FAQ on Errata

Thursday, August 20, 2015


Illustration by Dmitry Burmak

As many of you are probably well aware, we have had a number of update documents drop in the past few weeks, correcting a wide array of issues with some of our rulebooks. Seeing that some of these have caused some controversy among players and GMs alike, I thought I would take a moment to talk about the process of creating these documents and give you all some insight on how we decide on the changes made to the game.

No book is perfect. It's an unfortunate reality of the publishing industry. Despite all of our best efforts and countless hours spent poring over proof copies and making corrections, every time we send a book to the printer, it is with the nagging knowledge that there are at least a few mistakes lurking in its pages. Almost without fail, we spot one within a week of getting the first printed copies shipped to our office, well after it is possible for us to fix it. At this point, the first internal correction file is made. As the staff here at Paizo starts using the book, we usually find a few more, and the file grows. Then the book ships out to the public and the questions begin in earnest.

After that point, we primarily rely on the FAQ system and forum threads to point out errors in our books that need to be addressed. When people on the forums notice problems, post threads, and click the FAQ button, we get notified through our system. About once per week we take a look at some of the most pressing issues, answering them as needed and noting many of them in our corrections file.

Finally, when it comes time for us to actually assemble the updates document that you see for each printing of our books, we get together as a team to discuss each issue. While many of the problems are straightforward mistakes that are easy to fix, some require us to rework a rule or make an adjudication on how it actually works in play. These can be contentious issues, both on the forums and internally, but we are always trying to do what is in the best interest of the game. Which brings me around to the most recent update document that is releasing today, making more corrections to Ultimate Combat.

And the Crane Wing feat.

Many of you might remember the conflict over this feat when Ultimate Combat was first released. We felt it was just too good for a heavily defensive build, so when the second printing of the book was released, we made changes to bring it more inline. Some people on the forums let us know that they felt we went too far in "nerfing" the feat and at the time, we said that we would keep an eye on it and see if it required further adjustment.

As it turns out, the feat did need some work, so we changed it so that it provides a +4 bonus to AC until you are missed by 4 or less (at which point it turns off until the start of your next turn). You can still use it to deflect an attack when taking the total defense action. This is an improvement and one that we hope makes the feat a more viable choice.

Of course, this is only one of a number of changes we made to various rules in Ultimate Combat. There were changes to the Musket Master and Pistolero archetypes, removing an ability that allowed them to ignore misfires at 13th level and double-barreled guns saw a change to balance them as well. The Myrmidarch and Titan Mauler both saw changes that strengthened them, allowing them to work better as originally intended, while the Master of Many Styles was altered a bit to make it more rewarding to those that stuck with it, as opposed to just dipping into the class for quick benefits. You can download the appropriate update document below, or from the Free Downloads or product page.

The process of updating our books is never simple and it is a job we take very seriously. We know that many of you are invested in these rules and the characters that rely upon them. Hopefully this gives you a little bit of a better understanding about the process of updates. If you have any thoughts or comments about the most recent Ultimate Combat update, please post them in this thread (as opposed to making a bunch of individual threads) and we will try to answer your questions.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Dmitry Burmak Frequently Asked Questions Monks Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Sajan
451 to 500 of 690 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
That being said: a back of the napkin lvl 11 twf pistolero build can still pull a DPR of ~120 (includes misfire effect and 1 grit for CaD)

Level 11, sure - but we're talking about a supposed level SIX who could somehow do the same thing.

It's not impossible, no, but HIGHLY improbable, and would probably result in destroyed weapons left and right.

Yeah. A typical lvl 6 GS does not have enough feats yet to twf with gun twirling.

So lets use:
lvl 6 pistolero Human (5 feats)
Dex 22 (+6)
+1 single barrel pistol
Point Blank, precise, rapid shot, deadly aim, rapid reload
Haste
1 grit spent on CaD (2d6 = +7)
Touch AC 12.

FA / rapid shot / Haste (4 attacks): DPR = 66.55 (includes misfire on 1-2)

Just for fun let look at the numbers IF we could still use a DB pistol. EVERYTHING else is the same.

