Paizo Errata Missed Opportunities


Product Discussion

151 to 200 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Nicos wrote:
PFS already can do it without messing with the options for everyone else.

Yes and PFS does do just that.

But the options changed were not changed for PFS's benefit. But for the health and desire of the game for everyone else.

The games "health" hasn't been improved at all. You reached a high AC, good for you. Your AC is now lowered by two. Whoop dee doo, you still have a high AC. Those who didn't have your high AC made fine use of the item in a non-broken, non-disruptive way. Many people wished they still had the old item as an option, but it's hard to ignore errata because all the sources people use for the game only have the current version. I bet PFS and unchanged modules were the only things that had an issue with this item in it's old state. PFS must not have had too big an issue or they would have banned it after getting so many complaints. Modules the GM can just say don't buy that item if it ever became an issue. This is why people say PFS drives errata. Because it's only an issue for them because the way the scenarios are structured, and it must not be seen as disruptive because PFS didn't ban it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Why would I spend 50 bucks on a hardcover when the majority of its content is almost useless?

So much hyperbole in this thread.

Not even 1% of the material was changed. So no one would consider that majority.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Why would I spend 50 bucks on a hardcover when the majority of its content is almost useless?

So much hyperbole in this thread.

Not even 1% of the material was changed. So no one would consider that majority.

Because a good chunk of the book were already bad options that no one used, nuking down some of the most used items make it clearly worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't it strange that the very act of buying the physical book lowers it's value because of the way Paizo does it's errata?

PFS Player: "Hey, guys, I just bought Ultimate Something in hardcover so I can use it during PFS!"

Paizo: "Hey, someone just bought the last copy of Ultimate Something. Let's get those nerfs out so he has to buy the latest book in order to use it at all for what he originally wanted it for unless we made that option a terrible idea now because it was popular and overshadowed the terrible-from-the-start-options!"

"Best Scenario for Balance" shown above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Why would I spend 50 bucks on a hardcover when the majority of its content is almost useless?

So much hyperbole in this thread.

Not even 1% of the material was changed. So no one would consider that majority.

Me wrote:
The goal in errata for broken thing (broken as in terrible or overpowered) should be to change the item to a state where it keeps the fluff of the thing while giving a useful benefit.

Yeah, not even 1% of the material was changed. Some overpowered stuff was deleted from the game, lots of underpowered stuff is still present and wasting page space.

Overall the errata was a failure.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Overall the errata was a failure.

To you maybe. To the vast majority of others, things got an improvement.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Overall the errata was a failure.
To you maybe. To the vast majority of others, things got an improvement.

Not really sure who this vast majority you're talking about is, since from what I've seen, it's been a decent split on who sees it as valuable and who hates it. That and most of the people who like it only liked it because it removed the 'problem' items as options rather than even attempting to balance them, which seems like it should be the goal of an errata for something like this.


I'm not aware of this vast majority. I know of the small minority saying it though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Overall the errata was a failure.
To you maybe. To the vast majority of others, things got an improvement.

I also would like to point out you have no proof of the idea of "a vast majority" thinking errata up till now is an improvement. Before you say "in my anecdotal experience it is true" I will reply that in my ancedotal experience it is false so we are at loggerheads there.

Basically I do not believe that either of us knows how a majority of Pathfinder players feels about errata and say perhaps we should both avoid sweeping generalizations that attempt to marginalize others, ok?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Overall the errata was a failure.
To you maybe. To the vast majority of others, things got an improvement.

Are there now more useful items in the book than in the previous printing?

No.

It doesn't matter what other people think, they're wrong if they construe a book that has less useful pages than pre-errata as a success.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clearly there are a lot of people on here unhappy. We are all the highly passionate readers.

The local pathfinder groups each had a post on the errata, and the GM's have handled helping the players sell back or modify their characters as a result. I'm a local GM.

