FAQs and Errata killing the fun?


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

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)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nearly all recent errata has been ignored by me when it comes to the games I run. I do not agree with the majority of the changes as I agree that most often they are knee-jerks reactions to situations seen within PFS play. That's what is great about errata, is that you do not have to include it in your own games (Unless your GM enforces it).

Society play is the only place where errata really matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For my home games, I routinely ignore the errata. We have some pre-errata books, and we just follow the printed text most of the time. If something really is game-breaking, only then do we look at the errata & FAQs. Often we don't even use them because a lot of them are contradictory to other staff members. For example, I've seen JJ post reasonable rulings on various questions, only to have the design team oppose it and then there is fallout or edge cases or other issues.

It bugs me that sometimes there are more issues after the errata or FAQ comes out. I feel like they should be patching holes, not making new ones.

I suspect Paizo might even support my habit of using original texts, as it's creating a market for older "first edition" books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
outshyn wrote:

For my home games, I routinely ignore the errata. We have some pre-errata books, and we just follow the printed text most of the time. If something really is game-breaking, only then do we look at the errata & FAQs. Often we don't even use them because a lot of them are contradictory to other staff members. For example, I've seen JJ post reasonable rulings on various questions, only to have the design team oppose it and then there is fallout or edge cases or other issues.

It bugs me that sometimes there are more issues after the errata or FAQ comes out. I feel like they should be patching holes, not making new ones.

I suspect Paizo might even support my habit of using original texts, as it's creating a market for older "first edition" books.

This is exactly my issue with it and it really does make me regret going digital to a certain extent. I mean I just didn't have the room to keep books anymore(ended up donating like half-3/4 of my recreational reading stuff when I moved because there just wasn't space for it) so I switched to pdfs but if my hd fries or I'm over at the game table in someone else's home and want to pull up the pdf to check the rules suddenly I get a bunch of stuff I didn't want which is real frustrating. I just wish there was a good source for the old rules.

Liberty's Edge

20 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think this gives errata something of a bad rap. Most FAQs and errata are super useful and help make things better.

It's just that when one is bad (or controversial) people tend to notice it way more. And it thus gets talked about a whole lot.

Additionally, it's often not that the thing they nerf wasn't potentially broken, but that they go too far in nerfing it.

For example, was the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier too powerful? Very possibly. Negating 1 Crit a day is super powerful. So they nerfed it to only do that once before losing the ability. Alright so far, now people won't all be required to have one. But they also made its AC bonus Deflection rather than Luck. Which was an awful idea that means it doesn't stack with a Ring of Protection and now nobody will ever take it. If they'd left the Luck bonus to AC, it'd remain a solid item that people take (+1 AC for 5k is a solid investment even sans crit negation) without being overpowered. But they went too far.

But that's one item out of a whole lot that received errata in a single document. I remember a whole two or three...pretty much solely because they were problematic. Basing one's opinion of errata on a small percentage of it is probably not a good plan.

Now, on the other hand, I freely ignore those bits of errata when running games...but saying you can ignore it anywhere but PFS is pretty inaccurate. I don't run all the Pathfinder games I play, and my current GM (for example) uses all current errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group currently use the rules as written on d20pfsrd out of convenience and they use the current errata rather quickly.

But i have to agree with deadmanwalking here that i think Paizos way of FAQ/Errata is too much in one direction. On one hand you nerf a "popular choice" to the ground so hard that you will never see anyone pick it again, and on the other side you have wierd rulings overexplained in such crypic writing you might aswell wonder if the writer even know english.

Ofcourse it doesnt happen all the time, but those questions which is most controversial get FAQ/Errata'd into obvlivion you do have to wonder...


Generally as a GM I enforce errata and FAQ information for ease of use at the (virtual) table. If everyone is using the same rules I don't have to pick and choose or cause issues when X is enforced but Y was allowed.

I know some players are unhappy with changes from time to time and I generally have the rule that if something is changed to a level the player would not have chosen it they can have a free feat/ability/item swap.