FA / rapid shot / Haste (8 attacks): DPR = 66.52 (includes misfire on 1-3)

Holy Cow! Not the number I expected. The -4 to attack combined with the increased misfire chance (extra 5%) completely negated the extra damage from the extra attacks.

A pistols -DPR from misfire is only -16.59.
A DB pistols -DPR from misfire is a whopping -58.45.

So the DB pistol spends more ammo and has a higher chance of breaking for no true gain.

Lets say we had some extra cash on hand and could afford a +1 reliable version of our weapon.

SB Pistol DPR = 74.5
DB Pistol DPR = 84.4

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Could have been a dwarf, which would lower the misfire rating by 1, and I can't speak for others but I rarely grab Precise Shot that early because the short range of pistols, the high probability of the gunslinger acting first, and the ability to crank out damage means, in my experience, that it just isn't necessary most of the time. The dwarf's higher Wisdom also means an additional use of Up Close and Deadly, which is another 2d6 per attack routine to help counter-balance the -1 to hit from not getting a racial bump to Dex. With the average CR 6 enemy's hp sitting right around 72, that means he'll consistently recover at least 1 of the 2 grit spent, and if there's lower CR mooks involved in the fight, he could easily be recovering both. Assuming the dwarf also gets the +1 reliable weapon you gave the human, he only misfires on a 1, even with alchemical cartridges, which is just as likely as his x4 critical hit, which actually skews the damage average up substantially since for each lost attack he's got a counter-balance of 3 extra attacks. Assuming that he had a Wizard in the group who was crafting for the party, he could also theoretically have the WBL for both 1 reliable weapon, a glove of storing, and a second (nonmagical) db pistol that still only misfires on a 1-2 (though he would have some difficulty shoehorning in TWF since most of the feats left are fairly essential). I'd have to run the numbers, but it's very possible that TWF would be a better investment than Deadly Aim.


Musket Master helped with reloading too.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lab_Rat wrote:
That being said: a back of the napkin lvl 11 twf pistolero build can still pull a DPR of ~120 (includes misfire effect and 1 grit for CaD)

Uhm, so how do you reload with no free hand?

Silver Crusade

Gun Twirling..


Zaister wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
That being said: a back of the napkin lvl 11 twf pistolero build can still pull a DPR of ~120 (includes misfire effect and 1 grit for CaD)
Uhm, so how do you reload with no free hand?

Quick Draw and Gun Twirling? At that point it might be a good idea for your GM to put a limit on free actions as well.

But with that combo you can draw a weapon as a free action, fire, reload as a free action, stow the weapon as a free action, draw your off-hand weapon, fire, reload as a free action, stow the weapon as a free action, draw your on-hand weapon... etc. for all of your attacks.

Or you can have two guns out, fire both, stow one, reload, stow that one, draw the other one, reload, draw the stowed one, fire, etc.


Or Alchemist dip for Vestigial Arm...

Silver Crusade

Or Summoner Dip.

Scarab Sages

OR a Tiefling, Varana, or other race with a prehensile tail. Two levels of Juggler Bard work nicely, Phantom Limb agony works, a level of white haired witch... There are lots of ways to get an extra "hand" for reloading.


Firing a lot of shots per round is unrealistic.

Scarab Sages

Entryhazard wrote:
Firing a lot of shots per round is unrealistic.

While your text reads as sarcasm, it really is unrealistic with primitive firearms.

With modern revolvers and speed loaders, sure. If you are using primitive firearms (even with alchemical cartridges) it's not at all realistic to be able to fire that many shots in six seconds when you have to muzzle-load after each shot.

That said, we are playing a fantasy game, and realism need not be a factor.


Imbicatus wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Firing a lot of shots per round is unrealistic.

While your text reads as sarcasm, it really is unrealistic with primitive firearms.

With modern revolvers and speed loaders, sure. If you are using primitive firearms (even with alchemical cartridges) it's not at all realistic to be able to fire that many shots in six seconds when you have to muzzle-load after each shot.

