|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to thank the Devs for not being afraid to step in and close loopholes and make adjustments when unintended consequences of abilities, spells, feats, etc...are shown to be exploitable and unbalancing.
Don't listen to the complainers who want to figure out workarounds and loopholes who get mad when their latest cheesebuild get's errata-ed into oblivion.
Keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to nerf when nerfing is needed.
I just want to thank the Devs for not being afraid to step in and close loopholes and make adjustments when unintended consequences of abilities, spells, feats, etc...are shown to be exploitable and unbalancing.
Don't listen to the complainers who want to figure out workarounds and loopholes who get made when their latest cheesebuild get's errata-ed into oblivion.
Keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to nerf when nerfing is needed.
I agree with this statement and it makes sense Anyway you could always houserule away FAQs if you do not like them.
I just want to thank the Devs for not being afraid to step in and close loopholes and make adjustments when unintended consequences of abilities, spells, feats, etc...are shown to be exploitable and unbalancing.
Don't listen to the complainers who want to figure out workarounds and loopholes who get made when their latest cheesebuild get's errata-ed into oblivion.
Keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to nerf when nerfing is needed.
+1 and I wish to add that it can work the other way around too.
Adjustments in general keep the game alive. If PF is supported (in this way too) there are more reasons to buy the products.
Since there's a SRD, corrections will always be ready :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is about the metamagic and rods thing then the way they work overall is not going to change. If you mean individual feats like selective metamagic, the heirloom trait, the feat that lets you use the same slot to cast the spell twice, then that is a good thing.
Well I really had no issue with heirloom trait, but that selective spell feat was about to be banned. Antagonize is another one I don't care for.
PS:There will always be exploits. My solution is to not play with such people. There is also a difference between those who understand game balance, and try to abuse things, and those who think it is ok(balanced) for level 8 characters to do 300 points of damage a round. Ok, so I don't really know of any such build, but you get the point.
|
|
If this is about the metamagic and rods thing then the way they work overall is not going to change. If you mean individual feats like selective metamagic, the heirloom trait, the feat that lets you use the same slot to cast the spell twice, then that is a good thing.
Well I really had no issue with heirloom trait, but that selective spell feat was about to be banned. Antagonize is another one I don't care for.PS:There will always be exploits. My solution is to not play with such people. There is also a difference between those who understand game balance, and try to abuse things, and those who think it is ok(balanced) for level 8 characters to do 300 points of damage a round. Ok, so I don't really know of any such build, but you get the point.
If such a build legally exists, of course they should fix it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PS:There will always be exploits. My solution is to not play with such people.
This is my general philosophy also, and the majority of my gaming is done with small select groups of people. I do play and run PFS to help keep business flowing into the FLGS and you inevitably wind up bumping into this sort of thing there and at the (rare) convention I attend :(
So I really DO appreciate when things get fixed.
The problem with many "fixes" is that because different people have different ranges within they are comfortable working, and those ranges don't start from the same point, making "fixes" that satisfy the majority of the people is tricky at best, and in the case of heirloom weapon, and some classes like the cleric and the druid, where rp aspects are intended to balance out mechanical aspects, problematic if only mechanical fixes are considered.
I'm a little confused, what happened to heirloom weapon/other things?
Also, don't be afraid to buff when needed either, some things need a little love.
|
|
I'm a little confused, what happened to heirloom weapon/other things?
Also, don't be afraid to buff when needed either, some things need a little love.
If you aren't in PFS I wouldn't worry about what happened to Heirloom weapon. If you are in PFS, you can read about it here.
Or just go to the Adventurers Armory page and download the errata.
|
I'm a little confused, what happened to heirloom weapon/other things?
Also, don't be afraid to buff when needed either, some things need a little love.
If you aren't in PFS I wouldn't worry about what happened to Heirloom weapon. If you are in PFS, you can read about it here.
Or just go to the Adventurers Armory page and download the errata.
I don't play PFS, but my group is a strict RAW group. We have a number of very experienced players, so mechanics and fluff are equally balanced in their importance in our campaigns. With that being said, I have seen more and more rule clarifications that seem, a little extreme compare to the potential abuse the "un-clarified" rule could have caused. Every time I see such a clarification, its justifications are firmly rooted in PFS play. I don't know if PFS games are filled with powergamers, or if one marginally better build at a table would invalidate the fun for the rest of the group, but I am not thrilled with the end result.
