| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yeah, I'd love to see Warrior Spirit nerfed a bit.
They don't have a very good track record of nerfing ANYTHING "a bit". Their first instinct seems to be to arm the orbital nukes... Anymore, I'm a quite hesitant to ask about anything that isn't truly and totally broken/unworkable. Ambiguous is better than crushed and in ruins. :(
I agree a minor nerf wouldn't be terrible. Paladins magus and others have set lists of buffs they can put on a weapon. Fighter should have a limit too.
While that's good in theory, the fighter doesn't have a theme like those two classes do. For instance, magus generally use 1 handed melee and paladins have a holy [lg] bent. A fighter is a clean slate with the ability to any weapon style, background and alignment, making paring down the list seem arbitrary unless you do something like give a single option of several lists.
I'm all for reprinting advanced training options to maybe intergrate them more easily into the fighter chasis and even possibly allow for easier access to those options.
I'm less keen on nerfing options because frankly most everything already works well in the advanced options. I am also hesitant to lump all the save boosts into Bravery just because that kills fighter archetypes even more than they are now, and I would want that addressed long before any alterations to specific advanced options happen.
As it stands, trading out advanced options and bravery is simply a raw deal and vanilla fighter and Mutagen Warrior is the only viable way to build fighters right now.
Also, comparing Warrior Spirit to either the magus or paladin seems like a dishonest comparison of power, because those classes have so much more going for them than the weapom enhancement boosts. Magus in particular gets their weapon enhancement ability at 1st level, and Paladins get so many powerful features that if they lost that feature they would still be more powerful than a fighter with Warrior Spirit with no changes.
Then how about just nerfing gloves of dueling?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They don't have a very good track record of nerfing ANYTHING "a bit". Their first instinct seems to be to arm the orbital nukes... Anymore, I'm a quite hesitant to ask about anything that isn't truly and totally broken/unworkable. Ambiguous is better than crushed and in ruins. :(
This. Very much this. I'd rather keep options that are perfectly fine as is then see more options that people once used and loved turning into piles of wasted page space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then how about just nerfing gloves of dueling?
Okay do we really need to nerf the fighter? Is this something that the fighter really derserves to have happen to it after years of being a joke of a class?
I think I understand, but I want to be clear. With regard to new player options automatically being the new official version if it is reprinted, is the answer yes or no?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I understand, but I want to be clear. With regard to new player options automatically being the new official version if it is reprinted, is the answer yes or no?
Re-read the first sentence of their second paragraph.
The fully refined version will be Paizo's default version for adventures, NPC compilations, and the like moving forward, since it benefited from two development cycles and is available on the PRD...
Basically, when it comes to Adventure Paths, Paizo NPCs, and similar products, the latest/republished versions are the ones that will be used. So, if there is an Adventure Path or Paizo-published NPC that uses an option from an older publishing, RAW demands you run the newly-published versions (which may require updating), since that's what the rules are assuming are being used.
Otherwise, PFS has a "YMMV" approach, which means you're following whether or not they're switching their publications on a case-by-case basis. Someone who is more PFS savvy can give a more accurate answer than this, but I have a feeling that the Adventure Paths and Paizo NPCs in regards to PFS will follow suit as above, since PFS is more RAW-is-the-LAW than most home games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, when it comes to Adventure Paths, Paizo NPCs, and similar products, the latest/republished versions are the ones that will be used. So, if there is an Adventure Path or Paizo-published NPC that uses an option from an older publishing, RAW demands you run the newly-published versions (which may require updating), since that's what the rules are assuming are being used.
I read that differently. I saw the PDT response as "any new Adventure Paths, Paizo NPCs, etc. will use the newest version of whatever rule going forward." But if you're playing an older AP and you want to go with what's in your version rather than doing the work to update it, you're no more in the wrong than if you choose to play the original version of RotRL rather than the anniversary edition.
After all, old APs were written with the contemporaneous versions of mechanics in mind as Paizo authors, as capable as they are, are heretofore unable to see the future.
Basically, when it comes to Adventure Paths, Paizo NPCs, and similar products, the latest/republished versions are the ones that will be used. So, if there is an Adventure Path or Paizo-published NPC that uses an option from an older publishing, RAW demands you run the newly-published versions (which may require updating), since that's what the rules are assuming are being used.I read that differently. I saw the PDT response as "any new Adventure Paths, Paizo NPCs, etc. will use the newest version of whatever rule going forward." But if you're playing an older AP and you want to go with what's in your version rather than doing the work to update it, you're no more in the wrong than if you choose to play the original version of RotRL rather than the anniversary edition.
After all, old APs were written with the contemporaneous versions of mechanics in mind as Paizo authors, as capable as they are, are heretofore unable to see the future.
I suppose, but I find that for modules, it wouldn't drastically change them to now use the new published versions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PRD is the RAW
Makes sense
I want to amplify this, because this is the clear answer from a marketplace perspective.
When you are writing new content for publication, you are almost completely locked into what is on the PRD (ie the RPG line). You are allowed to use content from softcovers, but the paperwork involved is annoying, and it adds additional wordcount, so in practice you avoid it as much as possible (or just gaze at it wistfully).
This was actually one of the underappreciated reasons for reprinting stuff in the Adventurer's Guide in the first place -- so that this good stuff could see more use in other products.
What you want to do at your table is up to you, but if you want to write it up and publish it afterwards, you'll want to use the PRD version.
Is the Adventurer's Guide on the PRD? I'm not seeing it there (and wouldn't have expected to given it's a setting-specific book).
Paizo might need to slow the heck down so it can catch up on stuff like that. Nevermind how much slower things might be now with a new edition whole new game system.
Hard to keep up to date when there's a new book every couple months though, I'd imagine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the tech team has been severely understaffed for a while now. I'm not really clear who does what (although I find "probably Chris" is the best default answer). I know they've recently added a couple of computer people and even if they're not directly responsible for keeping the PRD updated, their arrival may well free some time for those who are.