FAQ on Errata

Saw a couple people commenting on the change to the terrain mastery rogue talent. I think its worth mentioning that the change effectively makes the terrain master talent from Ultimate Combat the same as the version found in Pathfinder Unchained, which was likely the intention.

Yes, it hurts horizon walker rogues, but it does promote internal synergy within the rules system.

Murgh. AM Horizon Walker is no longer a thing =(

The thing I find funny is that not only is crane wing changed, but the reason it needed to be changed is gone. The fact that the MoMS can no longer get fast access to things means that the abuse case is gone now that you have to wait all the levels to get the deflect.

The original version of Crane Wing was too strong even without MoMS. The ability to simply negate one hit when combined with a good AC meant that they could save such deflections for Crits and normal hits would just miss. And with lower AC they could simply avoid 1 attack a round. No roll, no save no nothing just auto deflect. This would be capstone ability rather than something acquired at level 5 (or two with MoMS).

Personally I am considering a Monk of Many Styles now, possibly dipping Brawler or Sacred Fist to grab Flurry back and then going something like Pummeling/Crane styles.

The original version of Deflect Arrows was too strong even without MoMS. The ability to simply negate one hit when combined with a good AC meant that they could save such deflections for Crits and normal hits would just miss. And with lower AC they could simply avoid 1 attack a round. No roll, no save no nothing just auto deflect. This would be capstone ability rather than something acquired at level 1, (or two).

The original version of Deflect Arrows was too strong even without MoMS. The ability to simply negate one hit when combined with a good AC meant that they could save such deflections for Crits and normal hits would just miss. And with lower AC they could simply avoid 1 attack a round. No roll, no save no nothing just auto deflect. This would be capstone ability rather than something acquired at level 1, (or two).

To be fair against your sarcastic comment, many enemies don't use projectile weaponry.

Though Crane Wing did get hit a bit hard.

Oncoming_Storm wrote:

The original version of Deflect Arrows was too strong even without MoMS. The ability to simply negate one hit when combined with a good AC meant that they could save such deflections for Crits and normal hits would just miss. And with lower AC they could simply avoid 1 attack a round. No roll, no save no nothing just auto deflect. This would be capstone ability rather than something acquired at level 1, (or two).

To be fair against your sarcastic comment, many enemies don't use projectile weaponry.

Though Crane Wing did get hit a bit hard.

Most enemies in the game fight in melee, making first iteration Crane Wing more valuable. That said, ranged attackers are more than capable of hitting far harder than melee.

The first update to Crane Wing really hurt it. Getting +2 AC against one person is okay, but only being able to deflect on total defense feels really bad, seeing as when you're total defense enemies can just ignore you and walk past you to your team.

We'll see how the newest version works. Losing 4 AC because someone almost hit you feels really odd. Its like an AC Mirror Image, but you only get one instead of 3+.

Okay, I am getting really tired of people blaming all this on PFS. I keep seeing these threads in the general and rules section about how these things are overpowered and wrecking people's home game.

And always the response is "well it is your home game, just ban them if you don't like them, or throw harder enemies at the party, or give the rest of the players bennies so they can keep up."

And then when the developers come back and say "Yeah, we goofed, it is too strong" everyone blames PFS.

At a home table the DM probably needs to make adjustments based on each player's relative level of optimization anyway. Since that always happens it's not too big a deal if they have to select a few things that are over the top and ban them. DMs are permitting these abilities enough that players are losing characters to changes, that means at many tables these abilities were considered balanced by the DM running the game. The person who can tailor balance changes for his group probably has a better idea of what's okay and what isn't than the designers of the broader game. If a DM thinks martial characters, small characters and multiclass dipping are really fun, then disincentivizing that type of play is Pathfinder moving away from providing a game and toward trying to run the game.

Errata that changes the function of an option makes book keeping and balancing more challenging since you're hitting a moving target. DMs need to keep up with changes and share those changes with their players as well as review anything they've banned previously to see if it needs to come off the shelf again.

Errata providing rules clarifications and correcting editing errors doesn't have this effect. A purely additive design also doesn't have this effect. If an option gets banned at a table, introduce a more balanced version, but there's no reason to remove the old one. At least one of the changes is so large that the only similarity between the new and old is the name. That's confusing.

