FAQ on Errata

Bard is better than Rogue at skills for several reasons:

• Versatile Performance. This gives bards as many skill points as the rogue, and makes skills CHA based.
• Bardic Knowledge. A massive boost to knowledge skills and the ability to make all knowledge skills untrained.
• Lore Master grants the ability to take 10 on any knowledge check, and take 20 as a standard action.
  
• Jack of All Trades. Skill mastery on steroids.
  

Context is Gunslingers

ElementalXX wrote:

FLite wrote:

At 7 you can render any one opponent flatfooted, no save, no to hit, no nothing. Yeah, it doesn't help you, but it can let your friends really go to town with power attack and sneak attack and manuevering for one round. Or for a touch attack, you can auto disarm or auto trip.
At 8 you get a free feat, that is pretty nice.

so you get the ability to feint, which you always had anyway, and pumped manuevers as a fullround action about 3 times a day(which is nice, but not even close to a dealbreaker)

Except feint doesn't do a gunslinger any good, because feinting only denies them their DEX bonus against your next melee attack.

Also, flatfooted is better than "denied DEX" and applies to attacks made by other people (which feint also doesn't allow).

Trust me...I love a good feint build, but Startling Shot is much better than feint.

Its an interesting ability in case you find a monk or a very high dex monster ill give you that, but its not worth taking all those gs levels, specially since gs aims to be ranged damage dealer, and there are far more interesting things to do with grit

Is like trapsesne for barbarians

Bard is better than Rogue at skills for several reasons:

• Versatile Performance. This gives bards as many skill points as the rogue, and makes skills CHA based.
• Bardic Knowledge. A massive boost to knowledge skills and the ability to make all knowledge skills untrained.
• Lore Master grants the ability to take 10 on any knowledge check, and take 20 as a standard action.
  
• Jack of All Trades. Skill mastery on steroids.
  

You forgot pageant giving him for free every int skill on steroids

the good thing is that rogues now can take master tricks

Master TRICK. Singular. Just like ninja can only take ONE advanced talent. They can each take as many of the standard tricks/talents as they want, but the master/advanced-granting ability was intentionally left singular. Helps keep flavor separated between the two classes.

Raisse wrote:

Calth wrote:

RIP Gunslinger 6-20, no reason to ever even think about taking those levels.

Also, was it intended for the double musket to be the only double-barreled weapon change, or was that an oversight.

Yeah, really confused about this myself. Looks like double-barreled pistols and shotguns still work according to the original text, effectively doing double damage all the time. Errata the errata?

FAQed! Thanks for pointing that out.

You may want to update the FAQ link subtext. It still says the last update was in May.

Also there's a lot of negativity in this thread, so let me just say THANK YOU. It should be no surprise to anyone who's ever seen me on these boards that I'm smitten with errata (as a GM and ONLY a GM, balance and clarification is way more important to me than me getting "robbed" of something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place).

Oh and by the way, THANK YOU FOR FIXING THE AKLYS DAMAGE!

Also there's a lot of negativity in this thread, so let me just say THANK YOU. It should be no surprise to anyone who's ever seen me on these boards that I'm smitten with errata (as a GM and ONLY a GM, balance and clarification is way more important to me than me getting "robbed" of something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place).

As far after its original publication as this is hitting, this IS being robbed of abilities. If we 'weren't supposed to have it' it should have been taken away immediately.

I'm honestly tired of Society's adventure design causing class changes that overshadow home games that were JUST FINE. Crane wing was fine until society's big single bosses couldn't get past it because MMS gave it too early.

Gun jams only slow down a gunslinger compared to an archer.

I'm sure there are more, but I don't have time to hunt them down right now.

Source please, default?

I doubt that its PFSs fault as much as that PFS offers a pretty reliable method of playtesting the game in general. PFS uses a set of universal house rules, so for example, everyone has the same stats point buy, races allowed, etc, with minor exceptions.