I do somewhat feel that errata has moved beyond fixing mistake and more into a game balance you would see with online gaming. This is actually one of the reason most of my players have stopped purchasing books and just us an SRD for information now as they got tired of having to check every single item for errata.


FAQs and errata nowadays get quite strong responses. But let's consider three things:

1) Balance changes happen much more frequently at computer games. People sometimes complain about them, but overall it seems to be accepted as part of the deal.

2) Pathfinder's changes only affect a fraction of the game. Yes, an errata document consists of several pages. But look at the source that is updated: It's (very roughly) 100 times as long.

3) Using unusually powerful options does more than making a PC more powerful. It also makes the other PCs weaker in comparison and the GM more busy.

Still, Paizo seems to focus mostly on nerfs in errats. They might be much more popular if some options would get a boost - but this currently happens elsewhere (Unchained, some player companions, vigilante talents etc.).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm more bothered by the changes/FAQ that weaken an option that wasn't even that powerful to begin with.


Im on the opinion that if there is something that everybody takes (traits, feats, class options), while neglecting other options available, then said thing is unbalanced and must be fixed.

If there is no faq or errata, i will simply house rule ban it from my table and life goes on.

Everything else is fine by me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

Im on the opinion that if there is something that everybody takes (traits, feats, class options), while neglecting other options available, then said thing is unbalanced and must be fixed.

If there is no faq or errata, i will simply house rule ban it from my table and life goes on.

Everything else is fine by me.

I do have to ask why? Why doesnt players pick the other options?

Hey, Wizard is the most powerful class in the game and you still see people picking rogues, so its not that its the "most powerful".

The issue i think is the lack of proper "sidegrades" or alternatives that is giving the players the option to forgo the popular item. On the other side you have too many options not worth been taken and is just a waste of gold, time or effort to get to work.

And even if they nerf the most powerful item, they bomb it to oblivion to the point it becomes one of the many items to never be picked again and the next item in line becomes popular... or even worse, they just skip filling that item slot in the first place to focus on other more worthwhile options.

I think Paizo should go the other route now and try to bring lesser choices up to par, and see more into why people wont choose other choices over the current popular ones.

So in the end we just get a loooong list of items people would never consider as its not worth their time getting one... too many "interesting" items are either too expensive, too weak to even fulfill their purpose or too hard to use... like i have the hat that let me ask a frog a question about life during a thunderstorm during the 7th week in the 70th year of the canary.


Thats why im fine with wizards and rogues.
Now, if all players took wizards on every campaign, i would be worried about.

Like, on two campaigns in a row, 4/4 of the table took the rich parents trait once they figured they could all buy a first level wand at character creation. I have a problem with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:
shadowkras wrote:

Im on the opinion that if there is something that everybody takes (traits, feats, class options), while neglecting other options available, then said thing is unbalanced and must be fixed.

If there is no faq or errata, i will simply house rule ban it from my table and life goes on.

Everything else is fine by me.

I do have to ask why? Why doesnt players pick the other options?

Hey, Wizard is the most powerful class in the game and you still see people picking rogues, so its not that its the "most powerful".

Because not everyone approaches this game analytically. Also, while wizard may be the most powerful option, it also requires a lot of bookwork, and that really turns some people off. And on the flipside, some people do approach games like this thematically. For example, someone may want to play a rogue in Pathfinder, because their favorite character in Warcraft was a rogue. Or maybe their favorite character in a book was rogue-like. At any rate, not all players choose options based on power. And finally, not all players are knowledgeable enough about the game to realize all of the shortcomings of a class like the rogue compared to a wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

Thats why im fine with wizards and rogues.

Now, if all players took wizards on every campaign, i would be worried about.

Like, on two campaigns in a row, 4/4 of the table took the rich parents trait once they figured they could all buy a first level wand at character creation. I have a problem with that.

Well, that sounds like a DM allowing the party to buy wands without rolling for access to magical items. Which he obviously can as a part of the rules, but its rarely enforced...