These complete function changes are just for PFS, they make individual games harder to run for the benefit of PFS games being easier to run. The complaint isn't just some random gripe or blame shifting.

Errata that would really benefit players would involve consolidating rules rather than scattering them to the wind, and clearly defining loosely defined terms. I don't want to look in five places to figure out the flying rules anymore than I want to look in five places to find out which version of crane wing is current.

***

We'll see how the newest version works. Losing 4 AC because someone almost hit you feels really odd. Its like an AC Mirror Image, but you only get one instead of 3+.

It makes sense, mechanically. There's no meta components to it, it's reasonably well balanced, and you can't accidentally waste it on an attack that wouldn't have hit anyways. It's basically just setting up your deflection preemptively; an attack missing you by 4 or less and the bonus going away is functionally the same as you actively declaring the deflection attempt, but without the high likelihood of wasting it or need for the GM to share out of character information that made their first revision such a mess and led so many people to call the feats worthless.

you realize that the AC going away is the same as saying if the first opponent hit you by 4 or less then you can turn that hit to a miss by deflecting the attack. And it's doing the exact same thing as what they have now? It's just turning a near hit into a miss once. since the higher AC never actually benefits you more than this.

you realize that the AC going away is the same as saying if the first opponent hit you by 4 or less then you can turn that hit to a miss by deflecting the attack. And it's doing the exact same thing as what they have now? It's just turning a near hit into a miss once. since the higher AC never actually benefits you more than this.

On the power scale the first iteration is clearly the strongest, no doubt. The second iteration is...just not great, all around. This third version is clearly better than the second one, I'd just rather play with it to see how much I feel like it helps.

I don't mean to seem like I'm complaining about the change. My MoMS, who I have complained about, was even considering only taking Crane Style for a small boost and then skipping the rest of the chain in favor of tools to help make up for the detriment to hit off fighting defensively. This new version is much more appealing.

Ehhhh, I'd wager most folks have banned the original summoner but most especially the master summoner.

For all my love of the APG summoner, I've seen better acceptance of the master summoner than the synthesist. Go figure.

Scythia wrote:

Just a Guess wrote:

Azten wrote:

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

It's banned on most tables so it is not only chained but caged.

Most might be too strong a word. Stick with some.

Ehhhh, I'd wager most folks have banned the original summoner but most especially the master summoner.

I'd wager that outside the forum, many people have different game experiences. In fact, I'd wager that some even found Summoner classic to be underwhelming.

Master Summoner does seem like a pain though, have to agree with that. :P

I really detest all these changes.

It's literally stealing toys from kids. That leaves no one feeling good. I've yet to see a single person happy about any of these changes.

I am very happy with

-Master of many styles no longer handing out level 11 feats for a 1 level dip.

-Double barreled weapons being.. not quite as crazy. Still crazy though.

- The oracle not being able to pump their critter QUITE so far past the druid.

I am not happy with: the 1/4 to 1/6th adjustment on a lot of the racial bonuses. Out of everything in the game to fix why on earth did that come up...

Scavion wrote:

Ehhhh, I'd wager most folks have banned the original summoner but most especially the master summoner.

For all my love of the APG summoner, I've seen better acceptance of the master summoner than the synthesist. Go figure.

The master summoner wrecks the table via summoning things which.. well. Summoner.

The synthesist wrecks the table via... being a better fighter than the fighter. Which doesn't sit well with the fighter.

Buri Reborn wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Ehhhh, I'd wager most folks have banned the original summoner but most especially the master summoner.

For all my love of the APG summoner, I've seen better acceptance of the master summoner than the synthesist. Go figure.

The master summoner wrecks the table via summoning things which.. well. Summoner.

The synthesist wrecks the table via... being a better fighter than the fighter. Which doesn't sit well with the fighter.

There are a lot of beatsticks that are better than the fighter, holding it on the synthesist is unfair

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Buri Reborn wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Ehhhh, I'd wager most folks have banned the original summoner but most especially the master summoner.

For all my love of the APG summoner, I've seen better acceptance of the master summoner than the synthesist. Go figure.

The master summoner wrecks the table via summoning things which.. well. Summoner.

The synthesist wrecks the table via... being a better fighter than the fighter. Which doesn't sit well with the fighter.