Character building is half the fun of a rpg for many of us. If feat or build options ran the gamut from good to average to bad in the past, many of these PFS driven changes seem to be eliminating any of the 'good' options in the name of avoiding abuse. The bad options remain, because we are told not every character should be optimized (I agree). But when the paths that yield mechanical synergies are eliminated for the sake of PFS play, it is a little frustrating.
I know, the standard answer is 'ignore the rule in your home game', and for some rules, we might. I guess I just don't enjoy the perception (warranted or not) that the minorities of Pathfinder players who participate in PFS seem to have a disproportionate degree of impact on the game as a whole.
Ok, off my soapbox. /* END threadjack.
I definitely like to see the game get clarified and adjusted as needed so that the rules more closely resemble what the Devs want. Even though, in the end, it doesn't matter for home games if they are using the most recent errata, I like to know what little tiny facets of the rules the Devs adjust and the reasoning behind them. That's part of what makes these forums so awesome is the participation of the paizo folks, and the work they put in to make the game as awesome as they can.
Is this about Heirloom, or something else that I missed?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind the devs fixing mistakes or closing unintentional loopholes, but sometimes they take it too far, over-nerfing things to the point where they just aren't good options anymore, or actively interfere with an ongoing game should they be implemented.
Examples of going too far include the Vital Strike/Spring Attack nerfs (which were actually more balanced when they were allowed to work together).
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
Times where fixing was definitely needed (and was implemented properly) include closing the infinite spell loophole of Echo Spell or making Selective Spell only apply to instantaneous effects.
Vital Strike/Spring Attack DID need clarification, but it did NOT need nerfing. It would have been fine left alone. The changes to Heirloom are good for the most part, but they should have left the option to choose an exotic weapon.
I actually like that version much more than the original.
I'm pretty happy.
EDIT: Oh, just noticed that it doesn't allow exotic weapons, that makes me sad, and makes it not really worth it for martial types that get all simple/martial weapons (Though great for classes with a more limited selection)
I'd probably talk to my play group about allowing exotics, and in Games I GM, I'd allow it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this about Heirloom, or something else that I missed?
Just the general complaining of people who get mad when loopholes are closed, while at the same time cheering when they find and exploit broken cheese options.
If you find a bug and use it to beat the game, that doesn't make you special, it makes you able to beat the game with a cheat code.
I don't mind the devs fixing mistake or closing unintentional loopholes, but sometimes they take it too far, over-nerfing things to the point where they just aren't good options anymore, or actively interfere with an ongoing game should they be implemented.
Examples of going to far include the Vital Strike/Spring Attack nerfs (which were actually more balanced when they were allowed to work together).
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
Times where fixing was definitely needed (and was implemented properly) include closing the infinite spell loophole of Echo Spell or making Selective Spell only apply to instantaneous effects.
Vital Strike/Spring Attack did need clarification, but it did NOT need nerfing. It would have been fine left alone. The changes to Heirloom are good for the most part, but they should have left the option to choose an exotic weapon.
I agree completely.
Is this about Heirloom, or something else that I missed?Just the general complaining of people who get mad when loopholes are closed, while at the same time cheering when they find and exploit broken cheese options.
If you find a bug and use it to beat the game, that doesn't make you special, it makes you able to beat the game with a cheat code.
I don't even think it is a common issue though. People may have disagreements about what does or does not need to be fixed, but there are not to many things that are broken across the board.
edit:If they are I don't really see the complaints about those that are universal issues.
|
|
Is this about Heirloom, or something else that I missed?Just the general complaining of people who get mad when loopholes are closed, while at the same time cheering when they find and exploit broken cheese options.
If you find a bug and use it to beat the game, that doesn't make you special, it makes you able to beat the game with a cheat code.
I thought I had seen the limit of mischaracterizations possible in one sentence. Congrats you reset the bar. Either you didn't understand the several points I made, or you intentionally twisted them. Either way, perhaps you should consider treating people who disagree with you with a tad more respect.
I've always like cheat codes.
Big Head mode in 007 was great fun.
|
|
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
So the way I see it you have two groups.