True, but a level 20 Gunslinger with a modern firearm (ora a pepperbox) still can't shoot more than 5 times in 6 seconds without Haste.

Imbicatus wrote:
That said, we are playing a fantasy game, and realism need not be a factor.

This reminds me that Jason Buhlman nerfed to the ground the weapon cord because he tried to catch his mouse with his hand after tying it to his arm by the cable.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Entryhazard wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
That said, we are playing a fantasy game, and realism need not be a factor.
This reminds me that Jason Buhlman nerfed to the ground the weapon cord because he tried to catch his mouse with his hand after tying it to his arm by the cable.

Yeah, I forgot that was the only reason for that nerf. The realism factor.

Shadow Lodge

Lab_Rat wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
That being said: a back of the napkin lvl 11 twf pistolero build can still pull a DPR of ~120 (includes misfire effect and 1 grit for CaD)

Level 11, sure - but we're talking about a supposed level SIX who could somehow do the same thing.

It's not impossible, no, but HIGHLY improbable, and would probably result in destroyed weapons left and right.

Yeah. A typical lvl 6 GS does not have enough feats yet to twf with gun twirling.

So lets use:
....

This, in 4e it was proven trough avenger a reroll is equivalent of a +4. Having more attacks works the same way a +4 cancels with a -4. this is the reason the dpr looks the same, however agaisnt low touch enemies the dpr CAN go higher. most people dont understand that max damage is different than everage damage.

Some day you are gonna get high damage spikes, dome days you are not, this happens, can attest to that


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Entryhazard wrote:
This reminds me that Jason Buhlman nerfed to the ground the weapon cord because he tried to catch his mouse with his hand after tying it to his arm by the cable.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *gasps for air* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That was actually a thing!? OMG. *Wipes away tears*

I seriously fear for this game.


I can link the Facebook post later. It comes up if you search Jason Buhlman and weapon cords I think.


Ravingdork wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
This reminds me that Jason Buhlman nerfed to the ground the weapon cord because he tried to catch his mouse with his hand after tying it to his arm by the cable.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *gasps for air* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That was actually a thing!? OMG. *Wipes away tears*

I seriously fear for this game.

Yes it was a thing

It saddens me a little also because I recently read a manga in which the main character pulls a similar thing with two guns and even longer strings and it would have been cool to replicate.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:

I can link the Facebook post later. It comes up if you search Jason Buhlman and weapon cords I think.

Oh my god, i tought this was some kind of joke


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
Firing a lot of shots per round is unrealistic.

I'll have you understand, having a Gunslinger make a bunch of attacks is both unrealistic and super cool.

What isn't was allowing them to use the double barrel rules to perform two full attacks in one turn.

---------------------------------------------------------

Yeah..... just remember that every single FAQ, Errata, and core book had to be personally OKd by Jason if it got published.


I had this thing written out about not being mean for the sake of being mean, not making things personal, and stuff like that. I can't finish it and I'm not sure why, so I deleted it.

I would guess that this thread is here to "have a conversation" about the revisions/errata, but there seem to be more questions than there are answers. At least, it seems that way to me. This is disappointing. Perhaps the issue is my expectations, meaning perhaps they are too high and I should lower them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I know a lot of us are having a good time with the weapon cord jokes, but I just want to clear up any misconceptions. The change happened for game balance reasons. After it happened, Jason "Spent a part of the morning tying my mouse to my hand by the cord and figuring out how tricky it was to get the thing back in my hand. Its not impossible.. but its not a swift action."

To quote Jason Bulmahn on Facebook at the time of posting:

"...it was a joke and mostly for fun. We changed the rule for game balance reasons, not based off my experimentation. Besides, if I only based rulings off my actual skill sets, the only things characters could do in the game would be design buildings, write game rules, and drink beer."

I'm all in favor of buffing martials, but weapon cords enabled casters to do rod/wand shenanigans, don't forget that. They still can, a little, to be fair. Plus balancing the game around having strings around your wrist is a little wonky.

It was a healthy change in my opinion. A lot of people disagree with me but it's not a point worth arguing. Weapon cords are like politics: you really can't convince the other side. Everyone is too stubborn.