There are a lot of beatsticks that are better than the fighter, holding it on the synthesist is unfair

The barbarian doing it is one thing a pre optimized conjuration specialist is quite another.

The barbarian doing it is one thing a pre optimized conjuration specialist is quite another.

Bloodrager, Paladin, Warpriest, Magus, Slayer, Ranger, Druid...

Bloodrager needs a nerf.

For instance the sheer blowback on Crane Style and Scarred Witch Doctor looked to me that the issues seen in those options were much more of a PFS issue.

Scarred Witch Doctor was never PFS legal.

Bloodrager needs a nerf.

Nah, Arcane bloodline is all that's really "OP" about it, being far and away the best bloodline. The rest of the bloodrager is functionally a more killable Barbarian, lower HP, more MAD, no sweet rage powers without the Primalist archetype, etc...

FLite wrote:

Okay, I am getting really tired of people blaming all this on PFS. I keep seeing these threads in the general and rules section about how these things are overpowered and wrecking people's home game.

And always the response is "well it is your home game, just ban them if you don't like them, or throw harder enemies at the party, or give the rest of the players bennies so they can keep up."

And then when the developers come back and say "Yeah, we goofed, it is too strong" everyone blames PFS.

Have you seen any thread complaining about abundant ammunition or lack of missfire? I don't remember anyone saying "I wish my +5 musket would blow up a bit more often, it's too boring like this!".

Sure. It usually goes like this: (paraphrased liberally.)

Gunslingers are way too powerful! This one did X damage in one round, touch.

Yeah, but they have to pay a lot more for their ammo than anyone else.

No they don't, it's pretty easy to get access to this first level spell that makes their ammo effectively free.

Yeah, but if they go full nova they have to worry about their gun breaking.

No, it's pretty low odds, and once they get to level 13, they can just ignore it.

(By the way, your +5 musket doesn't blow up, it is just wrecked and can be fixed by a very cheap Make Whole spell.)

Basically, a lot of the complaints about gunslingers is that a lot of the things that are supposed to be balancing factors, are in fact, not.

Dekalinder wrote:

FLite wrote:

Okay, I am getting really tired of people blaming all this on PFS. I keep seeing these threads in the general and rules section about how these things are overpowered and wrecking people's home game.

And always the response is "well it is your home game, just ban them if you don't like them, or throw harder enemies at the party, or give the rest of the players bennies so they can keep up."

And then when the developers come back and say "Yeah, we goofed, it is too strong" everyone blames PFS.

Have you seen any thread complaining about abundant ammunition or lack of missfire? I don't remember anyone saying "I wish my +5 musket would blow up a bit more often, it's too boring like this!".

Sure. It usually goes like this: (paraphrased liberally.)

Gunslingers are way too powerful! This one did X damage in one round, touch.

Yeah, but they have to pay a lot more for their ammo than anyone else.

No they don't, it's pretty easy to get access to this first level spell that makes their ammo effectively free.

Yeah, but if they go full nova they have to worry about their gun breaking.

No, it's pretty low odds, and once they get to level 13, they can just ignore it.

(By the way, your +5 musket doesn't blow up, it is just wrecked and can be fixed by a very cheap Make Whole spell.)

Basically, a lot of the complaints about gunslingers is that a lot of the things that are supposed to be balancing factors, are in fact, not.

Meanwhile, over at "Anyone with a bow".

It's a made up problem.

Robert Jordan wrote:

For instance the sheer blowback on Crane Style and Scarred Witch Doctor looked to me that the issues seen in those options were much more of a PFS issue.

Scarred Witch Doctor was never PFS legal.

My mistake I just assumed it had been a PFS option. I made an assumption that there weren't that many Orcs rolling around as PCs in that many games to make it an issue. Though technically a Half Orc qualifies since they count as an Orc.

FLite wrote:

Dekalinder wrote:

FLite wrote:

Okay, I am getting really tired of people blaming all this on PFS. I keep seeing these threads in the general and rules section about how these things are overpowered and wrecking people's home game.

And always the response is "well it is your home game, just ban them if you don't like them, or throw harder enemies at the party, or give the rest of the players bennies so they can keep up."

And then when the developers come back and say "Yeah, we goofed, it is too strong" everyone blames PFS.

