how is that "2nd Edition" equivalent? Even Pathfinder ACTUALLY WHOLESALE ALTERED core mechanics. Player entitlement complaints are equivalent to edition change? What?
Quandary |
I'm certainly advocating an actual 2.0 because I think Pathfinder has fundamental flaws associated with the 3.5 backwards compatibility that rocketed the system to initial success. I think the framework of Pathfinder is fundamentally broken, plagued with inconsistent and unclear writing, significant imbalances, and references to rules that simply don't exist.
Why is it that Mark Seifter had to start a thread for a FAQ request about a CRB mechanic (positive and negative energy)? Not only that, but the longer that discussion goes on, the more convoluted the answer seems to get.
Why, after roughly 7 years, are there no official rules for Burrow speed, which has appeared in monster entries since Bestiary 1 in Pathfinder, numerous adventures prior to Pathfinder's release, and even 3.5 itself?
Why is it that the rules don't clearly identify a timeline of actions so we know when Immediate Actions can occur?
While these examples are easily capable of being errata'd, there are several other items that can't be as easily changed. (...) Wrecking a few powerful magic items in Ultimate Equipment is small potatoes compared to the myriad problems of the CRB, which impacts every design decision down the road.
Totally agreed (though I don't think Big 6 item paradigm isn't the worst thing in the world per se). I'm honestly 10x as interested in Core Rules FAQ/Errata than whatever the hell they do with expansion material, just because everything depends on Core Rules. Tons of stuff is just literally broken yet ignored because people aren't going to stop playing until it is FAQed/Errata'd. Just simply look at Vital Strike/Attack Action issue, and then how Attack Action is introduced, with multitude of generic NON-"Attack" Standard Action rules SUBSUMED to it, some of which in fact only apply to Full Attacks. Or Grapple's movement limitation issue, or range conditions for Grapple breaking. Really, I guess it's dry stuff vs. raging on sparkly bloat toys being re-balanced, but it's what the game runs on... And IMHO fixing that stuff is hugely imporant to actual smooth, nuanced gameplay, more so that bloat material.
As far as PRPG 2nd Ed, I would like to see stuff like schools re-thought, with Healing/Necromancy perhaps becoming Evocation, perhaps "mental" Illusions being merged with Enchantment, and non-mental Illusions being merged with Evocation? I'd also like a "3rd path" take on action economy balance, not 3rd Edition's take i.e. Caster Edition where martial scaling depends on Full Attacks but Spells largely don't, nor 2nd Edition's exactly either... Something that takes cues from 2nd Edition but achieves greater playability (I've expounded on this in other threads).
Wiggz |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just never going to understand why Paizo continues to address perceived issues with PFS play by errata'ing the rules for the (many, many more) home games around the world, especially when THERE IS ALREADY A SPECIAL SUBSET OF RULES ERRATA EXPRESSLY FOR PFS!
It's by far the thing most ruinous to the game in my opinion - and before anyone suggests that people just houserule around errata they don't like or disagree with, apply that logic in reverse; if something was considered 'broken' at my table, isn't it perfectly within my ability to change it as I see fit rather than having to justify/debate/explain which of Paizo's endless rules changes I'm going to apply and which I'm not?
Use the PFS rules to address (perceived) issues at PFS tables and leave my home game alone.
Wiggz |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totally agreed (though I don't think Big 6 item paradigm isn't the worst thing in the world per se). I'm honestly 10x as interested in Core Rules FAQ/Errata than whatever the hell they do with expansion material, just because everything depends on Core Rules. Tons of stuff is just literally broken yet ignored because people aren't going to stop playing until it is FAQed/Errata'd. Just simply look at Vital Strike/Attack Action issue, and then how Attack Action is introduced, with multitude of generic NON-"Attack" Standard Action rules SUBSUMED to it, some of which in fact only apply to Full Attacks. Or Grapple's movement limitation issue, or range conditions for Grapple breaking. Really, I guess it's dry stuff vs. raging on sparkly bloat toys being re-balanced, but it's what the game runs on... And IMHO fixing that stuff is hugely imporant to actual smooth, nuanced gameplay, more so that bloat material.
As far as PRPG 2nd Ed, I would like to see stuff like schools re-thought, with Healing/Necromancy perhaps becoming Evocation, perhaps "mental" Illusions being merged with Enchantment, and non-mental Illusions being merged with Evocation? I'd also like a "3rd path" take on action economy balance, not 3rd Edition's take i.e. Caster Edition where martial scaling depends on Full Attacks but Spells largely don't, nor 2nd Edition's exactly either... Something that takes cues from 2nd Edition but achieves greater playability (I've expounded on this in other threads).
The only thing that keeps me from agreeing with you wholeheartedly is the tremendous amount of money I've sunk into products that would suddenly become incompatible with the new version of the game. Its starting to feel more and more like a no-win situation as a patron of Pathfinder.
