turkishproverb's page

13 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS


TOZ wrote:

This again?

Jason decided he didn't like it. So he banned it.

That's all the logic there is.

Yea, I'm beginning to expect as much, given the "it's the numbers, I swear!" explanation. No good reason, just that he didn't want them to be able to do that.


Chris Mortika wrote:

(deep sigh)

It seems that Pathfinder is a game where in-game consistency takes a back seat to "crunching the numbers." This is disappointing.

Here's another example: remember, back in August, the questions about synthesists and whether their eidolons could be affected by spells such as enlarge person? Ever since the Summoner had been published, PCs had been casting enlarge person on their eidolons, through the Share Spells ability.

Then, in August, the design team (a) announced that Share Spells requires that the spell have a range of Self, rather than being able to have the caster himself as a valid target. And then, (b) a couple of weeks later, the designers realized that the ruling affected all summoners, not just synthesists, and reversed that call.

Now, I think (b) was the right move. But I could see (a), if that had been the vision behind Share Spells. What disappoints me is the rationales used, which didn't seem interested in the actual wording of the ability. The designers made the first ruling to restrict the power of synthesists. They made the second call because they didn't want to reduce the power of all summoners.

This style of ruling damages any sense of mastery over the game system a player / GM might have. If the game rulings were being made on the basis of in-world consistency, we could understand the underlying concepts and apply them to new circumstances. But if, as is the case here, a general principle (monks' unarmed attacks are treated as natural weapons) is being undermined by Jason's number crunching, then we can't foresee how a rules question ought to go, since we don't have access to the same data as the designers.

But the numbers don't make sense even then. His damage still isn't ludicrous, or even really noticeable, in comparison to other classes, and the idea he's about mobility makes no sense given "Stand still flurry" as an ability. All they seem to have succeeded in doing is nerfing another class while the above mentioned Errata made a spell type stay strong rather than weaken it.

Talonhawke wrote:
Yeah its similiar to how monks have to pay 2.5x the gold to enchant there weapons up to only half what everyone else gets simply because they can't be disarmed/sundered and are closer to natural weapons yet we can't treat them as bigger through a feat thats for natural weapons.

Really? 2.5 times? Huh. How'd I miss that.

2.5 times.

For disarming, something that is fairly rare mechanically and even then the lack of as a problem being only a minor benefit for a weaker class?

Yea, that's just inane. Man, I'm amazed I've seen any monk players in Pathfinder games in my area now.

...

Explains why so many of them switched to other classes, in retrospect.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Logic? THIS IS INTERNET!

Actually it all comes down to the numbers -- Paizo staff crunched them and didn't like where they ended up if this was allowed and disallowed it.

No I don't like it either -- but then I'm not paid to like it so I simply run it differently in my games.

..

What kinda crappy dollar store calculator did they use? I can't find numbers that could make the monk even with this noticeable in comparison to other classes.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Quote:

Q: Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage?

A: (James Jacobs/Jason Bulmahn 11/4/09) Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this - the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes. "Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule. So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.

[Source]

James Jacobs wrote:

HA!

And I'm flip flopping AGAIN!

Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:

"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."

Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.

So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.

Can someone please explain the twisted logic that went into this decision?

I mean, I can understand, agreement or not, the idea of giving a buff to wizards (Free metamagic) when as were in 3.5 form they were enough to destroy most pathfinder classes left and right. I might not agree, but I can understand. If nothing else, they needed to motivate wizard players to change over with everyone else.

But actively nerfing something that was legal in 3.5 and even Paizo's own Adventures?

On a class that isn't exactly power incarnate even with the new toys it's gotten?

I really don't get it. I'm trying. I'm not obsessed with "balance" like the 4e nuts, but I really don't see the logic behind this. It wasn't overpowered, it made sense fluffwise, and it made relative sense according to the rules.

I mean, yes, there are theoretical problems (none of them broken powerful) with giving it to everyone of any class as an option, but Monks were specifically exempted for a REASON. I can't see the reason for banning them from having it in pathfinder.

So please, will someone explain?


Reckless wrote:

Here's a thought for goblin shirts: A series of shirts based off the condition cards... could have the Goblin picture and quote on front and the condition(s) listed and described on back. Who wouldn't want a "fascinated" goblin shirt? Oooo shiny!

I would buy like TEN of these!

...

alright. One or two.


Hmmm... I really do need to find my singles. So many minis I don't use...


Shadow_of_death wrote:
turkishproverb wrote:


Yes there are things a character will know a player won't, but that doesn't mean they should be able to violate basic conceptual logic, without the universe working different in that area.