Have you seen any thread complaining about abundant ammunition or lack of missfire? I don't remember anyone saying "I wish my +5 musket would blow up a bit more often, it's too boring like this!".

Sure. It usually goes like this: (paraphrased liberally.)

Gunslingers are way too powerful! This one did X damage in one round, touch.

Yeah, but they have to pay a lot more for their ammo than anyone else.

No they don't, it's pretty easy to get access to this first level spell that makes their ammo effectively free.

Yeah, but if they go full nova they have to worry about their gun breaking.

No, it's pretty low odds, and once they get to level 13, they can just ignore it.

(By the way, your +5 musket doesn't blow up, it is just wrecked and can be fixed by a very cheap Make Whole spell.)

Basically, a lot of the complaints about gunslingers is that a lot of the things that are supposed to be balancing factors, are in fact, not.

Meanwhile, over at "Anyone with a bow".

It's a made up problem.

Bows don't hit on touch. Guns do. That is supposed to be balanced by misfire and ammo cost. But it wasn't.

For bows and guns, alchemical and special materials ammo is supposed to be more effective. That is supposed to be balanced by it's cost. And it wasn't. Now it is again.

For the record, I love gunslingers. I will soon be starting my Mysterious Stranger / piccaroon / shield marshal. (Though admittedly I am starting him at level 4, because I really don't want to play though 3 levels without quick clear!)

He was (and still will be) using a double barreled pistol as his main weapon.

I still think these were needed re-balancings.

I admit, I had been jumping though hoops trying to find him someway to get abundant ammo, because it was so good it was worth major sacrifices to get. Now it is just another level 1 spell, and I may or may not get it, and it won't be a big deal.

All in all I'm unhappy with the errata, but at this point I'm apathetic. Some of the changes seem much needed(looking at you litany of righteousness) and other less so. I guess I like it more than the last one since I have nerfs I actually like this time. None of these changes make me want to buy a new hard copy though, nor encourage me to in the future.

(By the way, your +5 musket doesn't blow up, it is just wrecked and can be fixed by a very cheap Make Whole spell.)

That is incorrect. Fixing Magical weapons are next to impossible honestly. Oh, you have a +3 sword/gun? That's at least a a CL of 9(it's 3 times the enchantment) and you needed at least 2 times that CL to fix it(18 in this case). So yeah... breaking/destroying your gun is a big deal.

Not saying guns didn't need a nerf though, but you are wrong on this.

Edit: They do get the gunsmith feat though, which lets them repair it when broken, but a proper make whole doesn't work on it very well if damaged or destroyed.

All in all I'm unhappy with the errata, but at this point I'm apathetic. Some of the changes seem much needed(looking at you litany of righteousness) and other less so. I guess I like it more than the last one since I have nerfs I actually like this time. None of these changes make me want to buy a new hard copy though, nor encourage me to in the future.

FLite wrote:

(By the way, your +5 musket doesn't blow up, it is just wrecked and can be fixed by a very cheap Make Whole spell.)

That is incorrect. Fixing Magical weapons are next to impossible honestly. Oh, you have a +3 sword/gun? That's at least a a CL of 9(it's 3 times the enchantment) and you needed at least 2 times that CL to fix it(18 in this case). So yeah... breaking/destroying your gun is a big deal.

Not saying guns didn't need a nerf though, but you are wrong on this.

Edit: They do get the gunsmith feat though, which lets them repair it when broken, but a proper make whole doesn't work on it very well if damaged or destroyed.

Please scroll to the bottom of this page. ^_^

Scavion wrote:

Ehhhh, I'd wager most folks have banned the original summoner but most especially the master summoner.

For all my love of the APG summoner, I've seen better acceptance of the master summoner than the synthesist. Go figure.

That's because the synth is more directly stepping on martial's toes. The Synth is just a better fighter with spells on top that can, under some circumstances loose his fighting abilities for a short time but can very well spend that time casting.

Bloodrager needs a nerf.

Not it is just a good target for where the other martials should be at.

Sorry if it's already come up, but does anyone know when the pdfs are supposed to be updated with the errata?

I just re-downloaded the ACG and it hasn't been updated yet.

I know it's a big job, I'm just asking. All the changes have already made my hardcopy unreliable, it'd be nice to be able to trust the pdf.