This allows for a more honest view of if its the material itself or the individual group, and also because PFS has a pretty wide range of scenarios and playstyles, it also helps to show that the results are not simply due to a group complaining about something, (a class, a feat, etc) because they tend to play more RP heavy games.

Its not perfect, but it does allow a more balanced perspective overall.

Removed a post. Just because you disagree with a post, there's no reason for personal insults.

Source please, default?

Unfortunately, I have no specific posts to quote, but have seen both crane wing (in original form) and the Gunslinger in mid- to high-level campaigns.

In our current campaign, he has lost dozens of actions having to unjam his gun, even as he can only take two shots a round (mythic-I assume it would be worse in non-mythic). An archer on the other hand, would have simply shrugged and kept on shooting. The problem is that he's so much more accurate (targets touch AC) than an equivalent-level archer, not his damage. (He's only ahead of my melee character until next level, when I get improved Vital Strike). Vital strike lets him make huge single attacks, but an fighter could lay down more than that with a bow and rapid shot, clustered shots, etc.

Removed a post. Just because you disagree with a post, there's no reason for personal insults.

I disagree that it was an insult, but I'll rephrase slightly.

The entire point of an errata is either fixing an error not caught in editing (spelling and grammar errors, deleted sentences, etc.) or changing how something was intended to work (which you guys have been doing a lot recently).

Saying the errata "'robbed' [me] of something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place" is either a fundamental misunderstanding of what an errata is (an out and out change of the intent, not a clarification) or is insulting everyone who thinks the change is bad by implying that they somehow knew it was the "wrong" way to do it and they intentionally "power gamed" at odds with what the rules were intended to do.

Neither is true.

Strife2002 wrote:

Also there's a lot of negativity in this thread, so let me just say THANK YOU. It should be no surprise to anyone who's ever seen me on these boards that I'm smitten with errata (as a GM and ONLY a GM, balance and clarification is way more important to me than me getting "robbed" of something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place).

As far after its original publication as this is hitting, this IS being robbed of abilities. If we 'weren't supposed to have it' it should have been taken away immediately.

I'm honestly tired of Society's adventure design causing class changes that overshadow home games that were JUST FINE. Crane wing was fine until society's big single bosses couldn't get past it because MMS gave it too early.

Gun jams only slow down a gunslinger compared to an archer.

I'm sure there are more, but I don't have time to hunt them down right now.

Home games almost by definition are a collaboration between players and DMs. Now, I and my fellow DMs that I play with have always disliked Master of many styles so the archetype was simply banned. Crane Wing has a very different power level with MoMS banned so much so that we never adopted the errata changing the feat. In a home game, you can really customize the power level to be where the players and DM are having fun. Is your DM simply running everything as RAW without house rules?

default wrote:

Strife2002 wrote:

Also there's a lot of negativity in this thread, so let me just say THANK YOU. It should be no surprise to anyone who's ever seen me on these boards that I'm smitten with errata (as a GM and ONLY a GM, balance and clarification is way more important to me than me getting "robbed" of something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place).

As far after its original publication as this is hitting, this IS being robbed of abilities. If we 'weren't supposed to have it' it should have been taken away immediately.

I'm honestly tired of Society's adventure design causing class changes that overshadow home games that were JUST FINE. Crane wing was fine until society's big single bosses couldn't get past it because MMS gave it too early.

Gun jams only slow down a gunslinger compared to an archer.

I'm sure there are more, but I don't have time to hunt them down right now.

Home games almost by definition are a collaboration between players and DMs. Now, I and my fellow DMs that I play with have always disliked Master of many styles so the archetype was simply banned. Crane Wing has a very different power level with MoMS banned so much so that we never adopted the errata changing the feat. In a home game, you can really customize the power level to be where the players and DM are having fun. Is your DM simply running everything as RAW without house rules?

