|
I know no one who knows me on these boards is going to be shocked by this, but I'm all for errata and FAQ, and I think there could be more. Admittedly, I'm a GM, not a player typically, and so I don't have to deal directly with a character I'm invested in having to change (just listening to my players who do, which in a way can be worse). I also admit that the word "balance" implies that the changes are made to make it better, but we typically see things getting nerfed, not improved (but not always, for example the prices to the amulet of mighty fists).
I love errata/FAQs because, and someone mentioned this earlier on here, it shows that Paizo isn't just releasing their products into the market and never dealing with them again. That was my biggest issue with Wizards of the Coast. back in the days of 3.5, which is the last time I touched one of their products, they were hemorrhaging books out left and right and then often ignoring them when other splat books came out. Even worse, when they released Errata, often times their errata documents were also error-filled as well.
Maybe I'm naïve or drinking the Golem-Kool-Aid, but I'm not a professional game designer, so I defer to those who are. If something gets changed, I take their word for it that it was made for a good reason.
If you're a player and your GM wants to implement errata and it affects you directly because it forces you to adhere to a change and you can't ignore it, and your GM won't listen to your argument to want to keep playing without the change, well, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe go back further and ask if your wizard can go back to a d4 Hit Die?
|
In a home game, Dervish Dance could always be re-named Dagger Dance, Rapier Frolic, or Elven Curve Blade Gyration. The skill requirement could be changed, too. Maybe instead of 2 ranks in Perform (dance), the rapier version might require 2 ranks in Knowledge (nobility), and the Dagger version could require 2 ranks in Slight of Hand.
It's true that these modified versions wouldn't exist in the PRD or d20PFSRD, and it would require some specialized knowledge to add to them to Hero Lab. Still, playing in a home game does allow more freedom to modify feats than many people realize.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because suddenly becoming unable to play the character you enjoyed for more than a year is tons of fun.Talk to your GM about that, not me.
You know, I highly doubt talking to a GM who runs things by-the-rules is going to fix the factor that Paizo deemed certain combinations or power levels of certain options "overpowered," and has an balance ideal of "If we have all of these overpowered options, if we convert some or all of them to underpowered options, then we'll have an equal amount of overpowered and underpowered options! The scales are balanced!"
So no, this isn't some "GM houseruled that way even though the rules actually say this," situation shenanigans, the GM was following what the rules said, meaning your idea of "talk to the GM" doesn't seem like much of an answer. In fact, that's basically a copout answer that should only be given when the rules are either contradictory, unclear, or don't even say anything one way or another, which FAQ/Errata certainly is not.
This is about being required to talk to your GM to basically revoke changes to the official rules (in the form of FAQ/Errata) to continue enjoying a character, because the FAQ/Errata makes the character that you enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) "illegal." And when a character is illegal, he has to be rebuilt, and when he has to be rebuilt, with the options that made him who he is no longer available (or suitable) to him, that no longer becomes the same character.
I've seen several people in this thread complain about Slashing/Fencing Grace being errata'd, and basically forcing people to be cookie cutter in order to continue playing the same sort of playstyle that they originally designed their character to fulfill, and quite frankly, they found it fun to execute a playstyle they dreamed of without having to cookie-cutter it. But now that they have to cookie-cutter it, because apparently doing something besides what Paizo considers badwrongfun is an abomination of flavor, they aren't going to have fun, because their character can just as easily be the same as the next person who thinks "Oh, Dexterity to Damage sounds neat, how do I make it good with spellcasting?" Because now there's only one way to do that, and it involves some obscure feat from some obscure splatbook that Paizo hasn't errata'd for whatever g$~&#$n reason.
And I remember several PFS players getting grilled because they're "Dervish Dance Magus #28139," instead of "Drazlor Witchedge, Master of Lightning," so why is it that PFS personnel hate on people making the same option over and over, when the company that facilitates and operates PFS is all like "Too bad, that's the only option you'll get even though our PFS employees hate homogeneity"?
You know, I highly doubt talking to a GM who runs things by-the-rules is going to fix the factor that Paizo deemed certain combinations or power levels of certain options "overpowered," and has an balance ideal of "If we have all of these overpowered options, if we convert some or all of them to underpowered options, then we'll have an equal amount of overpowered and underpowered options! The scales are balanced!"Because suddenly becoming unable to play the character you enjoyed for more than a year is tons of fun.Talk to your GM about that, not me.
you should probably just talk to him more.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that their FAQ/Errata is pretty much "fire and forget" nerf it to uselessness and they never have to look at the item ever again.I don't PFS, so FAQ/errata really doesn't matter to me. I do, however, think its good that devs go back and look at things that were previously published, instead of everything that goes out the door being fire-and-forget. I also think that the nature of PFS is the driving force behind nearly all the churn and certainly all the rawr it generates.