The PDFs get updated once the first printing is sold out and the second printing goes on sale. Usually, that's concurrent with the errata release, but due to the large number of problems with the ACG, they undertook to release the errata early this time.

I don't think anything else has changed in the schedule. The PDF will be updated once the second printing goes on sale (which will be announced via a blog, this time around).

Darth Grall wrote:

All in all I'm unhappy with the errata, but at this point I'm apathetic. Some of the changes seem much needed(looking at you litany of righteousness) and other less so. I guess I like it more than the last one since I have nerfs I actually like this time. None of these changes make me want to buy a new hard copy though, nor encourage me to in the future.

FLite wrote:

(By the way, your +5 musket doesn't blow up, it is just wrecked and can be fixed by a very cheap Make Whole spell.)

That is incorrect. Fixing Magical weapons are next to impossible honestly. Oh, you have a +3 sword/gun? That's at least a a CL of 9(it's 3 times the enchantment) and you needed at least 2 times that CL to fix it(18 in this case). So yeah... breaking/destroying your gun is a big deal.

Not saying guns didn't need a nerf though, but you are wrong on this.

Edit: They do get the gunsmith feat though, which lets them repair it when broken, but a proper make whole doesn't work on it very well if damaged or destroyed.

Please scroll to the bottom of this page. ^_^

Wow. On the subject of Errata, that is one spell that certainly fixes a big problem with broken magical items over all that's been a problem for years. I'll have to keep that in mind for the future, though I wish they hadn't squirreled it away in a book better known for it's wacky items. Still, thanks though.

Kalindlara wrote:

Darth Grall wrote:

All in all I'm unhappy with the errata, but at this point I'm apathetic. Some of the changes seem much needed(looking at you litany of righteousness) and other less so. I guess I like it more than the last one since I have nerfs I actually like this time. None of these changes make me want to buy a new hard copy though, nor encourage me to in the future.

FLite wrote:

(By the way, your +5 musket doesn't blow up, it is just wrecked and can be fixed by a very cheap Make Whole spell.)

That is incorrect. Fixing Magical weapons are next to impossible honestly. Oh, you have a +3 sword/gun? That's at least a a CL of 9(it's 3 times the enchantment) and you needed at least 2 times that CL to fix it(18 in this case). So yeah... breaking/destroying your gun is a big deal.

Not saying guns didn't need a nerf though, but you are wrong on this.

Edit: They do get the gunsmith feat though, which lets them repair it when broken, but a proper make whole doesn't work on it very well if damaged or destroyed.

Please scroll to the bottom of this page. ^_^

Wow. On the subject of Errata, that is one spell that certainly fixes a big problem with broken magical items over all that's been a problem for years. I'll have to keep that in mind for the future, though I wish they hadn't squirreled it away in a book better known for it's wacky items. Still, thanks though.

No problem!

(For the record, I'm with you on the choice of source.)

Why the Improved Snap Shot nerf, though? Was it genuinely overpowered? Something that gives archers a benefit for entering melee should probably give a pretty solid benefit. Also, an archer ranger/slayer won't be getting it until level 11 or so (scroll down to the Feat Outline table), at which point a lot of enemies will have 15 foot reach too.

Requiring archers to get within a 5-foot step of a full-attack from anyone in order to make AoOs against them makes Snap Shot and friends almost useless.

There´s many people arguing that archers are already strong and should not get better things than people with reach weapons.
Also some think it shuts down the game in some aspects, because it is too strong.
The whip mastery nerf falls into the same boat.
Also snap shot is for gunslingers too.

But i´m gonna say: Enlarged Bloodrager with reach weapon.
-Has reach
-Can enlarge themselves, more reach.
-Maybe even more reach due to bloodline.
-Add rage on top.
-Can do maneuvers better than archers, but most only want to SMASH!

Totally not game breaking or strong.

Jester David wrote:

Option creep = power creep

I disagree completely.

It's pretty simple.

So, given any two options, one will always be better, even if only situationally or in combination with another option. But it will be the better choice. And, given 100 choices, the best option will be significantly better than the worst.

The more options you add to the game - assuming they're not deliberately underpowered - means characters will have the option for more power just through slight increases, choosing the option that better fits their character, synergies, and the like.