Personally i think its a poor choice, a small cash boost early on for consumables. There is better choices out there. ( Like Half-orc with sacred tattoos with fate's favored, or the magical linage + magical knack... or something among those lines of traits. )

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The cycle of rushing out poorly designed content and gutting it in errata is unhealthy for the game and disrespectful to customers.

I sympthasize with the design team and freelancers for working under tough deadlines, but there's no finesse in handling the erratas and often they make the content even more confusing. Slashing Grace is an excellent example of this. The errata needed an FAQ to explain how it works, and the change was a larger nerf to the (arguably underpowered) class the feat was designed for than to classes the nerf was intended for.

Thankfully, I think the releases after ACG were great improvements, with some exception (lookin' at you brute vigilante).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, it's not killing the fun. The fun is alive and well. FAQ/Errata so rarely touches on something my players actually do (except for supporting "the GM does that anyway" situations- see the Improved Familiar FAQ) that I hardly notice. And they seem to be doing pretty well business-wise, so I'm probably not a fluke.


Quote:
Well, that sounds like a DM allowing the party to buy wands without rolling for access to magical items. Which he obviously can as a part of the rules, but its rarely enforced...

Even if you roll, its 75% chance on most given city. And that availability is not necessarily enforced on character creation. Because technically the character had his entire life to search for that wand, it could be a family heirloon, it could be bought on another town.

And even if the player says his character never spent that gold, he could roll it as soon as he stops on a city, and eventually that 75% will roll on his favor.

Also, he can simply pick another wand and ask for another 75%.

Its much simpler to ban the trait.

Quote:


Personally i think its a poor choice, a small cash boost early on for consumables.

A single wand of cure light wounds can increase the party longevity by insane amounts, and last multiple levels, so its not a poor choice, from the players point of view.

It is a poor choice on MY point of view and that's why i removed the option.


Cyrad wrote:

The cycle of rushing out poorly designed content and gutting it in errata is unhealthy for the game and disrespectful to customers.

I sympthasize with the design team and freelancers for working under tough deadlines, but there's no finesse in handling the erratas and often they make the content even more confusing. Slashing Grace is an excellent example of this. The errata needed an FAQ to explain how it works, and the change was a larger nerf to the (arguably underpowered) class the feat was designed for than to classes the nerf was intended for.

Thankfully, I think the releases after ACG were great improvements, for the most part (lookin' at you brute vigilante).

And even with Brute Vigilante, it's a much lesser problem- an option that's weak to begin with. Weak archetypes are pretty innocuous, as opposed to something too strong that gets nerfed to too weak.

I'm actually looking forward to the first post-ACG book errata- hopefully it'll relieve some of the concerns.


shadowkras wrote:


Its much simpler to ban the trait.

Oh i wish Paizo did that when they whined about Jingasa being too good with Fate's favored.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
Well, that sounds like a DM allowing the party to buy wands without rolling for access to magical items. Which he obviously can as a part of the rules, but its rarely enforced...

Even if you roll, its 75% chance on most given city. And that availability is not necessarily enforced on character creation. Because technically the character had his entire life to search for that wand, it could be a family heirloon, it could be bought on another town.

And even if the player says his character never spent that gold, he could roll it as soon as he stops on a city, and eventually that 75% will roll on his favor.

Also, he can simply pick another wand and ask for another 75%.

Its much simpler to ban the trait.

Quote:


Personally i think its a poor choice, a small cash boost early on for consumables.

A single wand of cure light wounds can increase the party longevity by insane amounts, and last multiple levels, so its not a poor choice, from the players point of view.

It is a poor choice on MY point of view and that's why i removed the option.

I can only see it being a good choice if characters tend to die a lot in the first couple of levels in your campaigns.

Otherwise, it is a complete waste. You can compare it to something like reactionary initiative (50% of a good feat improved initiative) or affinity of the elements (100% of an okay feat elemental focus) or magical knack. Traits are awesome.

