|
Can we *not* drag the 'cleric nerf' into a thread that is talking about all the stuff Jason changed as a result of listening to the fans? There is already a thread for the cleric stuff, no need to drag it in here too.My issue is if it's so minor, why do it? Do you seriously think taking one feat away from the cleric brings it into complete balance with the other core classes? If it really didn't do anything, well why do it at all? The class took it on the chin in many ways in pathfinder, I am ok with most (still not happy with DC). But this to me is just a silly slap that adds no balance. Did the cleric really need a slap for no reason that doesn't bring balance in any appricable way?
If the change was really more symbolic than effective, why are you so up-in-arms about it? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You admit that the change was fairly minor, effectively, so go look at all the new abilities and bonuses that clerics got and quit claiming that clerics got nerfed to oblivion.The thread is about how Jason listened.
I don't see it as off topic to point out listen is relative. Listen to some, not to others is a fair point. And to illustrate that point I bring in a specific rules change where some got what they wanted and can claim he listened and others can point to it and say he didn’t listen to them. His listening was selective, do you really debate that point?
I’ll be happy to bring it into any topic it fits in. I will attempt to not do so in threads it doesn’t belong. As long as its on topic and civil why does it bother you so much that I bring it up? At least I am not demanding people not post their thoughts on the thread’s stated topic as others seem determined to do.
Are you really mad that Jason could not add every single suggestion that every single poster on the boards submitted? Of course he was selective! He had to choose between good ideas and bad, and find ways to make all the suggestions fit together in a way that made a coherent, fun game that all worked together. When we consider the size of the rulebook, that's no small feat.
If you really want a set of rules that includes everyone's suggestions, make a massive tome out of the playtest forums and use that. Good luck getting anyone to play with you.
As has been mentioned already, the fact that clerics lost heavy armor is proof that he listened to us because many people requested that clerics only have medium - this wasn't just a move he made on a whim.
So are you just complaining because you happened to be on the other side of what many people were asking for? That Jason choose someone else's idea that conflicted with yours? If so, I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe grow up and stop throwing a tantrum - we can't all get our way all the time. That's life.
|
|
Can we *not* drag the 'cleric nerf' into a thread that is talking about all the stuff Jason changed as a result of listening to the fans? There is already a thread for the cleric stuff, no need to drag it in here too.My issue is if it's so minor, why do it? Do you seriously think taking one feat away from the cleric brings it into complete balance with the other core classes? If it really didn't do anything, well why do it at all? The class took it on the chin in many ways in pathfinder, I am ok with most (still not happy with DC). But this to me is just a silly slap that adds no balance. Did the cleric really need a slap for no reason that doesn't bring balance in any appricable way?
If the change was really more symbolic than effective, why are you so up-in-arms about it? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You admit that the change was fairly minor, effectively, so go look at all the new abilities and bonuses that clerics got and quit claiming that clerics got nerfed to oblivion.The thread is about how Jason listened.
I don't see it as off topic to point out listen is relative. Listen to some, not to others is a fair point. And to illustrate that point I bring in a specific rules change where some got what they wanted and can claim he listened and others can point to it and say he didn’t listen to them. His listening was selective, do you really debate that point?
I’ll be happy to bring it into any topic it fits in. I will attempt to not do so in threads it doesn’t belong. As long as its on topic and civil why does it bother you so much that I bring it up? At least I am not demanding people not post their thoughts on the thread’s stated topic as others seem determined to do.
Are you really mad that Jason could not add every single suggestion that every single poster on the boards submitted? Of course he was selective! He had to choose between good ideas and bad, and find ways to make all the suggestions fit together in a way that made a coherent, fun game that all worked together. When we consider the size of the rulebook, that's no small feat.
If you really want a set of rules that includes everyone's suggestions, make a massive tome out of the playtest forums and use that. Good luck getting anyone to play with you.
As has been mentioned already, the fact that clerics lost heavy armor is proof that he listened to us because many people requested that clerics only have medium - this wasn't just a move he made on a whim.
So are you just complaining because you happened to be on the other side of what many people were asking for? That Jason choose someone else's idea that conflicted with yours? If so, I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe grow up and stop throwing a tantrum - we can't all get our way all the time. That's life.
So are you just complaining because you happened to be on the other side of what many people were asking for? That Jason choose someone else's idea that conflicted with yours? If so, I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe grow up and stop throwing a tantrum - we can't all get our way all the time. That's life.
Poor form, guess not agreeing means I am throwing a tantrum. One of us might need to grow up, but look who keeps with the name calling.
|
Poor form, guess not agreeing means I am throwing a tantrum. One of us might need to grow up, but look who keeps with the name calling.
Thurgon, we're not asking you to agree with us. We're asking to to stop continuously posting about how much you hate this change in every single thread. This thread in particular is not the correct thread for you to post your pet peeves with the Pathfinder rules. I would ask you to please take a step back, cool off, and maybe try and hold off posting anything else about how much you dislike this change to clerics until after you've calmed down.
Thurgon, we're not asking you to agree with us. We're asking to to stop continuously posting about how much you hate this change in every single thread. This thread in particular is not the correct thread for you to post your pet peeves with the Pathfinder rules. I would ask you to please take a step back, cool off, and maybe try and hold off posting anything else about how much you dislike this change to clerics until after you've calmed down.
Poor form, guess not agreeing means I am throwing a tantrum. One of us might need to grow up, but look who keeps with the name calling.