EDIT: Oh I almost forgot the link here


I'm sure its all being read, but its just players talking to players. Is this just a way to take frustration away from the other boards, or an actual place where feedback is actually considered?

Designer

LilyHaze wrote:
I'm sure its all being read, but its just players talking to players. Is this just a way to take frustration away from the other boards, or an actual place where feedback is actually considered?

We're definitely paying attention to this thread (and indeed, looking back there were some posts by some pretty high up on the food chain staff members).

Grand Lodge

Mark Siefer wrote:


We're definitely paying attention to this thread (and indeed, looking back there were some posts by some pretty high up on the food chain staff members).

Oh good. Then can I get clarification on the question I asked? Or at least a "That will have to go through the FAQ process."

FLite wrote:

For the purpose of the final embrace chain of feats, what counts as "a racial ability?"

Race traits - Obviously yes.

White Hair Witch Constrict - Clearly no.

Anaconda Coils - Clearly No.

Snake, Constrictor Animal Companion (after level 4, and with something to boost it's INT obviously)? - Yes?

Eidolon with the constrict evolution? - Maybe?

Eidolon with the constrict evolution granted by it's sub type (Protean e.g.)? - Yes/Maybe?

Anything else?

Sorry to bump it, it just keeps getting buried and I don't know if you guys have seen it.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
Mark Siefer wrote:


We're definitely paying attention to this thread (and indeed, looking back there were some posts by some pretty high up on the food chain staff members).

Oh good. Then can I get clarification on the question I asked? Or at least a "That will have to go through the FAQ process."

FLite wrote:

For the purpose of the final embrace chain of feats, what counts as "a racial ability?"

Race traits - Obviously yes.

White Hair Witch Constrict - Clearly no.

Anaconda Coils - Clearly No.

Snake, Constrictor Animal Companion (after level 4, and with something to boost it's INT obviously)? - Yes?

Eidolon with the constrict evolution? - Maybe?

Eidolon with the constrict evolution granted by it's sub type (Protean e.g.)? - Yes/Maybe?

Anything else?

Sorry to bump it, it just keeps getting buried and I don't know if you guys have seen it.

It's going to need a FAQ. In a non-official manner, I'm inclined to agree with your assessments here, including the fact that subtype granting constrict is a stronger maybe towards yes.

Scarab Sages

Mark Seifter wrote:
FLite wrote:
Mark Siefer wrote:


We're definitely paying attention to this thread (and indeed, looking back there were some posts by some pretty high up on the food chain staff members).

Oh good. Then can I get clarification on the question I asked? Or at least a "That will have to go through the FAQ process."

FLite wrote:

For the purpose of the final embrace chain of feats, what counts as "a racial ability?"

Race traits - Obviously yes.

White Hair Witch Constrict - Clearly no.

Anaconda Coils - Clearly No.

Snake, Constrictor Animal Companion (after level 4, and with something to boost it's INT obviously)? - Yes?

Eidolon with the constrict evolution? - Maybe?

Eidolon with the constrict evolution granted by it's sub type (Protean e.g.)? - Yes/Maybe?

Anything else?

Sorry to bump it, it just keeps getting buried and I don't know if you guys have seen it.
It's going to need a FAQ. In a non-official manner, I'm inclined to agree with your assessments here, including the fact that subtype granting constrict is a stronger maybe towards yes.

What about Naga Aspirant Druid? I'm really inclined towards yes because the Naga form is a Naga.

Grand Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
FLite wrote:
Mark Siefer wrote:


We're definitely paying attention to this thread (and indeed, looking back there were some posts by some pretty high up on the food chain staff members).

Oh good. Then can I get clarification on the question I asked? Or at least a "That will have to go through the FAQ process."

FLite wrote:

For the purpose of the final embrace chain of feats, what counts as "a racial ability?"

Race traits - Obviously yes.

White Hair Witch Constrict - Clearly no.

Anaconda Coils - Clearly No.

Snake, Constrictor Animal Companion (after level 4, and with something to boost it's INT obviously)? - Yes?

Eidolon with the constrict evolution? - Maybe?