For example: how does "disable device" serve to disable a net, dirt, adn leaves over a hole style pit trap? There's not even a trapdoor to jam shut. Sure, you can IDENTIFY it, but short of boarding it up or filling it in, it's not getting DISABLED.

Disable device should NOT be universal, because sometimes there isn't a "Device" in the traditional sense.

I re-knot the net so it is walkable if you dont rush it. It is universal because your supposed to be soooooo clever with traps that no solution escapes you. This is all the rogue has going for it, don't take that away

1. That's use rope, not disable device.

Good try though.
2. Pit traps the way I described them can be made without typing the net to anything to hold it up. You can't fix them that way.


wraithstrike wrote:
turkishproverb wrote:

I think part of the reason trap-finding is so hated is anyone can do it with another check. It makes it less "Exclusive" than it used to be, even if your class is better.

To say nothing of the changes to traps in 3.0/3.5 that made it so traps and finding them was just a die-roll tax (Roll to find it, roll to disable, every trap) It used to be you had to figure out how to circumvent a trap once found. Personally, I like that method, at least in the part, because there are plenty of traps that shouldn't be "Disable device" fodder.

I do think there are things a character will know that the player won't, and it stops a really resource GM from killing the party by putting the trigger for a trap in a huge place. I think any trap should be able to be disabled. Each DM just has to be able to come up with acceptable fluff for it.

Yes there are things a character will know a player won't, but that doesn't mean they should be able to violate basic conceptual logic, without the universe working different in that area.

For example: how does "disable device" serve to disable a net, dirt, adn leaves over a hole style pit trap? There's not even a trapdoor to jam shut. Sure, you can IDENTIFY it, but short of boarding it up or filling it in, it's not getting DISABLED.

Disable device should NOT be universal, because sometimes there isn't a "Device" in the traditional sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Woodford wrote:
GaryCon 2011 is the last weekend in March (3/25/2011-3/27/2011).

Huh. You know I'd never heard of this. I now have a faint urge to start a rival called ArneCon


Dorje Sylas wrote:
Go back to the way out of print Adventure Paths, collect up all the odd-ball rules, polish them, and sell them in a big book :D.

Heck, they could sell adventure paths in one volume editions.


I think part of the reason trap-finding is so hated is anyone can do it with another check. It makes it less "Exclusive" than it used to be, even if your class is better.

To say nothing of the changes to traps in 3.0/3.5 that made it so traps and finding them was just a die-roll tax (Roll to find it, roll to disable, every trap) It used to be you had to figure out how to circumvent a trap once found. Personally, I like that method, at least in the part, because there are plenty of traps that shouldn't be "Disable device" fodder.


I got to play this game at a convention a few months back, (Since then I've played a few times with a friend's old pre-Sinking Ship version) and it made me want to purchase my own copy. Unfortunately the con had the previous Titanic version, and I find I can't convince myself to get this one.

The standee's aren't attractive to me, but in principle at least I could understand the concept, and an attempt was made to make them attractive. However, it is the switching of the spite tokens to little paper/cardboard chits lowers the value enough to me that, in conjunction with the aforementioned...let's be nice and say "side-graded" player pieces, make it hard to see the game as worthwhile physically. While the pawn's replacement held a shred of interesting presence in the new parts, I couldn't really see anything of value in the "new" spite tokens.

I'm glad I read these comments though, as I do sympathize with you on the new US "Prove there's no lead" issue. I'm curious how a few other board game companies I've gotten products from have gotten around it. It certainly explains the switch away from the classic feeling wooden pieces in the previous copies.

Still, while this understanding sways me a bit I have no desire to buy a game as it stands now. It seems to me there should be a middle ground between what it was and what it is. A game that is supposedly premium, deluxe and finely made when it's components are virtually nothing but cheap cardboard. These paper chits strike me as just plain sad, valueless. I typically felt I had higher quality pieces in the Pre-Sinking version, when the person I knew used milk jug lids (Mind you, I admit it didn't come with them...). The board, while from what I've seen a repeat of the wonderful previous printing is not alone worth the entry price to me, even with the expanded rules inside.

I do want to make something clear, I do love your products, and own a good chunk. I just can't bring myself to see the current printing of this as "worth it". Maybe I was spoiled seeing the old one, but then I've also seen the REALLY OLD one. I don't know.


Dies Irae wrote:
It's very nice... but I can't keep myself from thinking of Kamen Rider...

You too? The first word that came to mind when I saw this thing was henshin.