A lot of people use RAW because it's the easiest method of playing. Each house-rule added also adds to the complexity of running and playing the game. To some, they'd rather use their limited time playing the game and not 'fixing' it with home rules. You get a stack of your own rules going and you can spend a gaming day explaining them all to a new player. RAW isn't just for PFS, but the common ground that allows everyone to play.

A lot of people use RAW because it's the easiest method of playing. Each house-rule added also adds to the complexity of running and playing the game. To some, they'd rather use their limited time playing the game and not 'fixing' it with home rules. You get a stack of your own rules going and you can spend a gaming day explaining them all to a new player. RAW isn't just for PFS, but the common ground that allows everyone to play.

I find myself agreeing with this.

In my home games we tend to follow RAW, especially in Pathfinder since not even my players, who have played for years, can remember every single rule. A lot of the times we even brainfart on some of the most basic rules. Adding on a home rule adjustment to a class, ability or item would be another layer of, "What does this do? Oh yeah, here's what it does. Oh yeah, we adjusted it to this. Let me find that piece of paper/note/something else where I recorded what we changed it to."

If a rule is problematic or unclear, we just disallow it before continuing. With erratas, I'm glad I can allow some of the options that were unclear before.

Also there's a lot of negativity in this thread, so let me just say THANK YOU. It should be no surprise to anyone who's ever seen me on these boards that I'm smitten with errata (as a GM and ONLY a GM, balance and clarification is way more important to me than me getting "robbed" of something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place).

Oh and by the way, THANK YOU FOR FIXING THE AKLYS DAMAGE!

You are an NPC in my games, just for the record.

I doubt that its PFSs fault as much as that PFS offers a pretty reliable method of playtesting the game in general. PFS uses a set of universal house rules, so for example, everyone has the same stats point buy, races allowed, etc, with minor exceptions.

This allows for a more honest view of if its the material itself or the individual group, and also because PFS has a pretty wide range of scenarios and playstyles, it also helps to show that the results are not simply due to a group complaining about something, (a class, a feat, etc) because they tend to play more RP heavy games.

Its not perfect, but it does allow a more balanced perspective overall.

It allows a testing ground in a venue that restricts adjustments for a home table's varying styles of play. All the non-clarification changes do is make for some surprising finds when referencing something in the middle of the game and finding it conflicts with memory. I doubt most players know what has been changed and will only discover those changes when they use an online reference to clarify. It's more of a pain than it's worth except for PFS play which removes the option for table variations.

I honestly thought I'd gone nuts when I looked at the crane style and discovered it had nothing to do with what I remembered. Now I have to scoop through here every few days just to see if something else is about to get jacked up. Needless to say, I find it tedious.

Strife2002 wrote:

Also there's a lot of negativity in this thread, so let me just say THANK YOU. It should be no surprise to anyone who's ever seen me on these boards that I'm smitten with errata (as a GM and ONLY a GM, balance and clarification is way more important to me than me getting "robbed" of something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place).

Oh and by the way, THANK YOU FOR FIXING THE AKLYS DAMAGE!

You are an NPC in my games, just for the record.

But a SECRET NPC, right?

Strife2002 wrote:

Also there's a lot of negativity in this thread, so let me just say THANK YOU. It should be no surprise to anyone who's ever seen me on these boards that I'm smitten with errata (as a GM and ONLY a GM, balance and clarification is way more important to me than me getting "robbed" of something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place).

Oh and by the way, THANK YOU FOR FIXING THE AKLYS DAMAGE!

You are an NPC in my games, just for the record.

As long as I have levels in expert with ranks in Profession (errata fan boy)

EDIT: oh, and that I die at some point in every session, right after uttering my catchphrase:

[nasally while pushing up glasses] "Well, ACTUALLY..."

Removed a post. Just because you disagree with a post, there's no reason for personal insults.

Thanks I guess. I never saw the comment but I 'll assume by his reaction it was directed at me, whatever it was.