  • KY Pathfinder has 172 members
  • Lexington PFS has 33 members
  • Cincinnati Pathfinder has 173 members
  • WV Pathfinder has 238 members
  • East KY Pathfinder has 28 members

I followed all the discussion threads on those forums, and I don't recall many (any?) people unhappy.

I've played or GM's 2 games a week or more since the errata came out. I don't recall anyone unhappy at my table or the other simultaneously ran tables.

---

So back to my point, the people unhappy are us passionate lot on here. The vast majority of players just swapped out their items and moved on to more important things. Like killing goblins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gip knew there more reasons not like PFS....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
johnnythexxxiv wrote:
YOU CAN'T BUILD A CHARACTER INCORRECTLY

You most certainly can. All it would take is a misinterpretation of a rule, or for something to be mathematically incorrect.


James Risner wrote:

Clearly there are a lot of people on here unhappy. We are all the highly passionate readers.

The local pathfinder groups each had a post on the errata, and the GM's have handled helping the players sell back or modify their characters as a result. I'm a local GM.

  • KY Pathfinder has 172 members
  • Lexington PFS has 33 members
  • Cincinnati Pathfinder has 173 members
  • WV Pathfinder has 238 members
  • East KY Pathfinder has 28 members

I followed all the discussion threads on those forums, and I don't recall many (any?) people unhappy.

I've played or GM's 2 games a week or more since the errata came out. I don't recall anyone unhappy at my table or the other simultaneously ran tables.

---

So back to my point, the people unhappy are us passionate lot on here. The vast majority of players just swapped out their items and moved on to more important things. Like killing goblins.

So you're saying that the "vast majority of others" are included in those PFS games? Or are in PFS? Or are in threads you like and follow? I'm curious which one you think it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

Clearly there are a lot of people on here unhappy. We are all the highly passionate readers.

The local pathfinder groups each had a post on the errata, and the GM's have handled helping the players sell back or modify their characters as a result. I'm a local GM.

  • KY Pathfinder has 172 members
  • Lexington PFS has 33 members
  • Cincinnati Pathfinder has 173 members
  • WV Pathfinder has 238 members
  • East KY Pathfinder has 28 members

I followed all the discussion threads on those forums, and I don't recall many (any?) people unhappy.

I've played or GM's 2 games a week or more since the errata came out. I don't recall anyone unhappy at my table or the other simultaneously ran tables.

---

So back to my point, the people unhappy are us passionate lot on here. The vast majority of players just swapped out their items and moved on to more important things. Like killing goblins.

So the fact that they aren't directly complaining means they are happy with the change. Boy you're sure good at skewing data.

Please check all that apply
_ Posting on boards Unhappy
_ Unhappy
_ Accepting
_ Knew it needed a neft but thought they went too far
_ Happy
_ I don't post much online
_ I don't care, didn't use it
_ I don't care, don't own the book
_ I have someone make my character/use only pregens
_ Other

One of these gets recorded as Unhappy, the rest get recorded as Happy.

Like in a local thread that PF devs aren't going to see or my local gaming store that no PF devs play at you don't see me complaining about it either. I'd register as a player that just swapped out their items and moved on to more important things. So in your "poll" You'd be counting me as happy with this errata.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The oportunity Paizo always misses is the opportunity to do nothing. If you're going to effectively remove an option from the game by making it so useless no one will take it... don't.

The UE errata is awful. It did nothing but reduce character variety by unnecessarily and heavily weakening options that were slightly above mediocrity at best. Again.

What was broken about Bracers of Falcon's Aim? It was too cheap? Increase its price. Don't nerf it to the point where there's no reason to buy it. What should I get instead? The stupidly overpriced and equally underwhelming Bracers of Archery?

What about the Feather-Step Slippers? Why buy anything other than Boots of Speed now? Is this what Paizo wants? Every character having the same selection of feats and gear because everything is crap or in risk of being turned to crap?

How about the Jingasa of the Crafter Who Wasted Time and Money? Why would any character bother with it? Seriously, why buy one of these instead of saving up for the already effectivelly mandatory and boring Ring of Protection?