Synergy is the big one.
For example, a magic item that increase a skill is not broken. It can be very well balanced with the game. Ditto a feat that increases that skill, a trait, a class, an archetype, a trait, and more. All individually balanced. But when you combine them you have a broken character.
I have a player whose face character could get a 70 in a bluff check. At level 6.

There are a lot of gamebreaking things down the line (basically all the 9-level spellcasters and someone else) that are much "worse" but yeah, let's all gang on the allegedly OP beatstick

There´s many people arguing that archers are already strong and should not get better things than people with reach weapons.

Also some think it shuts down the game in some aspects, because it is too strong.
The whip mastery nerf falls into the same boat.
Also snap shot is for gunslingers too.

But i´m gonna say: Enlarged Bloodrager with reach weapon.
-Has reach
-Can enlarge themselves, more reach.
-Maybe even more reach due to bloodline.
-Add rage on top.
-Can do maneuvers better than archers, but most only want to SMASH!

Totally not game breaking or strong.

Doesn't take much to get a Medium with 30 foot reach either.

There´s many people arguing that archers are already strong and should not get better things than people with reach weapons.

Also some think it shuts down the game in some aspects, because it is too strong.
The whip mastery nerf falls into the same boat.
Also snap shot is for gunslingers too.

The enlarged person with a pole arm SHOULD be covering the battlefield with a very large pole arm: its what they do. Its probably all they do besides whack something once. The enlarge part really stretches your action economy, usually requiring the round to drink a potion.

The archer/gunslinger is pumping out arrows like a machine gun on their turn AND has a better pole arm than the pole arm.

Biying the best car around and getting the best car is fine. Having it have a jet mode is ok, but when you buy the best car and it turns into the best jet.... something has gone wrong.

The original version of Crane Wing was too strong even without MoMS. The ability to simply negate one hit when combined with a good AC meant that they could save such deflections for Crits and normal hits would just miss. And with lower AC they could simply avoid 1 attack a round. No roll, no save no nothing just auto deflect. This would be capstone ability rather than something acquired at level 5 (or two with MoMS).

One attack is nothing so long as you aren't facing an AP's "I attack once" NPC (and there's the problem).

When you're negating one hit out of 5+ from a very angry berserker, dragon, or pack of anythings surrounding you (like say, six summons), it's 'nice' to have, but it probably won't save your life.

One attack in 5+ depends on your AC, the higher your AC the better Crane Wing was in such situations.

Crane Wing works versus touch spells, so it wasn't just that one big attack it was that caster with slay living charged or harm that made a big difference as well. Deflect Arrows specifically called out that it didn't work versus rays, Crane Wing did not have that language.

AC is one of those characteristics that once you get into the high numbers each additional number would mean a significant change. The difference for example between being hit on a 19 - 20 vs. just a 20 may seem to be a 5% chance but adding that last point cuts your incoming damage in half!. If you add a feat on top of it that's base style increases your AC (Crane Style) then add a feat that mitigates that nat 20 roll (deflecting it) then you may have characters that are very difficult to kill, especially when combined with a monk's saving throws and high touch AC.

stuff

Let´s see:-enlarge person

What else is needed there?
If they´re not doing combat patrol, they can still full attack too with 1 round buffing that can be done by bloodragers themselves. Pretty often even before battle.
Also they can have effects ride on that like maneuvers (trip) and stand still, disruptive, etc. Ranged maneuvers are full round actions.

An archer is more vulnerable and needs to invest more feats.
Damage is comparable if you ask me, without clustered shots and with the nerf of abundant ammunition you see a double nerf there actually.
Not talking of classes that get DEX to ranged damage...
Polearms got a buff with the phalanx formation feat, that does away with cover from allies.

You talking about Transformers there?

ErichAD wrote:

Jester David wrote:

Option creep = power creep

I disagree completely.

It's pretty simple.

First, perfect balance is impossible. You can see that with rock-paper-scissors, where there are three options and three outcomes: tie, win, and lose. It should be balanced. However, the same individuals have won RPS tournaments statistically improbable numbers of times. Because the game does not exist in a vacuum.
And Pathfinder is incredibly more complex than RPS.

So, given any two options, one will always be better, even if only situationally or in combination with another option. But it will be the better choice. And, given 100 choices, the best option will be significantly better than the worst.