Home players: Most Home GMs are likely going to grandfather the original version in for existing characters or will work with the player to get a reasonable rebuild. Heck, some will keep the current version.
PFS players: Until Mark comes out with the rebuild stuff for this it's in a holding pattern and until that resolution is released it's kind of hard to say how disruptive it really is going to be.
|
|
I thought I had seen the limit of mischaracterizations possible in one sentence. Congrats you reset the bar. Either you didn't understand the several points I made, or you intentionally twisted them. Either way, perhaps you should consider treating people who disagree with you with a tad more respect.Is this about Heirloom, or something else that I missed?Just the general complaining of people who get mad when loopholes are closed, while at the same time cheering when they find and exploit broken cheese options.
If you find a bug and use it to beat the game, that doesn't make you special, it makes you able to beat the game with a cheat code.
He wasn't replying to you, or even referring to your reply, or even as far as I can tell referring to your point of view at all.
I've always like cheat codes.
Big Head mode in 007 was great fun.
Big Head Mode and similar "fun settings" aren't cheats. They are codes. Cheats give you an in-game advantage (such as infinite ammo, cash, health, etc.). Codes don't (such as big head mode, no blood, graffiti blood, super hard mode, etc.).
|
|
I thought I had seen the limit of mischaracterizations possible in one sentence. Congrats you reset the bar. Either you didn't understand the several points I made, or you intentionally twisted them. Either way, perhaps you should consider treating people who disagree with you with a tad more respect.Is this about Heirloom, or something else that I missed?Just the general complaining of people who get mad when loopholes are closed, while at the same time cheering when they find and exploit broken cheese options.
If you find a bug and use it to beat the game, that doesn't make you special, it makes you able to beat the game with a cheat code.
This may come as a shock to you, so if you aren't already sitting you may want to do so before reading this.
Not every comment is about you, or addressed to you. Nothing you wrote even entered my mind when I posted the above. It was a comment to someone who isn't you.
People are having conversations that don't involve you.
Crazy, I know.
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
... having to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency forces you to change your entire concept?
If so, it wasn't much of a concept.
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
... having to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency forces you to change your entire concept?
If so, it wasn't much of a concept.
I think that Ravingdork talks about PFS.
I think that Ravingdork talks about PFS.An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
... having to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency forces you to change your entire concept?
If so, it wasn't much of a concept.
I had considered that possibility in making my statement and stand by it as written.
This kind of stuff is the EXACT reason why I prefer to play 3.5. As a dead system, all the rules are what the rules are. So I don't have to deal with this stuff, as a GM who could give a rat a$$ about this stuff and who wants to actually tell, you know, a fantasy story rather than worry about who has the most legal or optimized build. Their are the posters who go on about optimization, and the anti-optimization posters. Where are the pro-story posters, who think that all this stuff is a bunch of hooey? Oh yeah, like James Jacobs, they were scared out of here...
[soap box]
Are pro-story, optimization, anti-optimization clubs that bar you from joining the other clubs?I like a good story and a decent character. I don't believe that you need the best character possible though.
As for combos the the PF staff can only account for the corebook plus whatever book the new rule is in since not everyone has all the books so yeah if you get a player companion book+setting book+rule book(such as APG) then you might get some crazy stuff. At PFS you can't do much about it. As a home GM shut that nonsense down if it is an issue for you .
I also disagree with the PFS influence. I think the devs just have a cap on how good they want optimized characters to be.
Other than Vital Strike I don't really know of anything that got an unnecessary hit. Others don't like the potion and heirloom nerfs, but I never cared for them anyway so I can't say much about it.
PS:What I don't like are the cries of broken. If you are the only one really complaining about something......... Now if you want to say it is broken for your game that is fine, but remember other GM's don't have an issue with it. [/soap box]
|
|
EDIT: I went back through this thread & saw that Citreose was the OP. That puts the comment I reacted to in a different light. Please ignore my prior post. I deleted this one as well. In reading several of these threads as they are posted in, I missed the sarcastic tone of this one. My bad.
Wraith, if you could delete the quote of this post downthread, my better nature would appreciate it.
|
|
What I don't like are the cries of broken. If you are the only one really complaining about something......... Now if you want to say it is broken for you game that is fine, but remember other GM's don't have an issue with it.