Paizo errata design and policy is lazy, dishonest and downright disrespectful to their customers.

Why should I risk buying a PF book? How can I honestly encourage others to do the same, knowing that anything slightly good will likely be hammered down to the level of page-filler crap that is 80% of published material?

This is the straw that broke the camel's back. You just lost a customer, Paizo. Next time anyone shows interest in buying a PF book, I'll just say "Don't bother. Seriously.". Next time someone approaches my group and asks about RPG, I'll just suggest they try D&D.

Who knows... Maybe if you lose enough customers, you'll start respecting them again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If only James Risner hadn’t bragged about his awesome PC online maybe PDT never would have known how great the Jingasa was (just kidding, folks...)

More seriously, I wonder if it would have caused less acrimony if the crit negation feature of the Jingasa were changed to work like light fortification. On the one hand, being certain of avoiding one particular crit (at least if you're not flat-footed) can provide some situational value that avoiding 25% of crits might not. On the other, it would still be a cheap alternative to light fortification for folks who have highly enchanted armor.

I think the Jingasa's deflection bonus would be a tough sell in PFS but might still have some appeal for folks with Craft Wondrous Items in the party if DMs can be convinced that additional deflection bonus can be added to the Jingasa for 150% of the cost of adding it to a Ring of Protection (as usual for alternate slot items). CWI is a much more popular feat than Forge Ring, so you'd still be getting the bonus at a 25% discount relative to market prices while freeing up a slot for a Ring Freedom of Movement (speaking of items which might frustrate DMs)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

(While I haven't read all of this thread, I have scanned it. So, if I missed anything, don't crucify me. Also, spoilers because this became much, much longer than intended.)

Very long semi-rant:
There are three main problems (as I see them) with the errata system, as it is now:

1. It's linked to the reprinting cycle.
This makes it impossible to fix errata (if they even decide to) after the new books have been sent off to press until they are all sold out. Many see this as a money-grabbing scheme, and while I certainly don't think Paizo is capable of such, it is a valid point. It does seem like they want to sell every book of the first printing before "fixing" it, and then sell the second printing before "fixing" that, etc., etc. Making it not an option at all to errata the errata isn't something that's healthy for game balance, or what we know of it.

2. That it's too much, or too heavy-handed.
Whether or not I, or anyone, agree with the errata, I'm fairly certain that almost every one of us can clearly agree that the Staff of the Master, the Jingasa, the Gloves of Recon, and quite a few other items/feats/spells/etc. we're in fact overpowered, and needed a change. When every wizard that takes a bonded object ever has a Staff of the Master (especially when they're not Necromancers), and contemplates buying another one, because it's just that good, then something needs to happen. However, as with many errata that have come before, the ideology of slamming useful options way below the line of "acceptable purchase" has been followed by Paizo far too long.

For example, the Jingasa. Yes, every Warpriest or half-orc (and especially half-orc Warpriests) had one of these things. Yes, Fate's Favored is probably broken (please don't fix that, I like the "lucky" flavor too much!). But that doesn't mean that Paizo needs to take the Jingasa and make it simply a Chinese Duncecap and throw it on the pile of things that no one really wants to buy anymore.

No, really think about it. How many times have you seen a character buy anything besides the "Big 6", and the occasional item outside those six that are seen as "necessary" (wands, scrolls, actual useful wondrous items)? How many times have you heard a player say "Oh, man this cool wondrous item/specific weapon/etc. would be really cool and fits my flavor! Too bad I haven't bought a Ring of Everyone-Has-One yet."? Even more so on martial characters, who rely so much upon their magical gear?
Making useful items (Jaunt Boots, and to a lesser degree, Quickrunner's Shirts) almost useless or just useless enough to convince people not to buy isn't helping the game at all.
Variety of items is good for characters, as the cooler, less static-bonus type items (that people were paid to create and write) get more time in the light is always good.