-Skeld
I don't think that's a fair assessment because some of the errata has been revisited.
-Skeld
Clearly making yourself a nuisance totally helps you get what you want I mean it works at restaurants and stores all the time and never causes problems with the people you annoy.you should probably just talk to him more.You know, I highly doubt talking to a GM who runs things by-the-rules is going to fix the factor that Paizo deemed certain combinations or power levels of certain options "overpowered," and has an balance ideal of "If we have all of these overpowered options, if we convert some or all of them to underpowered options, then we'll have an equal amount of overpowered and underpowered options! The scales are balanced!"Because suddenly becoming unable to play the character you enjoyed for more than a year is tons of fun.Talk to your GM about that, not me.
If you have an ongoing relationship with people, yes it's best to talk things(specially grievances) out than let them simmer. strangers though? f%@* them.
Never said anything about Paizo.You know, I highly doubt talking to a GM who runs things by-the-rules is going to fix the factor that Paizo deemed...Because suddenly becoming unable to play the character you enjoyed for more than a year is tons of fun.Talk to your GM about that, not me.
You didn't have to say anything about Paizo. It's just that they're the reason the rule is changed, not the GM, so saying "talk to the GM", when they're simply following what the rules currently say, is not going to just "fix the problem," or make the real issue go away, especially if the GM is ironclad on following the rules as they're meant to be, FAQ/Errata included.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, how many GMs use the errata?
Most I know of don't even realize there's even more then one printing, and I've yet to see someone check the FAQ, much less realize there is one. :-)
I'm not convinced it's the big huge problem everyone here is making it out to be.
Every GM I have met is at least aware of the FAQ and the errata, even if they don't spend a lot of time here. They might not be on top of new errata when it first comes out or know which FAQ has been made, but if it is pointed out that there is an errata or FAQ that changes rule X, they have almost always abided by it.
Same except more strict for me. The people I know who GM either play or also GM in PFS, and they often game together. So, they just use PFS rules for everything for simplicity.
But, how many GMs use the errata?
Everyone in my gaming circle.
I love how many people say their "fun is ruined" because an option that they had fun without before it existed is altered by a FAQ.
It's pretty fun ruining when the books I used to drop $20-50 frequently for get changed such that they're not "actually" the game I thought I was buying into. It might be hella similar, but not the same. Plus, I can't take it to someone else and expect them to play by what printed in my book. If they wanted to use the updated stuff then I'm kinda S.O.L.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not spending money to buy feat x only to have it fundamentally changed. It takes the hardbacks and turns them into, essentially, an admissions fee of sorts that just keeps the club named Pathfinder going. They have little value in and of themselves since they're not portable to other games. This makes them, by definition, useless. I'm not dropping $40 on a book that I might not get a good long bit of usage out of it. That's a s#++ty deal for the consumer.
So, let's say that Paizo listened to all of the Caster-Martial debate threads, and decide that yeah, cookie-cutter wizard builds are a problem! They're too common and too powerful, at least in this example. So the change they decide to make to balance things on the next errata document is to have all Arcane spells require at least 2 full-round actions to cast (with Quicken Spell reducing a spell's casting time to 1 full-round action).
Would people be okay with that?
I wouldn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, let's say that Paizo listened to all of the Caster-Martial debate threads, and decide that yeah, cookie-cutter wizard builds are a problem! They're too common and too powerful, at least in this example. So the change they decide to make to balance things on the next errata document is to have all Arcane spells require at least 2 full-round actions to cast (with Quicken Spell reducing a spell's casting time to 1 full-round action).
Would people be okay with that?
You don't see people in C/MD threads saying "Make Wizards useless!" They're saying "Make Martials better!" So proposing that Casters get nerfed (which, by the way, should have already happened by now) because it's "popular demand" is demonstrably false.
Besides that point, there are other, more appropriate fixes to apply. Such as by removing all 7th-9th level spells, and keeping those slots only for Metamagic spells, which considerably lowers a caster's power level, but doesn't absolutely invalidate their core mechanics.
As for FAQ/Errata, we kind of have to follow it, especially if we are using more than one 'published source' to refer to the rules. For example, if we have a hardcover book telling us X text, and then we have the PRD telling us Y text, it becomes confusing, and it leads us into a "which one is correct" situation, more often than people would care to admit.
It's also required to follow when we want to give authentic rules answers for players who want to accomplish certain concepts (i.e. Dex-to-Damage Magi).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's saying that the changes PFS makes to the rules (No crafting, etc.) is what makes PFS their own set of house rules. :-)
I think you misunderstand PFS. You don't get to apply house rules for PFS.