All I'm really saying is that I'm %1,000 for anything that balances a game more. If you don't like it, then do what's already been said here and don't follow the change. Nobody's forcing you to. And if you're playing PFS, well I guess I can't help you there.

Maybe you're right; maybe I really don't understand what errata means. It's the thing with the antlers, right?

In all seriousness at the end of the day this is a game. A great game but a game nonetheless. If we're really getting our pantaloons in a bunch over some of the changes here, then the runelords win and we can all go back to WotC. Paizo has done right by us for years, and I just think we ought to trust them a little bit that they know what they're doing and if a change was made it was probably for the best. But that's just my opinion, obviously, and I'm admittedly usually alone in mine.

Here's the thing: I don't think just because I like a company I need to agree with every decision they make.

"Just don't use it" misses the point, because I don't have absolute control over the rules of every game I ever play in. I only have that kind of control over the games I personally run and you know, maybe I want to PLAY some time without having to deal with rules changes that do not, in my opinion, "balance the game more".

The majority of the ACG and ARG changes were complete WTF overhauls of things that didn't need touching. Who had a problem with Vanara climbing fast? Did anybody ever even get to USE Merciless Butchery? Most games don't even MAKE it to 16th level. Why did the Sacred Fist need to get its Flurry nerfed?

Those latter two are things I would have liked to use as-is some time in the future, but generally speaking now I can't.

To a lesser extent the UC changes were in some cases NOT the right choice. This one doesn't bother me as much because it seemed as though Paizo had the right INTENT with stuff like the Master of Many Styles, but it wasn't executed properly in the least (Objectively speaking, I mean. The stated design goal was to make it worse for a dip, but stronger to take from 1-20, but it's still just as good of a dip as it ever was but is now actually WEAKER than it used to be. It failed on both counts.).

It's not a matter of "trust" it's a matter of disagreeing with the sudden 180 in design philosophy they seem to have had, with things that were fine for forever being called bad design (Extra Discovery and the like, for example, get watered down versions if versions AT ALL for new classes for some unfathomable reason).

Paizo has been on a nerf SPREE lately as if they think they can go back and systematically lower the power level of a game that's been established for YEARS now at the previous power level and mucking up a lot of people's future games in the process.

And "Yeah well go and play DnD if you don't like it" comically misses the point AGAIN. I don't want to play 5th edition. It looks like a pretty darn good game, but it's very much different from Pathfinder, and I like Pathfinder. For the most part, I liked Pathfinder as it was before a lot of these erratas came down with a VERY small number of exceptions (Something needed to be done to Divine Protection, but even that was nerfed too far), but I can't really play that any more, at least not with a new group. I now have to play this new version of Pathfinder unless I'm running it or playing with a small group of friends, which is NOT all the games I play.

I'm tired of you people coming around and going "Yeah well, if you don't like it, leave" or "But you could just not use it though...". It has about as much value as an umbrella made of f&*#ing cotton candy and I'm tired of seeing it every time a discussion about some new change comes up.

You like it, fine. Like it. That doesn't mean that everyone else has to like it, it doesn't mean they need to find a new game if they don't like it, and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't a problem for some people just because it isn't a problem for you.

Rynjin, I don't know how we were disagreeing earlier when apparently we feel the same way.
Though you certainly put it into words better.

No, the MoMS not nearly as good as a dip. You can't get a better dip than being able to take a feat restricted to 13th level at 3rd.

Rynjin, I don't know how we were disagreeing earlier when apparently we feel the same way.

Though you certainly put it into words better.

I don't remember us every disagreeing at all, actually. Though sometimes it's easy to "talk past" another person due to failed communication on both sides making it seem like there's a disagreement.

No, the MoMS not nearly as good as a dip. You can't get a better dip than being able to take a feat restricted to 13th level at 3rd.

Eh, maybe hyperbole but the core point still stands. MoMS is still a better dip than it is a class that you take from 1-20, which means the errata failed at at least one of its stated goals. It's now worse for both sorts, but not as much for dippers as single classed MoMS-es.