This, I agree with. Especially since the rule being complained about is often used incorrectly, or the rules around it that check its effectiveness are ignored or used incorrectly.
I thought I had seen the limit of mischaracterizations possible in one sentence. Congrats you reset the bar. Either you didn't understand the several points I made, or you intentionally twisted them. Either way, perhaps you should consider treating people who disagree with you with a tad more respect.Is this about Heirloom, or something else that I missed?Just the general complaining of people who get mad when loopholes are closed, while at the same time cheering when they find and exploit broken cheese options.
If you find a bug and use it to beat the game, that doesn't make you special, it makes you able to beat the game with a cheat code.
This may come as a shock to you, so if you aren't already sitting you may want to do so before reading this.
Not every comment is about you, or addressed to you. Nothing you wrote even entered my mind when I posted the above. It was a comment to someone who isn't you.
People are having conversations that don't involve you.
Crazy, I know.
If you remove the phrase 'I made' and replaced it with 'made in this thread' it would be equally as valid. I see, however, your response to opinions you don't agree with is ridicule. Nice tactic. Sometimes, you can, you know pass a thread by if you don't agree with its contents instead of making condescending comments and insulting the posters as complaining cheaters.
Crazy, I know.
Ok, what was Ciretose referring to? Nobody is seeming to notice it besides you, and Ciretose is denying all allegations.
Quotes and links or he will just keep denying and you will have no proof.
edit:I am not taking sides, but I did not see a direct insult.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PS:What I don't like are the cries of broken. If you are the only one really complaining about something......... Now if you want to say it is broken for you game that is fine, but remember other GM's don't have an issue with it. [/soap box]
First,
There is no broken. Broken is such an over-used term in these forums it's just silly. Very few changes to the game actually break things so bad they don't work, even the biggest offender around, antagonize, doesn't truly break things entirely.
Instead, there are easy choices and hard choices, the easy choices are the ones where one option is so much better than others that a corner of the game turns into a mono-culture. An easy example of easy choices in the game is the choice for ranged weapons, the composite longbow is a no-brainer for anyone who has access to it.
The hard choices are the ones where you really have to scratch your head to figure out which is best and in the end there is no clear consensus which leaves the choice largely one of role-play preference. An example of this is perhaps color spray versus sleep. You can argue that one is more powerful than the other but ultimately it boils down to player preference (and sometimes the table/ campaign).
I like hard choices because it makes for a more diverse game and players make choices based on role playing decisions more often. As far as I'm concerned all choices in the game should be at least a little challenging.
So when I think about game balance I think about it in those terms.
|
|
PS:What I don't like are the cries of broken. If you are the only one really complaining about something......... Now if you want to say it is broken for you game that is fine, but remember other GM's don't have an issue with it. [/soap box]First,
There is no broken. Broken is such an over-used term in these forums it's just silly. Very few changes to the game actually break things so bad they don't work, even the biggest offender around, antagonize, doesn't truly break things entirely.
Instead, there are easy choices and hard choices, the easy choices are the ones where one option is so much better than others that a corner of the game turns into a mono-culture. An easy example of easy choices in the game is the choice for ranged weapons, the composite longbow is a no-brainer for anyone who has access to it.
The hard choices are the ones where you really have to scratch your head to figure out which is best and in the end there is no clear consensus which leaves the choice largely one of role-play preference. An example of this is perhaps color spray versus sleep. You can argue that one is more powerful than the other but ultimately it boils down to player preference (and sometimes the table/ campaign).
I like hard choices because it makes for a more diverse game and players make choices based on role playing decisions more often. As far as I'm concerned all choices in the game should be at least a little challenging.
So when I think about game balance I think about it in those terms.
I would agree that most of the things called "Broken" are not in fact broken.
And I would agree that simple house rules fix even the issues that are unbalancing or exploitable. A good DM will smell cheese and remove it before it ripens.
However unintended consequences of cool ideas can lead to broken synergies. And sometimes poorly thought out design happens and makes core obsolete.
This was in fact the stated reason all the core classes got a bump in Pathfinder.
The point of this post was to thank the designers for being on the lookout for such things, and not letting pride get in the way of correcting errors that lead to "legal" unbalanced characters.