You do if you play PFS scenarios in home games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not spending money to buy feat x only to have it fundamentally changed. It takes the hardbacks and turns them into, essentially, an admissions fee of sorts that just keeps the club named Pathfinder going. They have little value in and of themselves since they're not portable to other games. This makes them, by definition, useless. I'm not dropping $40 on a book that I might not get a good long bit of usage out of it. That's a s+@+ty deal for the consumer.
How is it that an errata that affects at most like a single page of materal of your hardcover book makes it useless? In addition to that, excepting pfs, why does it matter at all? Keep using your book. I am reasonably confident paizo does not recall every copy of the book to white out feat x that you love so much.
Your book is not ruined. Even if you are playing in a game that uses the latest updates, you can do what everyone else does as far back as 3.5. Print out the errata, fold it and slip it into the back of your book. You book is now just fine because unlike your implication, the errata changes a tiny fraction of the actual content in your book, the overwhelming majority is just fine.
This also isn't new. Paizo has been providing errata that has altered their material since the game began. If having errata is a deal breaker for you, how is it you have not already picked up on the practice and changed your consumer practices?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it that an errata that affects at most like a single page of materal of your hardcover book makes it useless?
By virtue of not having confidence in the integrity of the product. If a part of it can be fundamentally changed, then any part of it can be similarly changed. It becomes a speculative purchase.
So a couple feats and say less than five percent of the content changing renders the books worthless? I still don't see it.
You don't need to see it. The value proposition for me as a consumer simply isn't there. So, I only buy the PDFs. With content subject to change as it is, that's about all I value Pathfinder's content to be worth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'll be honest I'm not here to point fingers at the dev or design team or anything of the sort they're doing their jobs and doing what they want to do and that's fine.
I just wanted to see if anyone else shares my opinion about FAQ and Errata content in Pathfinder.
So I've been playing the game for a good long time and overall I genuinely like the base system that pathfinder was founded on. Namely, give the players lots of different options for everything. This is the same base model that D&D 3.5 was designed on and I was a fan of it there too.
Now my issue is that every time I see a FAQ or an Errata it's usually not fixing things it's not oh we wanted to include an "s" over here and "No allies in this particular case doesn't include you" it seems more and more to be "Oh hey look at this ability that made a certain niche build fun and interesting as well as decently viable? Yeah we'd actually really like it if instead you just didn't have fun. Mmmkay thanks. Oh and give us another $10 for our latest pile of new interesting things that you can use for a year or two before we nerf it so hard that it will not be fun or interesting or viable."
I get it they need to do balancing sometimes, but once that thing is out and about for years the time for balancing is over at that point balancing it doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile because anyone who cared already had a fix either sourced off of something like the suggestions forum or their own creation and anyone who didn't was probably happy with it.
Anyways that's how I feel. Does anyone else actually dread it when paizo rolls out new FAQs/Errata and just wish they could get the unedited content more easily so they could not use them(particularly on online indexes like d20pfsrd)?
Before even getting to reading the over hundred posts on this thread, I want to directly adress the first post:
Yeah, I mostly ignore nerfs whenever possible as a DM. Yes, I dread new FAQ/Errata. And yeah, I'd love free access to the various versions of a rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a couple feats and say less than five percent of the content changing renders the books worthless? I still don't see it.You don't need to see it. The value proposition for me as a consumer simply isn't there. So, I only buy the PDFs. With content subject to change as it is, that's about all I value Pathfinder's content to be worth.
So then what is the problem? You are given an option as a consumer to purchase something that suits your tastes and values? Heck you literally don't have to buy them and get most of their value by using the prd or srd. So where exactly is paizo screwing over their consumers? Like I said, the fact that they might errata away certain options has been there since literally the second printing of the core rulebook years ago.
So then what is the problem? You are given an option as a consumer to purchase something that suits your tastes and values? Heck you literally don't have to buy them and get most of their value by using the prd or srd. So where exactly is paizo screwing over their consumers? Like I said, the fact that they might errata away certain options has been there since literally the second printing of the core rulebook years ago.
Then they've been screwing over (to use your words) the customer for years. The problem is as I've already said. Please, read my posts. It's a speculative purchase. That's a bad use of one's money and a worse stance to take as a company with respect to how they officially operate.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Errata and FAQs are really, really great, until they are not.
The general concept, past execution, and overall reception has been rather positive I think. Until about a year, year and a half ago that is.
A while back, about when SKR left I think, they started releasing rather terrible FAQs/errata that could, at best, be described as ill-advised. This typically resulted in illogical suggestions that fundamentally changed how things worked (limiting free actions keeping high level archers from even making full attacks, for example) or changes to the rules that devalued abilities and items to such an extent that they were considered by many to be a waste of page space (early crane wing feat changes, divine protection, or jingasa of the fortunate soldier) when costs and prequisites could have been increased instead.