Ad TBH most of those "Feats restricted to 13th" (hyperbole in itself...I can't think of any of those, I think 9th is where most 3rd Feats sit) don't need to be regardless. Snake Fang is the sort of thing that SHOULD be available at low levels for example.

Changing moms to ignore prerequisites on his wildcard feats would power wise allow him to take stuff at 6 instead of 9, which isn't a big deal and certainly there are already classes that do that.

Now, we have a moms that simply can't use "many styles" because of ABSURD prerequisites on every single style feat.

That is a quite amateurish mistake of PDT. We can actually call the class 'master of not so many styles' and all this is just jerkknee reactions (always imo) that could have been handled a ton better if they even playtested their own classes.

Eh, maybe hyperbole but the core point still stands. MoMS is still a better dip than it is a class that you take from 1-20, which means the errata failed at at least one of its stated goals.

Maybe half of one of its goals, or 1-3.

If I had three goals for the errata it would be

1a) Priority 1: end MoMS dip from being a neigh mandatory way to skip pre requisites and go right for the best feats in the game. This is priority 1 because it affects the entire game, not just one class.

1b) stop the MoMS from being a mandatory dip (at least two minmaxers i know opted out of MoMS after 1a was done)

2) make the MoMS a solid and flavorful choice to stick with for a career rather than biscoti.

It's now worse for both sorts, but not as much for dippers as single classed MoMS-es.

I think its important to look at the priorities, because it makes the MOMS collateral damage rather than a vicious target.

Ad TBH most of those "Feats restricted to 13th" (hyperbole in itself...I can't think of any of those, I think 9th is where most 3rd Feats sit)

11th for monkey shine is what i was looking at.

Rynjin wrote:

Eh, maybe hyperbole but the core point still stands. MoMS is still a better dip than it is a class that you take from 1-20, which means the errata failed at at least one of its stated goals.

Maybe half of one of its goals, or 1-3.

If I had three goals for the errata it would be

1a) Priority 1: end MoMS dip from being a neigh mandatory way to skip pre requisites and go right for the best feats in the game. This is priority 1 because it affects the entire game, not just one class.

1b) stop the MoMS from being a mandatory dip (at least two minmaxers i know opted out of MoMS after 1a was done)

2) make the MoMS a solid and flavorful choice to stick with for a career rather than biscoti.

The stated goals:

"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."

1.) Make it more rewarding to those who stick with it.

2.) Make it a worse choice for dipping than sticking with it.

It failed on both counts.

And of course it was "nigh mandatory". The Style Feats have far too many prerequisites and come online far too late for the benefits they provide. Is it any wonder people looked at a plethora of interesting Feats (and god knows there are precious few of them in the game) and went "Hm, how do I get access to those before the game ends?"?

If they had changed it so the answer was "Play a Master of Many Styles" rather than "Take a level or two in Master of Many Styles" it would have succeeded at both. As-is, the answer is now pretty much "You don't".

Now mind you I never said this was "vicious", I think they just f&&+ed up. The changes look really good at first glance. I was initially very happy with them, until a second clarification came down (Wildcard Feats do not ignore prereqs), and I started tinkering.

See, the problem is that while the idea is sound, prerequisite ignoring is CRUCIAL for being a master of MANY Styles rather than just ONE Style, maybe two at extremely high levels.

The Wildcard Feats attempt to change this, but the problem is many of the Style Feats have a ton of non-overlapping, esoteric prerequisites that it becomes VERY hard to qualify for quite a few of them. Most of the Styles need:

1.) A minimum Monk level

2.) X ranks in a skill

3.) Some other non-Style prerequisite (like Dodge or Combat Reflexes)

4.) Style feat prerequisites.

5.) More rarely, but common enough, a minimum Ability Score prerequisite (most prominently a high Con score for the Genie-themed Styles).