And it doesn't stop at items!
The poster child of overpowered options that no one takes any more? Divine Protection. A godsend to Oracles and channel-focused clerics everywhere, this wonderful little feat gave the second-level Paladin Cha-to-saves to any divine caster. And Oradins everywhere cries for the two wasted levels.
This was obviously broken from the start, with threads about it popping up almost instantly after it came out. But the solution that Paizo came up with? Change it to once per day as an immediate action, and only to one saving throw. Doesn't stack with the Paladin thing.
So, instead of balancing it (Cha to one save maybe?), they took the express train to the City of Lost Options. Seriously. This one feat is worse than Swashbuckler's Charmed Life. And no one's ever excited about getting that.

3. A lot of it is unnecessary.
(This point applies more to earlier errata than the Ultimate Equipment one, but it still deserves to be mentioned.)

So many options, including outside of magic items, have been ridiculously altered past the point of reason. Crane Wing, Scarred Witch Doctor, I could go on and on. I don't think any of us actually believes that original Crane Wing or SWD needed any fixing.
Crane Wing was mostly a problem because of Master of Many Styles (which got it's own heavy-handed, but much needed, fix), and wasn't really overpowered at all.
Scarred Witch Doctor was an interesting option for someone that wanted something a little bit different. Since bonus spells per day (and a few other things, I believe?) were based off of Intelligence still, it wasn't overpowered, and was actually pretty flavorful for all those Sacred Tattoo-ed half-orcs out there. And yet, Paizo couldn't leave it alone. They made it Int-based, and even granted it an effective +2 Int for most things, actually making it more powerful. Yeah, that makes sense.

Thankfully, Paizo has seemed fairly good at fixing things that the community at large seems to have problems with. The Rogue and Monk all received (arguably with the Monk) upgrades to their power level in Unchained, with the Summoner getting a much-needed fix and added flavor. So they're doing good there.

Overall, these three problems seem to add up into a situation where excessively restrictive errata is issued and put into print before any outside opinions are gathered, and forced into effect until the next reprint, which could be five years or more down the road.
Obviously, this isn't a situation that most customers or posters here enjoy, as has been shown over and over again on these boards and elsewhere.

With that said, note that I am simply recognizing that there is a problem here, and attempting to explain said problem in my view.
I am not in any way saying I am smarter than Paizo, or that I know of any feasible solution that accomplishes what both sides (Paizo and consumers) want from any tweaking of the errata system.
I am just pointing out the problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, bigrig107? The only thing I disagree about is the flavor boost you believe Summoners got. It's my opinion, yes, but I don't think limiting the Summoner and making it more Chained than the original was good for any flavor.

Everything else was well written and spot on for the major problems with a once great company,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bigrig107 wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

Eh, I never liked the old crane wing, that there were no roll involved always always bothered me. But yeah, with the errata basically there is no crane wing anymore.


I understand not thinking the summoner got a flavor boost, but I myself did enjoy them linking it to a certain outsider type. The description of the original summoner as "pulls outsider form somewhere to Material Plane" never really appealed to me.

And I do want to clear one thing up: Paizo, in my opinion, is still a "great company". There are many, many reasons I think so, which I won't get into here, because that's not the topic.
But Paizo is easily my favorite company, in terms of quality of products, availability of employees, customer service, and many other categories. This is simply one small problem in a sea of greatness for me.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that this is a huge problem for many others (as Lemmy said above, he's no longer a customer here, which I do hope he changes his mind on), and definitely needs some attention and work from Paizo's upper levels.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
bigrig107 wrote:
That doesn't change the fact, however, that this is a huge problem for many others (as Lemmy said above, he's no longer a customer here, which I do hope he changes his mind on), and definitely needs some attention and work from Paizo's upper levels.