In short, errata and FAQ are great, but recent execution has been quite poor.
I used to get excited about them, now I dread them.
There has been something of a paradigm shift in Paizo and its community over this.
But, how many GMs use the errata?Everyone in my gaming circle.
No on in my group would, no matter how I pushed them. I don't even want to bother with them, myself. They just either don't have the time or don't want to take the time to keep up with every change. A friend of mine wants to start PFS group as the GM for my group, but no one wants to stay caught up with the errata, so he's having a difficult time finding players, even among a group he's played with for nearly 30 years.
No on in my group would, no matter how I pushed them. I don't even want to bother with them, myself. They just either don't have the time or don't want to take the time to keep up with every change. A friend of mine wants to start PFS group as the GM for my group, but no one wants to stay caught up with the errata, so he's having a difficult time finding players, even among a group he's played with for nearly 30 years.But, how many GMs use the errata?Everyone in my gaming circle.
I enforce both errata and FAQ in my games. Most of the other people I play with either don't, or only do it on a case by case basis that makes sense to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Errata and FAQs are really, really great, until they are not.
The general concept, past execution, and overall reception has been rather positive I think. Until about a year, year and a half ago that is.
A while back, about when SKR left I think, they started releasing rather terrible FAQs/errata that could, at best, be described as ill-advised. This typically resulted in illogical suggestions that fundamentally changed how things worked (limiting free actions keeping high level archers from even making full attacks, for example) or changes to the rules that devalued abilities and items to such an extent that they were considered by many to be a waste of page space (early crane wing feat changes, divine protection, or jingasa of the fortunate soldier) when costs and prequisites could have been increased instead.
In short, errata and FAQ are great, but recent execution has been quite poor.
I used to get excited about them, now I dread them.
There has been something of a paradigm shift in Paizo and its community over this.
Errata is great when it's fixing grammar, or adding text for clarification, or removing text that is confusing. Errata that changes how things work is bad. That is scapegoating a 2.0 without actually doing a 2.0.
I would agree there was a shift around the time Sean left.
Errata that nerf content possibly hit the same content that led players to buying the book in order to be able to use that very content in PFS.
Perhaps that player wouldn't have bought the book in the first place otherwise.
I understand that a mistake can happen, but when the same basic idea for a feat is printed and nerfed 3 times with minimal variations (dervish dance, slashing grace, fencing grace) I can't help but feel that some part of the process might be, uh... not entirely unintentional.
Errata that nerf content possibly hit the same content that led players to buying the book in order to be able to use that very content in PFS.
Perhaps that player wouldn't have bought the book in the first place otherwise.I understand that a mistake can happen, but when the same basic idea for a feat is printed and nerfed 3 times with minimal variations (dervish dance, slashing grace, fencing grace) I can't help but feel that some part of the process might be, uh... not entirely unintentional.
I'm not so sure how likely that is, though. It's not like you can preview the content before buying it. You could check out a friend's copy or see it in action at the table, but that would be some wicked long game play. Of course, it could be possible with the simple feedback system that is the forums. I'd put this one in the 20-30% possible range.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like you can preview the content before buying it.
I think you can, Paizo PRD and PFSRD are legal databases available on the internet for free.
For PFS, where you are required to own an actual copy, such databases are technically advertising.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what I do. :-)
It's not like you can preview the content before buying it.I think you can, Paizo PRD and PFSRD are legal databases available on the internet for free.
Sure, just keep in mind the lag time between release and publication on those sites. It's usually a matter of weeks to a month or two. So, for such a thing to happen, Paizo would have to be planning on a 4 to 6 month after launch cycle to start messing with things. Which, this kind of thinking makes me really start questioning their business practices with regard to their corporate strategy.
It's just that they're the reason the rule is changed, not the GM, so saying "talk to the GM", when they're simply following what the rules currently say...F*!$ what the rules say, they're the GM.
Just because they're the GM doesn't mean that the rules all of a sudden cease existing or stop functioning, even if they do have the right to handwave said rules at their table.
In addition, that sort of thinking only promotes the ideal that Paizo should nerf everything to the ground, because everyone who plays the game can just handwave all of the bad stuff away; that's not a healthy perspective, nor should it be encouraged, because it's misleading and absolutely false.
The assumption that handwaving is always available and becomes an expectation for every table (yes, including PFS) is ridiculous and founded only by the wishful thinking of "Every player should be able to have fun." A noble cause, truly, but theoretically impossible to accomplish, and is certainly not aided by creating and encouraging rules changes such as Crane Wing, MoMS archetype, Slashing Grace, and many others.