I've tried to build a few MoMS since the errata came down and it's HARD. The class basically doesn't even exist until like 12th. A few people posted some builds to prove me wrong, but all of those turned out to be illegal builds for one reason or another.

If the 6th level bonus/Wildcard Feats and beyond ignore prerequisites all problems would be fixed, I think. The design team seemed to have forgotten what a good job they'd done of making Style Feats be basically impossible to qualify for in any great amount.

Pathfinder: where the gardeners use flamethrowers as pruning sheers and forgot where they planted the roses. Result? burnt roses. Nice explanation, Rynjin.

Well, it did get worse for dipping...

Well, it did get worse for dipping...

I think you can stop at "it did get worse"...

They DID do a good job of making it look nice until you peek under the hood and drive it around a bit only to find out it's a lemon...

the sad part, is that it's like they didn't even try to make a lebel-by-level build for themselves.

it is overwhelming apparent that the stated goal of wildcard feats CANNOT HAPPEN simply because you will either lack the skills, etra feats needed, or ability scores, to actually swap style feats on the fly (the stated goal)

sure, you can maybe qualify for 2, or with a very, VERY focused build 3 feats, by lvl 9 or so, but that's all. AND it cripples the rest of your build (no space for any other feat except the ones you need to qualify for your "free" feats)

that's why i said it was a kneejerk reaction. I doubt they even internally build one, let alone playtested one.

the sad part, is that it's like they didn't even try to make a lebel-by-level build for themselves.

They don't do armchair theorycrafting, it's usless.

shroudb wrote:

the sad part, is that it's like they didn't even try to make a lebel-by-level build for themselves.

They don't do armchair theorycrafting, it's usless.

the thing is, it looks exactly like the only thing they did was that, theorycraft.

wildcard feats SOUND nice in THEORY. When you actually try to build a master of many styles utilizing them though, you suddenly find yourself unable to do so, since the rest of the style feat requirements are big enough that you actually need to spend a ton of your feats, skills, attributes, just so that you can pick them up, leaving the rest of your character weak.

that leaves only 1-2 styles open.

it is exactly the problem that one could pick up if he actually makes a lvl x build and plays it.

shroudb wrote:

the sad part, is that it's like they didn't even try to make a lebel-by-level build for themselves.

They don't do armchair theorycrafting, it's usless.

I've never understood this logic. Let's make another go at communicating our points to each other (here defining 'another' with us as representatives of the viewpoints, not as individual posters), shall we?

'cause I dunno what you're envisioning, but "armchair theorycrafting" is design. If I write an adventure, do I just grab whatever seems appropriate and throw it in a narrative sequence, or do I select a progression of levels, look at the average PC abilities and capabilities for those levels, and design challenges around them?

If I design a monster of CR 5, do I need to pay attention to its AC, saves, saving throws, damage, and abilities, and if I do in order to say, in good conscience, that this is a CR 5 monster, what do I compare it against?

What about when I design a race? A class? A new skill? A feat? A spell?

The game runs on math. Math defines the narrative tools our characters use in conflicts and helps to resolve those conflicts or to quantify the effects those tools have on the game world. Yes, my wizard can move earth, but how much earth? How fast? How well? To what degree of precision? The math takes a broad statement and makes it concrete. Is that a good thing? The debate will rage forever. But it's a Pathfinder thing, and we're all stuck for it as a result.

A sense of balance can be created and maintained by paying careful attention to this math and creating new content that fits into the desired ranges. Generally, Pathfinder is a cooperative game. This means that you want to compare the math to Bestiary entries and traps of an appropriate level, plus various skill-based challenges (roleplaying-based ones, obviously, cannot be accounted for in the math) - assuming for a moment that the Bestiaries, traps, and skill system function perfectly, which they don't. Class <-> class balance becomes significant first because humanoids with class levels are classic enemies (consider for a moment clerics of dark gods or power-mad wizards, to say nothing of corrupted druids, liches, warlords, or assassins) and second because in the world of cooperative, heroic problem solving, almost no one willingly wants to play the waterboy.