I have four RPG groups that play Pathfinder... So I'll still keep playing. I'll no longer buy anything Pathfinder, though. I'll no longer recommend players to try buy anything Pathfinder (in fact, for as long as Paizo keeps their disrespectful errata policy, I'll recommend exactly the opposite: that they don't buy anything, because chances are, it'll be errata'd to the ground anyway. If you're going to ignore the rules, might as well save your money too). One of my groups is composed of 5 new-comers, some of which were thinking about buying the CRB and a couple other books... I'll strongly advise them against it. They are my friends. I don't want them to waste them money on a subpar product that will likely become even more subpar. I play on a public venue quite often, and I always invite new players to try the game, unless I already have 6+ people on my table. I won't do it anymore... Or if I do, I'll say that one of the "advantages" of the system is that it's really cheap... Because nothing is worth buying anymore. Even good products are at risk of getting worse and worse. They already got your money, so they simply don't care if you product becomes worse.

I hate having to tell people that supporting the game I love is a terrible idea and they should spend their money elsewhere... But that's the truth. And as much as I like Pathfinder, I don't like it enough to encourage customer-hostile policies from a company that seems to have less and less respect for their customers.

Pathfinder is a good game... Paizo's design and FAQ/errata policy are consitently making it worse, though.

Dark Archive

Lemmy wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:
That doesn't change the fact, however, that this is a huge problem for many others (as Lemmy said above, he's no longer a customer here, which I do hope he changes his mind on), and definitely needs some attention and work from Paizo's upper levels.

I have four RPG groups that play Pathfinder... So I'll still keep playing. I'll no longer buy anything Pathfinder, though. I'll no longer recommend players to try buy anything Pathfinder (in fact, for as long as Paizo keeps their disrespectful errata policy, I'll recommend exactly the opposite: that they don't buy anything, because chances are, it'll be errata'd to the ground anyway. If you're going to ignore the rules, might as well save your money too). One of my groups is composed of 5 new-comers, some of which were thinking about buying the CRB and a couple other books... I'll strongly advise them against it. They are my friends. I don't want them to waste them money on a subpar product that will likely become even more subpar. I play on a public venue quite often, and I always invite new players to try the game, unless I already have 6+ people on my table. I won't do it anymore... Or if I do, I'll say that one of the "advantages" of the system is that it's really cheap... Because nothing is worth buying anymore. Even good products are at risk of getting worse and worse.

I hate having to tell people that supporting the game I love is a terrible idea and they should spend their money elsewhere... But that's the truth. And as much as I like Pathfinder, I don't like it enough to encourage customer-hostile policies from a company that seems to have less and less respect for their customers.

Pathfinder is a good game... Paizo's design and FAQ/errata policy are consitently making it worse, though.

Just for a point of clarity this comes from a person that owns the following in hardback and PDF.

CRB, APG, ACG, ARG, UM, UC, UE, UCamgain, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, NPC Codex, Monsters Codex, GM Guide, ISWG, IS Gods, Mythic, Unchained, and Occult.

I have stopped buying hardback books. Why should I spend the money for a paper book when the pdf version gets me the updates for free. So Paizo's errata policy is costing them money even if it isn't costing them customers.

On the point of the errata, I am the person that bigrig107 mentions that owns a staff of the master as a bonded object and was truly going to buy another at full price. When an item is so good players do that, something is wrong. I am hoping that Paizo will now release versions of staff of the master for each of the schools with equivalent power to the nerfed version of the necromancy one.


I stopped buying Paizo a while ago. Now I just buy 3PP from Drivethrurpg since Paizo stopped deserving money


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

Clearly there are a lot of people on here unhappy. We are all the highly passionate readers.

The local pathfinder groups each had a post on the errata, and the GM's have handled helping the players sell back or modify their characters as a result. I'm a local GM.

  • KY Pathfinder has 172 members
  • Lexington PFS has 33 members
  • Cincinnati Pathfinder has 173 members
  • WV Pathfinder has 238 members
  • East KY Pathfinder has 28 members

I followed all the discussion threads on those forums, and I don't recall many (any?) people unhappy.