Wasting one on getting just a little more gold is really shortsighted unless as a DM you run absolute death-traps where they need the wand to survive the first level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've said for a while I've preferred Paizo's first printings of products. I'm also "protesting" by only buying their PDFs currently. I agree with the sentiment that a lot of what's been going on has been reactionary with respect to PFS. Unfortunately, this makes me think the organized play aspect to the game is the only one Paizo actually cares about. Evidence? Follow the money and time commitments. Everything exists to support PFS now in one way or another.

What's worse for me is that the people I play with are quite involved in the PFS campaign. So, their games? Basically PFS rules. My games? Basically PFS rules. Why? Because that's their assumption of the game, and frankly, I don't feel like having a multi-hour re-education session on "no, that's not in the base game" just to readjust expectations to what vanilla Pathfinder can be. In fact, I recently started a discussion thread for my group on the next kind of game I'd like to run. It was very grounded in RAW and the setting, but it gave f!*! all consideration to PFS rules and limitations. Guess what happened there? Silence. So.... it's all PFS, all the time. groan...

But, that's a tangent. FAQs and errata as they have been of late are kind of horrible. They are generally far too reaching and only gives me the impression they have no actual editorial control over what goes out or else they wouldn't have to change so much after the fact. I think this comes directly as a result of their insane release schedule. They produce widgets, not carefully designed products, and the release schedule is their god, not the quality of the product given to the consumer.


Quote:
I can only see it being a good choice if characters tend to die a lot in the first couple of levels in your campaigns.

Unless your campaigns have a house rule were characters get double/triple starting health or you only put them against monsters under APL, they are likely to drop unconcious from two average longsword hits.

Quote:
Otherwise, it is a complete waste. You can compare it to something like reactionary initiative (50% of a good feat improved initiative) or affinity of the elements (100% of an okay feat elemental focus) or magical knack. Traits are awesome.

The traits you listed are also good candidates for bans. Specially reactionary on the hand of combat min-maxers (they always take it).

I would prefer tenfod that people take traits that grant class-skills to better fill mixing abilities in the group than something that grants +x static combat bonus.

But the topic is already being missed here.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Holds up the CRB

Here errata bat~ Nice juicy book with lots of errors for you to fix~ You know you want to smack it~

(Seriously, if the people that do erratas would fix books with the glaring errors instead of nerfing things that show up too much in PFS they would probably get less crap flung their way.)

Sovereign Court

Dracoknight wrote:
shadowkras wrote:


Its much simpler to ban the trait.
Oh i wish Paizo did that when they whined about Jingasa being too good with Fate's favored.

Even without Fate's Favored, it was still good enough that virtually no one would ever buy anything else for that slot.

While I'll agree that they overreacted on the nerf, it still needed to be nerfed. (Maybe leave the crit at 1/day and change it to a +1 deflection bonus. Or even 1/week might be viable.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Even without Fate's Favored, it was still good enough that virtually no one would ever buy anything else for that slot.

While I'll agree that they overreacted on the nerf, it still needed to be nerfed. (Maybe leave the crit at 1/day and change it to a +1 deflection bonus. Or even 1/week might be viable.)

I guess it's interesting, then, how I never purchased it for any character I've ever played.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Even without Fate's Favored, it was still good enough that virtually no one would ever buy anything else for that slot.

While I'll agree that they overreacted on the nerf, it still needed to be nerfed. (Maybe leave the crit at 1/day and change it to a +1 deflection bonus. Or even 1/week might be viable.)

I guess it's interesting, then, how I never purchased it for any character I've ever played.

Then... why do you care if it was changed?


Almost all of the recent item errata has not been about reining in "fun" items. Almost all of it has been about reining in items that are far too cheap for the powerful effect that they provide.

Sure I would have liked Paizo to take a more gentle approach to toning these items down, rather than the nuclear option they used for Jingasa, Quickrunner's shirt and others. But to say that these items being weak is ruining your fun is hard to accept. These were ludicrously effective items that anyone who had a good handle on the game's mechanics would want, not some kind of fountain of fun times.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Then... why do you care if it was changed?