Squiggit |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I happen to think the FAQ/errata system is very good for the health of the game. I love the fact that Paizo addresses overpowered items. Do I think some of the nerfs went overboard? Yes. But I'd rather have heavy-handed adjustments than no adjustments at all.
Why are the only two options heavy handed over the top nerfs three and a half years late or nothing?
It seems like there's something in the vast, vast grey area between those two that would be better for all parties.
N. Jolly |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could talk about this again, but honestly, I'm just going to link to what I said...yeah, about a year ago on this very subject. Looks like it's that time again.
swoosh |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There doesn't need to be perfectly equal value, you're right there, but inequal value means inequal weight, nerfs to more significant, more widely used or otherwise more high profile items aren't simply going to be "well it was just one item".
To keep your analogy. If a restaurant with 50 dishes stops selling your favorite dish, its impact is more significant than "well 98% of the menu is the same", even if that's literally true.
Moreover, aside from all of that the complaints aren't just the nerfs themselves, but the qualify of the nerfs. Many if the items impacted by this changed are now incredibly poor choices outright.
So from a perspective completely divorced from the quality or number of alternative choices, I think it's fair for someone to say that a fix that just inverts the problem rather than solves it is not a design direction they're comfortable with.
Serisan |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(though I don't think Big 6 item paradigm isn't the worst thing in the world per se)
Snipped out the parts where I generally agree or only have quibbles to focus on the point that I disagree about.
I'm of the opinion that Big 6 negatively impacts build diversity. Items in slots should be build-enabling, not mandatory. If you're ok with a brief video game comparison, Path of Exile is a great example of build-enabling items. You get items like Sunblast in the belt slot that dramatically change an entire mechanic - normally traps have to be stepped on to trigger, but now they also trigger when their duration expires - and it allows for a new playstyle. You could have a standard stat belt in that slot, or you could rebalance those elsewhere.
Pathfinder has lots of interesting belts that could be build enabling if the slot wasn't taken up by something mandatory for pretty much everyone. Sometimes you see those items taken, such as the Blinkback Belt, but the character has to bend over backwards to make that function. If a character has to choose between doing something thematic + interesting and doing something thematic + effective, I think there's a design issue. I would expect a character that is designed as a thrower to be pretty good at that job if built competently. The design of the game, however, makes the stat belt a necessity. The closest they've come to build-enabling AND good in that slot is the Belt of Mighty Hurling, which is priced out for a significant portion of a character's career.
As Jiggy has posted in the past, gold in Pathfinder is just an alternate experience track. The game explains the bonuses from that as powerful magic items, but you can refluff that just as easily and remove some of the weirdness associated with Ye Olde Magic Mart. Unchained did a lot of work on that front with Automatic Bonus Progression and I'd love to see that sort of change integrated into Core. That would take a lot of work, but that's part of why I think it's imperative that Paizo move in the direction of a new edition instead of continuing hardcover releases in the current one.
dragonsspear |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thorough play testing is expensive.
So is buying paizo products only to be told nothing you wanted it for is usable anymore. There are not enough legitimate (completely useless, niche, too expensive) options for some of these item slots to take away items that are essentially needs. Give us options at different price points that are useful and most wouldn't argue too much
Drahliana Moonrunner |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't see the errata as a Pathfinder 2.0 or 2.12354, I don't know what to tell you.
I don't because for all the tooth-gnashing made about erratta, it generally only covers small items of rules which are exploits such as jingasa, or quickrunner shirts. It doesn't change the fundamental game itself. The core mechanics did not get ripped out and replaced with something else while we weren't looking.
If you're seeing this batch of errata as 2.0, you get the Making A Mountain Out of A Molehill Award for this week.
TriOmegaZero |
If you're seeing this batch of errata as 2.0, you get the Making A Mountain Out of A Molehill Award for this week.
I include the addition of the APG, Unchained, Ultimate Campaign, and ALL the errata since as Pathfinder 2.0. You don't need a official restart to have a new edition.
Anguish |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the fundamental problems is that there's a strong focus on "that's too good, nerf it into the ground" and not enough on "why are the other options for the slot simply not selected?"
A huge element of this is that there is an insane quantity of options available and they are not equivalent in utility, and can't be. A cloak of resistance +2 has a fixed and evident utility to practically every single statblock that equips it. A hypothetical cloak that adds 20% to its wearer's fly speeds is of variable utility depending on the build and race of who wears it. Dragons will love it, non-flying barbarians will never buy it. Somewhere in the middle are oddball PC builds that stack multiple items to make this cloak exceptionally useful.
That said, when you realize that the cloak you printed in a book is broken in the hands of dragons and <special build guys>, you need to do something. So you errata it. And that may eliminate the borderline (or over-the-line) broken builds that depended on the item. Then you're left with a mediocre item which is fairly balanced, but unlikely to be used much, because that cloak of resistance +2 is always attractive.