Eidolon with the constrict evolution granted by it's sub type (Protean e.g.)? - Yes/Maybe?

Anything else?

Sorry to bump it, it just keeps getting buried and I don't know if you guys have seen it.
It's going to need a FAQ. In a non-official manner, I'm inclined to agree with your assessments here, including the fact that subtype granting constrict is a stronger maybe towards yes.
What about Naga Aspirant Druid? I'm really inclined towards yes because the Naga form is a Naga.

I assumed that one was yes since it is covered by the "Naga, serpentfolk" part of the prereqs.

Anyway FAQ thread started

Shadow Lodge

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
That being said: a back of the napkin lvl 11 twf pistolero build can still pull a DPR of ~120 (includes misfire effect and 1 grit for CaD)

Level 11, sure - but we're talking about a supposed level SIX who could somehow do the same thing.

It's not impossible, no, but HIGHLY improbable, and would probably result in destroyed weapons left and right.

By level 6 it's easy to do for ONE fight. Drop 10k on a slate spider - free action for no misfires for 1 minute per day, and it's most of your money at that point. The next fight though you're in trouble.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xethik wrote:
I'm all in favor of buffing martials, but weapon cords enabled casters to do rod/wand shenanigans, don't forget that. They still can, a little, to be fair. Plus balancing the game around having strings around your wrist is a little wonky.

Shouldn't they have simply errata'd weapon cords to only work with weapons then? It would have been easy to say it didn't work with wands a rods, with the former being too light, and the latter too heavy/improperly balanced. That would have rid us of the supposed abuse without hurting other options within the game.

Paizo Pathfinder developers have developed a bad habit of overreaching with their errata I'm afraid. I suppose it's a page space issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, negating a complete combat maneuver and breaking action economy for .5 gp? That one totally called for a revision.


Was there anything about the length of fatigue for furious finish? I'm about to make a furious finish character and the way I read furious finish it applies the "condition" fatigued, which requires 8 hrs of rest. Does anyone know if it is the actual condition fatigued or if it is the so-called rage-fatigue? It just seems so powerful if it is only a rage-fatigue amount of time.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ElementalXX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I can link the Facebook post later. It comes up if you search Jason Buhlman and weapon cords I think.

Oh my god, i tought this was some kind of joke

It was a joke. By Jason Bulmahn. Taking a sly dig at players/forum posters being insistent on "realism" being a factor in game balance decisions (or something like that). It's on a par with Sean K Reynolds' infamous "water balloon" discussions.


Chemlak wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I can link the Facebook post later. It comes up if you search Jason Buhlman and weapon cords I think.

Oh my god, i tought this was some kind of joke
It was a joke. By Jason Bulmahn. Taking a sly dig at players/forum posters being insistent on "realism" being a factor in game balance decisions (or something like that). It's on a par with Sean K Reynolds' infamous "water balloon" discussions.

"Sly dig"


necromental wrote:
Sorry, negating a complete combat maneuver and breaking action economy for .5 gp? That one totally called for a revision.

Makes me think there should be something like a magical item that does what the old cord did..


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I also don't get where the claims that it "Breaks action economy" comes from. Swift actions are a limited and precious resource among a lot of classes.

Having to use it to pick up your weapon precludes Inquisitors from using Judgement, Bane, or many of their spells. Slayers from using Studied Target and still getting to full attack. Intimidate builds from using Hurtful (dropping their full attack by a whole attack). Investigators from using Studied Combat, Bards from starting a Performance and still attacking, Magi from dipping into their Arcane ool (for enhancement or many Arcana), Ninjas from using vanishing Trick, etc.

Not to mention the Immediate Action real estate that classes like Swashbuckler eat up that prevents them from using it on a following round at all.


Ah but barbs and fighters often have nothing to do with swifts, so giving them something potentially useful and easy to get to have them start using swift actions, that's where the real problem is ;)

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I can link the Facebook post later. It comes up if you search Jason Buhlman and weapon cords I think.