I've played or GM's 2 games a week or more since the errata came out. I don't recall anyone unhappy at my table or the other simultaneously ran tables.

---

So back to my point, the people unhappy are us passionate lot on here. The vast majority of players just swapped out their items and moved on to more important things. Like killing goblins.

James,

I tried to be as polite as possible in my last post. You however are continuing to commit an error both in scientific method and in logic.

1.) Even if we assume that every member of the groups you mentioned was polled and agree with your "Vast Majority" point. They are not statistically significant. World population is 7.4 billion, if we assume that .005% of that number play pathfinder then we can see that the Pathfinder population is 370,000 world wide. 545/370,000 = .14729 repeating%. If we were talking about a community with close geographical and cultural ties than perhaps you would be approaching a 4% confidence interval. In trying to come to a "vast majority" of Pathfinder player we are not, and I guarantee you that there is some overlap, and some unhappiness in the groups you cite voiced or unvoiced. This means your sample is both not diverse enough and too small.

2.) You are also saying that the errata is an improvement because the vast majority of people like it/are not unhappy with it. This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy as people's approval or you citing their approval without any proof is not the same as an improvement in the game.

So please try to be more restrained in your sweeping generalizations, ok?

I do not believe I know the opinion of the "Vast Majority" either, just to be clear. I would just like to see good clean logical argument based on facts on both sides. Fallacies, and Ad-Hominem attacks are how productive discussion dies and threads get locked, so lets avoid them on both sides of this debate.

P.S. I am not saying you are using Ad-Hominem attacks they are simply worth mentioning as a notable debate and logic pitfall.


Covent wrote:
2.) You are also saying that the errata is an improvement because the vast majority of people like it/are not unhappy with it. This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy as people's approval or you citing their approval without any proof is not the same as an improvement in the game.

Well, it would be an "improvement" if improvement is defined as to increase the number of people that are happy with the product.


Nicos wrote:
Covent wrote:
2.) You are also saying that the errata is an improvement because the vast majority of people like it/are not unhappy with it. This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy as people's approval or you citing their approval without any proof is not the same as an improvement in the game.
Well, it would be an "improvement" if improvement is defined as to increase the number of people that are happy with the product.

I can see the point of what you say. However I do not believe James has shown or that he can show due to lack of access that, that is the case.

I also truly believe that an improvement to anything can not be determined by popularity. All an improvement in popularity shows is that something is "in" or that it has been made to appeal to as broad a base as possible. While this is in no way bad it is not the same as improving a product.

As an example a car with improved safety features that truly prevent a substantial number of deaths and injuries can be less popular than a car that "looks cool".

Anyway thank you for your elucidate and thoughtful response.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I stopped buying Paizo a while ago. Now I just buy 3PP from Drivethrurpg since Paizo stopped deserving money

I personally was going to pick up the second printing at PaizoCon. I stopped subbing for first printings due to the error count they were reaching.

Now I plan on finding a first printing at my FLGS.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I stopped buying Paizo a while ago. Now I just buy 3PP from Drivethrurpg since Paizo stopped deserving money

I personally was going to pick up the second printing at PaizoCon. I stopped subbing for first printings due to the error count they were reaching.

Now I plan on finding a first printing at my FLGS.

Man that is sad TOZ but also very understandable.

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As someone who prefers simpler answers to issues for PFS, I think the items that were heavily modified should have just out right banned in PFS and just allow players to recoup the losses.

House rules can fix most issues in RPG books. D&D, Pathfinder, Rifts, Gurps, etc.. there is always going to be optimal equipment either by design or accident.

Let the home games take care of themselves when it comes to issues like that. Errata's should be more focused on typo's, and adding clarifications as needed.

I am sure Paizo sees the reaction here and react as needed. Overall I still think they are a top notch company.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darius Silverbolt wrote:
I am sure Paizo sees the reaction here and react as needed. Overall I still think they are a top notch company.