The more options you add to the game - assuming they're not deliberately underpowered - means characters will have the option for more power just through slight increases, choosing the option that better fits their character, synergies, and the like.

Synergy is the big one.
For example, a magic item that increase a skill is not broken. It can be very well balanced with the game. Ditto a feat that increases that skill, a trait, a class, an archetype, a trait, and more. All individually balanced. But when you combine them you have a broken character.
I have a player whose face character could get a 70 in a bluff check. At level 6.

Introducing more options gives players more things to do, and also gives the DM more things to allow at his table. As an example, If there is only one way to play a martial control character, and that one option is too powerful compared to other characters of the same level, the DM needs to chose from: permitting the over powered version, tweeking it personally and hoping he gets it right, or banning that play style. If instead there are a dozen variations of that play style, then the DM has a wide variety of options to present to the character who wanted to play the martial battle field controller.

Further, as more abilities provide more options for combining abilities, the overall power increases, but the actual power cap isn't going to move too much based solely on an increase in options. Players who play at the cap aren't going to gain much from the options, but those who play at the middle or the bottom will be able to find more routes and likely find a way to be CR appropriate while satisfying their idea of a good character.

You're belief that 100 choices provides a wider variation between power levels doesn't seem to make sense. If there were only two choices that would be the entire field, the good choice and the bad choice. 100 choices provides more points along the way, likely clustering around the middle as things tend to do.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

stuff

Let´s see:-enlarge person

-combat reflexes
-a polearm

What else is needed there?

Some way of being enlarged, quickly, every fight, or it eats into your increasingly important as you level action economy.

A lot of hit points, because you'll still get hit.
Good strength for the weapon

Good str to do damage, dex for all the AoOs (you lose 1 when you enlarge) , con to take the hits and make the fort save from things that make it rhough, int for the combat expertise feat tax (rogue elven branched spear fighter can't quite DUMP strength but can lower it a fair bit)

Phalanx fighter, because friends always get in the way.

Combat expertise and improved trip feat taxes. (as opposed to everything in the snap shot chain, which is awesome enough to take on its own)

a way of dealing damage in range, like a bite of a dwarven boulder helmet

ways to fly , because sometimes opponents are 50 feet up.

Has less ways to deal subdual damage, deal with invisibility, or break out just the right arrow from the golfbag full of arrows to deal with damage reduction/hardness.

Also they can have effects ride on that like maneuvers (trip) and stand still, disruptive, etc. Ranged maneuvers are full round actions.

Stand still only works against an adjacent opponent so its neigh useless for a pole arm fighter. (or anyone really...)

An archer is more vulnerable

They're supposed to be.

You talking about Transformers there?

I'm talking about narrative roles and jobs. Guy with a pole arm is supposed to be the meat shield. Him being a pointy wall of death makes the mechanics fit his role. The archer is supposed to kill stuff way over there, not kill stuff way over there faster than anyone else AND be a better pointy wall of death than the pointy wall of death.

The thing I find funny is that not only is crane wing changed, but the reason it needed to be changed is gone. The fact that the MoMS can no longer get fast access to things means that the abuse case is gone now that you have to wait all the levels to get the deflect.

Seriously, can we just get it back to the way it was originally written? Now that the early-access is gone all the issues with it are cleared.

The original version of Deflect Arrows was too strong even without MoMS. The ability to simply negate one hit when combined with a good AC meant that they could save such deflections for Crits and normal hits would just miss. And with lower AC they could simply avoid 1 attack a round. No roll, no save no nothing just auto deflect. This would be capstone ability rather than something acquired at level 1, (or two).

PS: wildcard feats should be able to skip style-path prereqs since you don't even get your first until 6th level.

You're belief that 100 choices provides a wider variation between power levels doesn't seem to make sense. If there were only two choices that would be the entire field, the good choice and the bad choice. 100 choices provides more points along the way, likely clustering around the middle as things tend to do.

In 100 choices there will certainly be a range. Some will be better, some will be worse. But you dramatically increase the chances one will be better for any given character.