Oh my god, i tought this was some kind of joke
It was a joke. By Jason Bulmahn. Taking a sly dig at players/forum posters being insistent on "realism" being a factor in game balance decisions (or something like that). It's on a par with Sean K Reynolds' infamous "water balloon" discussions.

...yeah, not really buying it, and also not buying that SKR's water balloons comment was a joke either. I've seen the second's discussion on the matter, and the conversation in questions was making crossbows viable (like they should be) being compared to making water balloons viable. It isn't particularly relevant now though.

Action economy breaking is an overstatement, they were nerfed due to double pistols (since double muskets didn't need them), which was a heavy handed nerf to something that didn't really need it. If we'd gotten this errata for them now, weapon cords may still be a viable option and give value to barb/fighter swift actions.

I don't particularly agree with the nerf to double shotguns (why was it made to work differently from other double barreled weapons?), although this is mostly due to thinking it had value with dead shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
I also don't get where the claims that it "Breaks action economy" comes from. Swift actions are a limited and precious resource among a lot of classes...

Ok, "breaks" was a bit harsh, but "gives a substantial action economy benefit and practically negates a combat maneuver for .5 gp" still stands. If it was a combination of feat and mundane item (like Quick Draw and quick-draw shield) or just a feat or an expensive magic item I wouldn't object at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It negates the single least used Combat Maneuver in the entire game. Whoop de doo.

A 3rd level spell negates Trip entirely, you want to nerf Fly too?


A more conservative nerf would have been just not letting you use the cord in the middle of your full attack.

Scarab Sages

Melkiador wrote:
A more conservative nerf would have been just not letting you use the cord in the middle of your full attack.

Eh, I'd rather have useless weapon cords than a precedent to disallow taking a 5' step between attacks in a full attack.

Scarab Sages

Rynjin wrote:

It negates the single least used Combat Maneuver in the entire game. Whoop de doo.

A 3rd level spell negates Trip entirely, you want to nerf Fly too?

You can't disarm spiked gauntlets, better nerf those too.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:

It negates the single least used Combat Maneuver in the entire game. Whoop de doo.

A 3rd level spell negates Trip entirely, you want to nerf Fly too?

Because a 3rd level spell slot and 5 sp are exactly the same opportunity cost.

Ultimately, though, the disarm defense is irrelevant. (That's why the "nerf" didn't really change that aspect.) Defending against disarms was the point of the cords when they were introduced. It was the action economy break. And "lots of classes use swift actions" bit is completely beside the point, because gunslingers - i.e., the actual problem - don't give the slightest damn about swift actions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

It negates the single least used Combat Maneuver in the entire game. Whoop de doo.

A 3rd level spell negates Trip entirely, you want to nerf Fly too?

You can't disarm spiked gauntlets, better nerf those too.

Monks OP can't disarm fists pls help

Aw s+*! now I remember where SKR said unarmed strikes purposefully deal less damage than weapons because not being able to be disarmed or having to draw your weapon is a big advantage.

I hate this game sometimes.

Shisumo wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

It negates the single least used Combat Maneuver in the entire game. Whoop de doo.

A 3rd level spell negates Trip entirely, you want to nerf Fly too?

Because a 3rd level spell slot and 5 sp are exactly the same opportunity cost.

More effective combat maneuver deterrent (one monsters actually use, and screw you greatly) vs one almost nobody uses, and hinders your ability to swap to another weapon if need be. Got your Greatsword on a Weapon Cord? Time to spend a Move to snap it in half if you need to get your bow out for some reason.

So, yeah, you're right actually.

The Weapon Cord IS a bigger pportunity cost than a spell every Wizard is going to take.

Shisumo wrote:

Ultimately, though, the disarm defense is irrelevant. (That's why the "nerf" didn't really change that aspect.) Defending against disarms was the point of the cords when they were introduced. It was the action economy break. And "lots of classes use swift actions" bit is completely beside the point, because gunslingers - i.e., the actual problem - don't give the slightest damn about swift actions.

So nerf the ACTUAL F%@*ING PROBLEM.

Why this is a difficult concept for Paizo sometimes I have no idea. They even DID it just recently, that's what sparked this whole discussion!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm trying to figure out how to say this gently, Rynjin.