You don't have a choice. You've got to errata the item, even if the result is yet-another-specialized-item-that-won't-get-used.
In summary, the problem isn't errata. The problem is the expectation that hundreds upon hundreds of items CAN be published without most of them being unused by virtually everyone.
Drahliana Moonrunner |
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:If you're seeing this batch of errata as 2.0, you get the Making A Mountain Out of A Molehill Award for this week.I include the addition of the APG, Unchained, Ultimate Campaign, and ALL the errata since as Pathfinder 2.0. You don't need a official restart to have a new edition.
If you really thing that APG started Pathfinder 2.0, that means that the existence of 1.0 was so short, than it really never was a game at all...which puts the version number back to One.
Ultimate Campaign simply for the most part added background featuresf or running campaigns. UnChained fixed a couple of classes that needed help, and brought the nerfhammer on one class that really needed reiging in. And again, I don't see the erratta doing much more than curbing rules exploits. Some folks forget just how big a body of rules we have here.
TriOmegaZero |
If you really thing that APG started Pathfinder 2.0, that means that the existence of 1.0 was so short, than it really never was a game at all...
Sure it was. 3.5 with houserules. Now it's something related, but different.
Drahliana Moonrunner |
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:If you really thing that APG started Pathfinder 2.0, that means that the existence of 1.0 was so short, than it really never was a game at all...Sure it was. 3.5 with houserules. Now it's something related, but different.
In decades of play, I never saw a game of ANY version of Dungeons and Dragons that wasn't run with a copious amount of house rules, so that's hardly a distinction.
TriOmegaZero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In decades of play, I never saw a game of ANY version of Dungeons and Dragons that wasn't run with a copious amount of house rules, so that's hardly a distinction.
I did. And I see it now in Pathfinder.
Covent |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "Errata things until I can't trust any of my books" issue is one the major things that drove me away from fourth. It has also stopped me from purchasing any Paizo product in the future. I get all of my Pathfinder content from third party now and my group just held a vote, due to the direction Paizo has chosen, after we finish our current game we are going to change to a different system.
It makes me sad.
Just to be clear I support errata to clarify unclear things like hunter using skirmisher tricks on their pets, or grammar/spelling fixes. I just strongly reject rewriting anything to change its functionality as I feel this invalidates written books and forces a certain play style.
Malwing |
TriOmegaZero wrote:In decades of play, I never saw a game of ANY version of Dungeons and Dragons that wasn't run with a copious amount of house rules, so that's hardly a distinction.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:If you really thing that APG started Pathfinder 2.0, that means that the existence of 1.0 was so short, than it really never was a game at all...Sure it was. 3.5 with houserules. Now it's something related, but different.
Yeah, most of the time I don't 'get' eratta controversies outside of player character choices like feats and classes because I use a lot of third party material to shake things up a bit so most of the time I don't have much of a reason to keep up to date when it comes to items and such.
And even when it comes to other rules even without third party material and homebrew material even Paizo material has a huge collection of alternate rules, adjustments and subsystems, to the point where I have to ask if we can honestly say that Pathfinder isn't 'meant' to be houseruled in some way or another. Just the fact that Pathfinder Unchained exists makes me feel like some of the rules aren't intended to be the garunteed status quo at home games since they basically just give you a pile of house rules in one book. It just seems like the nature of the game since 3.5 (from my point of view. I never played any earlier editions.) since I saw it there too.
Nicos |
master_marshmallow wrote:If an item is so good that everyone buys it, then it's probably a problem.The reverse is also true. If an item is so bad, no one buys it, then it's probably a problem. Sadly, it looks like they just switch one problem for another. There is a middle ground, between too good and 'nuke from orbit' nerf, that errata/FAQ keep seeming to miss.
The thing is, and it seems to be a recurring theme in paizo erratas, that underpowered worthless options are only a problem for the customers who now have some wasted ink in their book or some wasted bits in their PDF, for Paizo worthless options just mean less complains about OP things.
The erratas seems to be designed to quiet complains and not to improve the quality of the products.
CWheezy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A locker full of quick runner shirts is an exploit. Perfectly legal one, but still not using the item as intended.
This is similar to saying buying multiples of any item is an exploit. Is multiple pearls of power an exploit too???
How is it not using the item as intended. You put the shirt on, and get an extra move action.
Covent |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, I am in no way disparaging the people at Paizo, they are most likely all just fine individuals, it is just that what my group and I perceive as the current design intent is not compatible with our desired play style. So, we choose not to pay for content that we find inconsistent unreliable and undesirable.
However Paizo as a company seems to be doing fine financially so I assume I am in the minority and thus choose to voice my opinion clearly but without vitriol or expectation of any change.
I wish it was different but it is not so I say "Good Luck, Paizo. I will no longer be paying for your products."