If you're using "armchair theorycrafting" to refer to theoretical optimization, or to high-op play - generally environments where RAW matters more than many others and raw power is an implicit or explicit play goal or even requirement - then you're still not making any sense, because Paizo's stated more than a few times that they'd like to prevent such occurrences. If you don't want the math to go into infinite loops or splintered dimensions of soul-rending insanity, you need to push it until it won't give any more. You can test all of that without taking it into a game with other people. Indeed, I'd suggest doing so, since showing up trying to test Pun-Pun 2: Pun Harder to see if it exists at a table of unsuspecting innocents is a complete jerk move and should not be done to one's friends and loved ones.

Some circumstances are impossible to test with raw math alone. Math won't tell you how a class feels in play. It won't tell you what it feels like to gleefully shout, "I smite infidel!" (I used to take levels of divine champion, back in PrC, just to say this out loud) or how a race or feat feels when placed in a particular setting or paired with a particular backstory.

But the math can tell you what an ability or choice costs. It can tell you what it pays back for those costs. It can tell you how hard it is to meet those costs and how hard it is to use once you have it. It can tell you if a monster is over or under for its CR, if an item is too expensive for the level you want it to be acquired at, if a feat is too strong, if a class feature is too weak. You don't have to sit down for four hours with other people to confirm or deny that, you just have to maintain an awareness of the game around you. Since Paizo designed that game, I daresay we can expect them to do precisely that.

So, please, enlighten me as to your end. What precisely is useless about engaging in math?

Dekalinder wrote:

shroudb wrote:

the sad part, is that it's like they didn't even try to make a lebel-by-level build for themselves.

They don't do armchair theorycrafting, it's usless.

the thing is, it looks exactly like the only thing they did was that, theorycraft.

wildcard feats SOUND nice in THEORY. When you actually try to build a master of many styles utilizing them though, you suddenly find yourself unable to do so, since the rest of the style feat requirements are big enough that you actually need to spend a ton of your feats, skills, attributes, just so that you can pick them up, leaving the rest of your character weak.

that leaves only 1-2 styles open.

it is exactly the problem that one could pick up if he actually makes a lvl x build and plays it.

Pretty sure that was Dek's point, poking fun at the fact that Paizo Devs are infamous for saying "We don't value armchair theorycrafting", a statement that comes up a lot in playtest when people have pointed out issues that upon a first reading are immediately obvious. It's a shame, but I agree that it doesn't look like this was well tested (if at all), which really makes me wonder why changes like this come up without putting out a playtest for people to mess around with it, or even look at it first and give input.

@Prince of Knives: Yeah, pretty sure my statement above applies for you too, almost certain Dek was teasing about the phrase "armchair theorycrafting" being thrown around in playtest. It's used to dismiss a lot of very solid commentary, and it's almost always followed by "Play the class, and then we'll talk" to where they only listen to straight playtest data, as well as only responding to positive feedback and criticism given in a tone that they themselves like.

I don't. It's even more Chained than the original.

The title of the book is not Stuff Unchained! It's Pathfinder Unchained!, in other words the Summoner was not being liberated from Pathfinder, it was the other way around. The class had major issues with both the eidolon and it's spell list which made it considerably more powerful, and inserted needles game issues with summoner wands. With the eidolon given more solid grounding and spell access issues corrected, it remains a powerful class, just no longer an absurdly powerful one.

If outright ignoring prereqs is too much, why not offset some? The one that springs to mind:
"A master of many styles adds half his monk level to any skill ranks he possesses when meeting prerequisites for style feats or those requiring style feats as prerequisites"
Abilities like this still require some investment (Levels and skill points) while offsetting some of the cost.
If fighters had something like this to qualify for Int-based combat feats (Combat expertise, I'm looking at you) it would solve so many issues too.