You mean this reaction that is very similar to the reaction we had last year when they did something very similar? When FCB were ruined for some races and there was drastic rewrites of feats. Apparently the needed reaction by them was to do it some more.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Chess Pwn wrote:
Darius Silverbolt wrote:
I am sure Paizo sees the reaction here and react as needed. Overall I still think they are a top notch company.
You mean this reaction that is very similar to the reaction we had last year when they did something very similar? When FCB were ruined for some races and there was drastic rewrites of feats. Apparently the needed reaction by them was to do it some more.

From my perspective, poorly written and unclear rules were the biggest problem with 3.5. You couldn't discuss anything rules related online due to so many PunPun/Footsteps of the Divine 144,000 ft movement in a round/9 copies of spells per day due to Ring of Sustenance/100 orange ioun stones and other issues.

The fact that Paizo answers questions (slowly), fixes thing in Errata, and in general makes solid rules in the first place is the main reason I'll keep supporting their products.

I get that some don't like that agenda. I get that some prefer the 3.5 model of "push it out there" and it's broken 6 ways to Sunday. That doesn't seem to be Paizo's desire for their product. I'm glad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:


From my perspective, poorly written and unclear rules were the biggest problem with 3.5. You couldn't discuss anything rules related online due to so many PunPun/Footsteps of the Divine 144,000 ft movement in a round/9 copies of spells per day due to Ring of Sustenance/100 orange ioun stones and other issues.

The fact that Paizo answers questions (slowly), fixes thing in Errata, and in general makes solid rules in the first place is the main reason I'll keep supporting their products.

I get that some don't like that agenda. I get that some prefer the 3.5 model of "push it out there" and it's broken 6 ways to Sunday. That doesn't seem to be Paizo's desire for their product. I'm glad.

It's a good thing all the changes people are complaining about are poorly written or unclear rules issues ... oh wait ... no the rules that were written for most of these complaints were completely reasonable and easy to understand and most of the rules fixes were just straight hard power nerfs and not at all rules fixes. This was the computer game equivalent of a patch full of nerfs except it's much more inconvenient to keep track of in a tabletop game so there's that.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

In general, some of the changes were due to unclear rules. All of the "must be worn for 24 hours" is a way to individually fix the "same source" blocking of using an item. Mostly because I guess they fear a sweeping "you can't swap out an item for another for an effect" general rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
In general, some of the changes were due to unclear rules. All of the "must be worn for 24 hours" is a way to individually fix the "same source" blocking of using an item. Mostly because I guess they fear a sweeping "you can't swap out an item for another for an effect" general rule.

And those are the changes you're not seeing many if any people complain about. Those make sense, a way to nerf an item but still have it do what it's supposed to do. It's when you rewrite something that really gets people upset.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
I get that some prefer the 3.5 model of "push it out there" and it's broken 6 ways to Sunday. That doesn't seem to be Paizo's desire for their product. I'm glad.

Except they've done just that so they could sell books at GenCon, regardless of if the book in question definately needed more work. Or did you not see the Advanced Class Guide Adventure Path?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
In general, some of the changes were due to unclear rules. All of the "must be worn for 24 hours" is a way to individually fix the "same source" blocking of using an item. Mostly because I guess they fear a sweeping "you can't swap out an item for another for an effect" general rule.

I'd assert that, that is not in fact an error but a case of something working as intended but getting reduced in power by making slotted magic items less versatile.

But honestly I've never had a problem with that I never liked the idea of a guy carrying around a stack of spare shirts to get extra move actions or scroll uses and only used one anyways.

For things like the Mnemonic Vestment, where that was the only real change, I'm still happy to use the item. I don't think it needed the nerf but the item still functions, is useful, and priced reasonably that would be an example of a decent change. In comparison for the Jingasa I literally can't think of a situation ever where I'd buy one now and that includes if I was told I could take any items I wanted below 10k for each slot.


bigrig107 wrote:
I don't think any of us actually believes that original Crane Wing or SWD needed any fixing.