No, no, no. You can't make a blanket statement, be shown you're wrong, and simply redirect the question. No...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Then... why do you care if it was changed?
No, no, no. You can't make a blanket statement, be shown you're wrong, and simply redirect the question. No...

"Well I never used it." is also an empty phrase.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Then... why do you care if it was changed?
No, no, no. You can't make a blanket statement, be shown you're wrong, and simply redirect the question. No...

"Well I never used it." is also an empty phrase.

It's not an empty phrase if an absolute standard about it has been established and that phrase disproves that standard.

Sovereign Court

Buri Reborn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Then... why do you care if it was changed?
No, no, no. You can't make a blanket statement, be shown you're wrong, and simply redirect the question. No...

Except... it wasn't a blanket statement. I had already included an exception in my original statement, so your point is moot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

Im on the opinion that if there is something that everybody takes (traits, feats, class options), while neglecting other options available, then said thing is unbalanced and must be fixed.

That is a not useful standard for PF, or at least not one paizo have chose to follow, because I don't see them nerfing any of the big six, the conjuration school spells, power attack, the perception skill...


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Then... why do you care if it was changed?
No, no, no. You can't make a blanket statement, be shown you're wrong, and simply redirect the question. No...
Except... it wasn't a blanket statement. I had already included an exception in my original statement, so your point is moot.

Hmm.

Quote:
Even without Fate's Favored

ClauseA

Quote:
it was still good enough that virtually no one would ever buy anything else for that slot

ClaimA

Quote:
While I'll agree that they overreacted on the nerf

Capitulation

Quote:
it still needed to be nerfed

ClaimB

Quote:
(Maybe leave the crit at 1/day and change it to a +1 deflection bonus. Or even 1/week might be viable.)

Modification of ClaimB

Where's the exception you're talking about?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I specifically included "virtually" which allows for exceptions to the general rule without invalidating it. Therefore you are just one of the already included exceptions.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I specifically included "virtually" which allows for exceptions to the general rule without invalidating it. Therefore you are just one of the already included exceptions.

As if you have a viable sample to make the claim to begin with. "Virtually" stops being a valid exception when the statistical sample is simply wrong, something no one here can validate. It's not an argument by default because you simply can not defend your claim.


Please let's not get stuck on hyperboles.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I specifically included "virtually" which allows for exceptions to the general rule without invalidating it. Therefore you are just one of the already included exceptions.
As if you have a viable sample to make the claim to begin with. "Virtually" stops being a valid exception when the statistical sample is simply wrong, something no one here can validate. It's not an argument by default because you simply can not defend your claim.

Gotcha. No one can make general statements without a proper scientific statistical sample to back them up. *nods solemnly*


So am I allowed to post links to stuff with swears in them, because I have a gif that's pretty relevant to the conversation at hand. Several in fact!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the commend of DeadManWalking at the beginning. 90-95% of the errata-FAQ are good and necessary. But things like Scarred Witch Doctor are like casting "Drain Fun" on the rule affected.
And just playing with the pre-errata can be difficult. I buy nearly all the hardcover books, but use constantly d20pfsrd and HeroLab for references and make characters, and the errata make a real pain to use it too many times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Personally, I think this gives errata something of a bad rap. Most FAQs and errata are super useful and help make things better.

It's just that when one is bad (or controversial) people tend to notice it way more. And it thus gets talked about a whole lot.

Additionally, it's often not that the thing they nerf wasn't potentially broken, but that they go too far in nerfing it.

For example, was the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier too powerful? Very possibly. Negating 1 Crit a day is super powerful. So they nerfed it to only do that once before losing the ability. Alright so far, now people won't all be required to have one. But they also made its AC bonus Deflection rather than Luck. Which was an awful idea that means it doesn't stack with a Ring of Protection and now nobody will ever take it. If they'd left the Luck bonus to AC, it'd remain a solid item that people take (+1 AC for 5k is a solid investment even sans crit negation) without being overpowered. But they went too far.