@Prince of Knives: Yeah, pretty sure my statement above applies for you too, almost certain Dek was teasing about the phrase "armchair theorycrafting" being thrown around in playtest. It's used to dismiss a lot of very solid commentary, and it's almost always followed by "Play the class, and then we'll talk" to where they only listen to straight playtest data, as well as only responding to positive feedback and criticism given in a tone that they themselves like.

If I missed a joke, then I offer my sincerest apologies. I've heard the viewpoint in complete earnestness on these forums enough times that I kinda went into Education Mode.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Well, it did get worse for dipping...

I think you can stop at "it did get worse"...

I could but then it would meet no goals...

The dip to get level 11 feats needed the nerfbat. The rest of it did not.

They DID do a good job of making it look nice until you peek under the hood and drive it around a bit only to find out it's a lemon...

So either paizo is controlling its customers or they thought it was working and didn't test drive it enough.

No, the MoMS not nearly as good as a dip. You can't get a better dip than being able to take a feat restricted to 13th level at 3rd.

2nd if you were a human.

If outright ignoring prereqs is too much, why not offset some? The one that springs to mind:

"A master of many styles adds half his monk level to any skill ranks he possesses when meeting prerequisites for style feats or those requiring style feats as prerequisites"
Abilities like this still require some investment (Levels and skill points) while offsetting some of the cost.
If fighters had something like this to qualify for Int-based combat feats (Combat expertise, I'm looking at you) it would solve so many issues too.

It would have been fairly simple for them to slot the style feats into the original monk bonus feat set and call it good. 1, 6, and 10 with no prereques is fine for any of the styles.

I still think that wildcard completely ignoring isn't too much.

At monk lvl6 you get feats with requirements monk lvl 8, that's like... nothing.

I doubt anyone believes ranger is broken for picking specific feats as much as 4 lvl earlier.

Removed a post. Please don't make personal attacks.

I still think that wildcard completely ignoring isn't too much.

At monk lvl6 you get feats with requirements monk lvl 8, that's like... nothing.

I doubt anyone believes ranger is broken for picking specific feats as much as 4 lvl earlier.

I dont know all of the ranger options but they can get some feats as much as six levels earlier. small change but those add up to a big difference, in this case level 10 sees play, level 16 not so much...

shroudb wrote:

the sad part, is that it's like they didn't even try to make a lebel-by-level build for themselves.

They don't do armchair theorycrafting, it's usless.

Let's be clear here. They never said they don't do "armchair theorycrafting". They said they are significantly less interested in our theorycrafting as they can handle that in house. The value in the playtest for them is the large numbers of peoples' playtest data, which is much harder for them to gather in house as it takes significantly more time than theorycrafting.

Thanks Jolly.

Dekalinder wrote:

shroudb wrote:

the sad part, is that it's like they didn't even try to make a lebel-by-level build for themselves.

They don't do armchair theorycrafting, it's usless.

Let's be clear here. They never said they don't do "armchair theorycrafting". They said they are significantly less interested in our theorycrafting as they can handle that in house. The value in the playtest for them is the large numbers of peoples' playtest data, which is much harder for them to gather in house as it takes significantly more time than theorycrafting.

The problem being that while they theoretically CAN, in practice they actually DON'T, which is quite obvious in a great many cases over the years.

In other words what they're doing is theorycrafting the amount of theorycraft they might actually have t do, but the reality falls well short.

A thousand set of eyes sees more than the four designers. And frankly a lot of the players have a much deeper understanding of the game than the majority of said designers, and so they can understand how everything compares to the game as a whole much better.

Azten wrote:

I don't. It's even more Chained than the original.

The title of the book is not Stuff Unchained! It's Pathfinder Unchained!,

Actually, it's neither of those. It's just Pathfinder Unchained. Or, if you want to include the pre-title, it's Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained.

Sorry, what was this thread about? Errata or something? Maybe they will errata the title of Pathfinder Unchained? Nah, it would create too much confusion, forcing them to issue an FAQ on their errata.