Having seen Crane Wing in performance I applaud the fact it was addressed, but not necessarily how it was addressed. My roommate, who used it quite effectively at my game table, admitted it was broken, but the errata just broke it in the opposite direction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Naive Wolf Joshua wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:
I don't think any of us actually believes that original Crane Wing or SWD needed any fixing.
Having seen Crane Wing in performance I applaud the fact it was addressed, but not necessarily how it was addressed. My roommate, who used it quite effectively at my game table, admitted it was broken, but the errata just broke it in the opposite direction.

To be fair Crane Wing was never so bad if you assume that the Master of Many Styles doesn't exist.


gnomersy wrote:
Naive Wolf Joshua wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:
I don't think any of us actually believes that original Crane Wing or SWD needed any fixing.
Having seen Crane Wing in performance I applaud the fact it was addressed, but not necessarily how it was addressed. My roommate, who used it quite effectively at my game table, admitted it was broken, but the errata just broke it in the opposite direction.
To be fair Crane Wing was never so bad if you assume that the Master of Many Styles doesn't exist.

Never even crossed my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the others that paizo's errata has been really sub par. I'm thinking of making a google doc of my own changes


yeah, original crane wing at what, level 8 was the soonest you should have been able to get it? But anyways, at that level it was a fine option and really not broken or a problem at all. MoMS was indeed the problem to all the style feats seeming to be strong.


CWheezy wrote:
I'm thinking of making a google doc of my own changes

Definitely would love to see more people take the initiative and post their own erratas. If you have any thoughts on Advanced Class Guide, Page 104 in regards to Arcane Deed I would love to hear them.

Chess Pwn wrote:
yeah, original crane wing at what, level 8 was the soonest you should have been able to get it? But anyways, at that level it was a fine option and really not broken or a problem at all. MoMS was indeed the problem to all the style feats seeming to be strong.

Mostly referring to the former Swashbuckler build using Crane Style.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azten wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I get that some prefer the 3.5 model of "push it out there" and it's broken 6 ways to Sunday. That doesn't seem to be Paizo's desire for their product. I'm glad.
Except they've done just that so they could sell books at GenCon, regardless of if the book in question definately needed more work. Or did you not see the Advanced Class Guide Adventure Path?

Hey, don't knock the ACG AP. I have one! It's been very useful in guiding my local group to higher levels in PFS play. Unfortunately, I must admit it is a bit disjointed between chapters forcing me to really improvise a lot.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion:

Errata should clarify unclear issues and correct deliberately broken options. Options released as usable if maybe overpowered should not be errataed to change the mechanics of the item. Maybe change costs or prerequisites or a small change (like switching bonus types) to help reduce unintended synergies. But for the most part, functional items and feats and abilities should remain the same. Leave it up to GM's to either work with powerful items and combos as they always have (what GM ever actually allowed the kobold unlimited stat god hood trick), and have private ban of unintended items and adjustments for PFS purposes.

What this does is create two versions of the item/ability, one from the original printing and one that's published in the future. It causes problems if people miss the errata and see one version in their book and another online in SRD. Games that may have been perfectly functional with past versions may suddenly now have no text on how that original item functioned and nt be satisfied with the new version.

An RPG is not s boardgame. It's built in with a rules adjudicator. Let that role work. Embrace maybe some items were made too awesome and just suggest that the GM and players resolve it privately instead of making confusion trying to rebalance things. A poorly balanced option that's public ally recognized does less damage long term than publishing it and then a long time afterwards altering it completely after the community has had time to adjust to it. If there is a serious desire to rebalance something, make an FAQ or blog about a designers preferred intention (not like it'd be the first time that's happened) and leave the functional clearly stated rule alone.

I like buying paizo books. I can live with looking up errata for unclear parts of books because mistakes happen. I don't want to have to see that a perfectly clear ability in my books is drastically different when I try and quickly search it online. It vastly decreases the value of the books on the first place.

151 to 200 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Errata Missed Opportunities All Messageboards