He is personally attacking me though. I will respond to that each and every time.
We can stop this right now without flags.
Let's do that, please.
|
The first few things I noticed that I had personally commented on (some were part of larger discussions):
There are others, such as a few spells that were tweaked.
Congrats Jason, things definitely improved from the Beta!
|
Last night I leafed through the magic item chapter and found the Bracers of Armor entry slightly expanded.
Bracers of Armor
...
Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.The possibility to wear both Bracers of Armor and normal armor to gain the cumulative specials and the best AC was discussed in some threads in the Beta. No more cheese for the wicked. ;)
heh in all fairness though, the AC bonus never stacked so that clarification was to fix a problem he introduced by allowing special abilities on BoA in the first place, still it was proof that jason was paying attention enough to make sure that it was clarified beyond a shadow of a doubt. I like how you can't stack a lower bonus with a bunch of special abilities and have the special abilities function even if the AC bonus doesn't.
heh in all fairness though, the AC bonus never stacked so that clarification was to fix a problem he introduced by allowing special abilities on BoA in the first place,
Jason didn't introduce it. That was "true"/available in 3.5, maybe even 3.0 if my memory isn't playing tricks on me. (I want to say it was in Arms and Equipment Guide, which was 3.0.)
|
|
heh in all fairness though, the AC bonus never stacked so that clarification was to fix a problem he introduced by allowing special abilities on BoA in the first place,Jason didn't introduce it. That was "true"/available in 3.5, maybe even 3.0 if my memory isn't playing tricks on me. (I want to say it was in Arms and Equipment Guide, which was 3.0.)
I don't remember it in the arms and equipment guide (one of my favorite books)
And now that you mention it, I think it did get introduced in the MIC but I never liked that book so I didn't make use or really acknowledge it. Which still makes it true for Jason at least in the manner that pathfinder was the first to make it "core"
The 3.5 core rules clearly define that the AC bonuses from Bracers of Armor and regular armor don't stack, the stacking of the special abilities is a non issue because Bracers of Armor can't have special abilities in 3.5. That was introduced in the Patfinder RPG Beta. (I am pretty sure the AaEG, MIC or any other 3.5 splat book don't have additional rules but I can't look it up right now.)
Jason didn't introduce it. That was "true"/available in 3.5,
Either way it doesn't stop you from enjoying and liking the fact the rules spelled out in no uncertain ways how the two interact. Or that Jason listened about that need for that rules clarification.
Just as an aside, just because whatever Jason listened about isn't new to the game, doesn't mean you can't be happy he did listen about it. I like that rangers can wear medium armor again, and that is hardly a new idea. So Jason "listened" there too I guess.
Arms and Equipment Guide, page 130, left sidebar.
|
|
Last night I leafed through the magic item chapter and found the Bracers of Armor entry slightly expanded.
Bracers of Armor
...
Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.The possibility to wear both Bracers of Armor and normal armor to gain the cumulative specials and the best AC was discussed in some threads in the Beta. No more cheese for the wicked. ;)
So, does this mean that if someone had BoA +3 or less with special features (like Heavy Fortification), you can nullify the special feature by casting Mage Armor on them? Pending a failed Will (harmless) save, of course.
|
|
So, does this mean that if someone had BoA +3 or less with special features (like Heavy Fortification), you can nullify the special feature by casting Mage Armor on them? Pending a failed Will (harmless) save, of course.Last night I leafed through the magic item chapter and found the Bracers of Armor entry slightly expanded.
Bracers of Armor
...
Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.The possibility to wear both Bracers of Armor and normal armor to gain the cumulative specials and the best AC was discussed in some threads in the Beta. No more cheese for the wicked. ;)
Yup indeed, and interesting concept, using mage armor offensively lol
I remember very well askind around for some advice on how to make the Shadowdancer more shadow and such things, for one of my players that took the first level of the class. I do remember some people giving some good ideas (one use of shadow illusion / 2 levels, shadow conjuration that became greater shadow conjuration and such things), tjat we refined and worked until I said "great, I'll use like this". it was around the barbarian and other guys part of the playtest.
Since I lost the prestige classes part of the playtest, it was a very big surprise to see most of that thread ideas in the new shadowdancer. So, in some cases yeah, the boards' ideas were used.
|
The first few things I noticed that I had personally commented on (some were part of larger discussions):
Fighter bonus AC was removed. I know some have complained about this, but seriously - they were at the point of being untouchable with an average build.
Fighter with this minor AC bonus was "untouchable"? Er... my 16th level fighter had AC 27 in Beta (+2 Breastplate, +3 from Dex, +2 from Dodge, +1 Deflection, +4 Armor Training) and our group's wizard had almost double that (40+) with the right spells. The only PC who had lower AC was our fighter/rogue, I think. Granted, we're not exactly min-maxers and the DM gives out far less magic items that the guidelines suggest; still, I'd argue that design decisions shouldn't always be based on assumptions that everyone will min-max their heart out. In all my years of D&D, I haven't seen a single fighter PC with AC 40+ in any of the groups I've gamed with (the only ones who had this high AC were wizards).
Having said that, this was the biggest single disappointment for me ... fighters losing one of their best (and sorely needed) tweaks, while paladins gained so much (including a very nice AC boost whenever they smite). Not to mention that most of the Fighter-only feats in Beta became "general" feats in the final rules.