But that's one item out of a whole lot that received errata in a single document. I remember a whole two or three...pretty much solely because they were problematic. Basing one's opinion of errata on a small percentage of it is probably not a good plan.

Now, on the other hand, I freely ignore those bits of errata when running games...but saying you can ignore it anywhere but PFS is pretty inaccurate. I don't run all the Pathfinder games I play, and my current GM (for example) uses all current errata.

This so much.

The majority of FAQ and errata are needed, most address things that have balance issues. The problem is that sometimes it might go too far in correcting the item/ability and then people get b*&%#y about it because they really liked having that option, that was very likely too good.

I would agree however, that I wish Paizo would change their deadlines and spend a bit more time reviewing and playtesting new things so that FAQ and errata were less necessary. I also understand that their schedules exist for reasons and releasing new products in a timely fashion is required for the company to have cash flow. If they take too long they don't have money to keep operating.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Gotcha. No one can make general statements without a proper scientific statistical sample to back them up. *nods solemnly*

You can make a general statement all you want. Simply realize how flimsy general statements are. And, when someone comes along and says something counter, realize you don't have a leg to stand on since you can't really retreat anywhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, errata and/or FAQ are not somehow killing fun.

The idea that somehow your fun is being infringed on by things that you do not have to include in your game is strange to me. If you happen to play PFS, then you accept the house rules of that particular group which might include these errata or FAQ, and you deal with it like you would any other house rule.

Yes, that means that something you really really like might not be possible. That's what can happen with house rules. You can decide to play or not based on that information.

"Fun" is not being stopped. An idea, broken or not (depending on your point of view) has been changed. Surely you have more than one idea or concept?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As an aside, can we move diagramming the argument to somewhere else, preferably not on the boards? Arguing about the argument instead of discussing the topic at hand makes the forums less fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cellion wrote:
Almost all of the recent item errata has not been about reining in "fun" items. Almost all of it has been about reining in items that are far too cheap for the powerful effect that they provide.

The problem is that instead of "reining in" the problem, Paizo shoots a bazooka at it. They completely annihilated stuff like Jingasa or Bracer's of Falcons Aim.

Balancing, by the underlying word, is about creating balance. Putting a 10 ton weight on one scale does the opposite. Balancing is a delicate thing, but many erratas don't seem too delicate. I think a kind of "developer's notes" (as a blog post after an errata gets released) explaining why the erratas were done would really do a lot of good.

@shadowkras: Why is a Wand of CLW at first level a problem? Do you want to kill PCs? DO you want a 15-minute adventuring day? I honestly don't see what harm a wand at first level does. I mean, if they heal themself full after very fight and than have 10 encounters per day at first level... how is that bad? Isn't that awesome because you don't have to worry about the wizard Color Spraying every encounter? If they all feel the need to buy CLW Wands at first level, maybe that should tell you that play to much "attrition warfare" for their taste.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Having played this version-ish of the game since 3rd edition came out. We never use or even look at the faq or errata, unless we saw a problem. Then we would look or in the early days post for an answer, even then most werent forth coming so sorted it ourselves.

As i have said in my earliest post 'keep what you like, dump the rest' and if it works for you whos to say diffrent.


@Darklord
I dont have a problem with one wand, i have a problem with four.
Or when every first level group has a wand and breaks WLB by 100%.

If they need a wand at first level, i will most likely introduce one to the game (many AP's already cover this problem though).

What bothers me is that they refuse to take other interesting traits because they know they can obtain a wand so easily. It becomes a problem when we are about to start a new adventure and they all go "dont forget to get rich parents to buy wands of cure wounds".

Its a choice of "a trait or increase my WBL by 500%".


knightnday wrote:
No, errata and/or FAQ are not somehow killing fun.

The magus community would like to speak to you about the Slashing Grace / Fencing Grace erratas.

Shadow Lodge

17 people marked this as a favorite.

If a FAQ or errata are enough to kill your fun, your fun was a fragile little thing.

1 to 50 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / FAQs and Errata killing the fun? All Messageboards