They did.

Weapon cords now offer precisely the effect they were originally intended to at a cost that is in line with the benefit they offer.

I get that you don't like that. It's still a fact.

[EDIT: And no, this is not me kissing Paizo's ass. I've actually thought it was the right call for awhile.]


I will never buy that they where joking, but...

In a some way, the nerf is actually a buff to some classes, like the examples that Rynjin gave. Fighters, Rogues and Barbarians can't full-attack, but Inquisitors can Judgment and Attack, Ninjas can recover the weapon, do a single attack and Vanish Trick... Of course, full Martials aren't bad enough already! :^)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N. Jolly wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I can link the Facebook post later. It comes up if you search Jason Buhlman and weapon cords I think.

Oh my god, i tought this was some kind of joke
It was a joke. By Jason Bulmahn. Taking a sly dig at players/forum posters being insistent on "realism" being a factor in game balance decisions (or something like that). It's on a par with Sean K Reynolds' infamous "water balloon" discussions.
...yeah, not really buying it, and also not buying that SKR's water balloons comment was a joke either. I've seen the second's discussion on the matter, and the conversation in questions was making crossbows viable (like they should be) being compared to making water balloons viable.

Jason posted that it was a joke the same day he posted the original status update, a couple hours after someone posted:

Ben wrote:
Just how long is a 'swift' or 'move' action, specifically? You might need to define your parameters before you measure things. Also, I didn't realize you had spent a good portion of your designing career learning now to swordfight, and can accurately measure how quickly a seasoned mercenary could use his tools.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Ben, it was a joke and mostly for fun. We changed the rule for game balance reasons, not based off my experimentation. Besides, if I only based rulings off my actual skill sets, the only things characters could do in the game would be design buildings, write game rules, and drink beer.

I'm not trying to be the Paizo Defense Force. They are not infallible. Hell, they make a ton of mistakes. I disagree with plenty of this latest batch, and even more in the past couple. I think they have failures in the rules and in communication. But let us have realistic criticism. To me, this feels like people are just looking for excuses to complain and spreading them as fact.

Now, the SKR water balloon comments seem much more sincere to me and took the opposite stance of realism before balance. I think part of this stems from a difference in how many of us see weapon cords. To me, they were an item that had unhealthy consequences on gameplay. If we want characters to be able to sheath/draw weapons as a swift action, I really think that should be a core rule of the game. They shouldn't need a goofy cord around their wrist so they can just drop their weapons and do something else with their hand. The weapon cord nerf was designed to make one style of combat (dual-wield pistols, mostly) more inline with other styles of combat. The SKR comments were the exact opposite (i.e., not making the crossbow-style of combat inline with bow combat because that would be unrealistic). That's how I see it.

TL;DR: Let's have legitimate complaints of the rules and not of the developers. If you really believe that Jason supports realism before balance, I'd love to see an example of that because the weapon cord is a joke in my mind and - even if it was not a joke - it does not seem to be indicative of any longterm changes to me.

PS: nerf casters buff martials


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:

I'm trying to figure out how to say this gently, Rynjin.

They did.

Weapon cords now offer precisely the effect they were originally intended to at a cost that is in line with the benefit they offer.

I get that you don't like that. It's still a fact.

[EDIT: And no, this is not me kissing Paizo's ass. I've actually thought it was the right call for awhile.]

Except, according to you, they DIDN'T. You said the issue was Gunslingers.

If that is the issue, they should have messed with Gunslingers, not Weapon Cords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:

I'm trying to figure out how to say this gently, Rynjin.

They did.

Weapon cords now offer precisely the effect they were originally intended to at a cost that is in line with the benefit they offer.

I get that you don't like that. It's still a fact.

[EDIT: And no, this is not me kissing Paizo's ass. I've actually thought it was the right call for awhile.]

Stopping gunslingers from using it as a swift stops the abuse case and still lets it be useful for the classes to have something to do with a swift that it was nice for but not giving anything very strong.

451 to 500 of 690 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Blog: FAQ on Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.