And there's even a chance for 2-3 feats that are all good and work together really well to make something even more powerful. Which means there's far less need to take a dud. If you have only a few good options, you eventually need to take an option that is just okay. The archetype that doesn't trade out the class feature you won't use, the feat that is decent but not amazing, etc. With more options, you trade out the neutral choices for ones that work for your build.
The zen archer monk is decent by itself, and the qinggong monk is also good, but when you can combine them you get something even stronger than either archetype is individually.

Again, it's just not about one option being independently more powerful (which does happen) but options being better together. But, really, the more options you make the better chance of making a mistake and making something too powerful. Or just at the edge of being nerf-worthy.

It's a little like RPG Starstar voting really. If you vote on 10 items, chances are they're all going to be so-so. But if you vote on 100 there's a much better chance of there being a gem.

That kind of option creep in Pathfinder is a feature and not a bug, in my opinion. The incredible multiplicity of options in PF are probably the main thing that keeps me from switching to 5e.

an easy solution would be something like this:

wildcard feats bypass requirements EXCEPT Bab or monk level requirement
- this option would mean that you are still gated and not allowed early access, but at least you have that access to all style path feats that your level qualifies for

or you could do something like this:
MoMS counts his level as skill ranks and his WIS as any stat he wishes for style path feat requirements for wildcard feats
-that option would mean you would still need to feat requirements, but at least you can bypass having every single skill in the game and every single stat required to fuel your styles

or (my own secret wish to make style more open to more people:)
rewrite style feat requirements in general, removing feat and skill taxes
-it is cool to have sense motive for snake style, since it fuels it, it is ridiculous to require a heal skill rank requirement, or a mobility/dodge feat tax, or etc, "just because it sounds cool to require it"

as it is written now, MoMS is IMPOSSIBLE to build capitalizing on his FALSE "versatility" since the style feat requirements are so diverse, that if you want p.e. to run 5 styles (which you should, EASILY, since that is like your thing and your capstone) then you need every single skill, stat, feat, planned out and locked out.

simply put, MoMS changes:
VERY NICE CONCEPT, REALLY POOR EXECUTION

it needs an ASAP fix to alleviate wildcard feat requirements concerning skill rank requirements, ability stat requirements, and probably feat requirements.

or else it will be another "never used archetype" and the concept is too cool to fall down to that

I am inclined to agree that wildcard feats should not require prerequisites.

ErichAD wrote:

You're belief that 100 choices provides a wider variation between power levels doesn't seem to make sense. If there were only two choices that would be the entire field, the good choice and the bad choice. 100 choices provides more points along the way, likely clustering around the middle as things tend to do.

In 100 choices there will certainly be a range. Some will be better, some will be worse. But you dramatically increase the chances one will be better for any given character.

When a character has to choose between 10 feats that are roughly the same in power, the chances one will synergize well with their build is low and they have to settle for a "good enough" feat. When you have 100 feats, the chances for a feat being just right is much higher.

And there's even a chance for 2-3 feats that are all good and work together really well to make something even more powerful. Which means there's far less need to take a dud. If you have only a few good options, you eventually need to take an option that is just okay. The archetype that doesn't trade out the class feature you won't use, the feat that is decent but not amazing, etc. With more options, you trade out the neutral choices for ones that work for your build.
The zen archer monk is decent by itself, and the qinggong monk is also good, but when you can combine them you get something even stronger than either archetype is individually.

Again, it's just not about one option being independently more powerful (which does happen) but options being better together. But, really, the more options you make the better chance of making a mistake and making something too powerful. Or just at the edge of being nerf-worthy.

It's a little like RPG Starstar voting really. If you vote on 10 items, chances are they're all going to be so-so. But if you vote on 100 there's a much better chance of there being a gem.

You are still looking at individual choices and not the game as a whole. You are also ignoring the increase in tools the DM has if given more options to pick from in what he allows in his game. You are also ignoring that more options shifts the power of the middle players more than the top players. Yes, some things synergize really well, and finding those connections is a fun part of the game that can yield interesting results. The player gets something new and the DM gets some new things to adjust as he sees fit. The only real burden is the increased reading requirement if someone wants to optimize more seriously.

I understand your concerns, but the game can't be improved by focusing on individual player power and attempting to balance games sight unseen. They can't make rules to force people to build balanced characters without canning junk feats and making other feats preselected as well as breaking bridging feats so that builds are more predictable. That sounds more like a video game than a table top game and I prefer the two to play to their separate strengths.