PS:What I don't like are the cries of broken. If you are the only one really complaining about something......... Now if you want to say it is broken for you game that is fine, but remember other GM's don't have an issue with it. [/soap box]First,
There is no broken. Broken is such an over-used term in these forums it's just silly. Very few changes to the game actually break things so bad they don't work, even the biggest offender around, antagonize, doesn't truly break things entirely.
Instead, there are easy choices and hard choices, the easy choices are the ones where one option is so much better than others that a corner of the game turns into a mono-culture. An easy example of easy choices in the game is the choice for ranged weapons, the composite longbow is a no-brainer for anyone who has access to it.
The hard choices are the ones where you really have to scratch your head to figure out which is best and in the end there is no clear consensus which leaves the choice largely one of role-play preference. An example of this is perhaps color spray versus sleep. You can argue that one is more powerful than the other but ultimately it boils down to player preference (and sometimes the table/ campaign).
I like hard choices because it makes for a more diverse game and players make choices based on role playing decisions more often. As far as I'm concerned all choices in the game should be at least a little challenging.
So when I think about game balance I think about it in those terms.
I think it is better to say broken is poorly defined like many other unofficial terms, but the point of my post still remains which is don't assume the problem lies with the game.
If you get your butt handed to you as a GM it is better to sit back and think about what went wrong, and/or ask for advice.PS:I know GM's are not the only ones that use the word, but in the end they are the ones that have to deal with it(the issue at hand).
If such a build legally exists, of course they should fix it.
PS:There will always be exploits. My solution is to not play with such people. There is also a difference between those who understand game balance, and try to abuse things, and those who think it is ok(balanced) for level 8 characters to do 300 points of damage a round. Ok, so I don't really know of any such build, but you get the point.
In fact, you can fairly easily build a fighter that does 300 pts of damage at level 8. Max str and dex, two weapon fighting light pick wielder power attacking with double slice, and hasted, with two +2 light picks and a +4 str belt.
(If he crits on all his attacks that is...)
I use the word "broken" from time to time because it has "kick" to it and is guaranteed to get a reaction out of fellow posters, thereby furthering the discussion. It's what politicians call a "power word."
|
|
If such a build legally exists, of course they should fix it.
PS:There will always be exploits. My solution is to not play with such people. There is also a difference between those who understand game balance, and try to abuse things, and those who think it is ok(balanced) for level 8 characters to do 300 points of damage a round. Ok, so I don't really know of any such build, but you get the point.In fact, you can fairly easily build a fighter that does 300 pts of damage at level 8. Max str and dex, two weapon fighting light pick wielder power attacking with double slice, and hasted, with two +2 light picks and a +4 str belt.
(If he crits on all his attacks that is...)
RDRR
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
... having to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency forces you to change your entire concept?
If so, it wasn't much of a concept.
I have a character or two that are rendered completely useless in my eyes by this change, *BUT* I will say it needed to happen. It, simply put, was not a choice. If you were a melee character, opting not to take Heirloom Weapon was opting to be mechanically worse than you could be, there's just no argument against that.
Don't forget that to many people, the particular weapon they choose to wield can define them. King Arthur is not the same character without Excalibur, Zorro is not the same without a rapier. Heirloom weapon was one of the best traits because it offered an effective way to create a different character from the perspective of wielding a unique weapon, it just had too much attached to it. Heirloom Weapon made up for the fact that Exotic Weapon Proficiency requires +1 BAB.
If they had just removed the trait bonus from attack rolls that probably would have been sufficient to make it balanced.
I use the word "broken" from time to time because it has "kick" to it and is guaranteed to get a reaction out of fellow posters, thereby furthering the discussion. It's what politicians call a "power word."
..and normally not needed. It also changes the entire meaning of the thread. You could try honesty. :)
Politicians are not well liked are respected. Is that the example you want to follow?
I have a character or two that are rendered completely useless in my eyes by this change, *BUT* I will say it needed to happen. It, simply put, was not a choice. If you were a melee character, opting not to take Heirloom Weapon was opting to be mechanically worse than you could be, there's just no argument against that.
Don't forget that to many people, the particular weapon they choose to wield can define them. King Arthur is not the same character without Excalibur, Zorro is not the same without a rapier. Heirloom weapon was one of the best traits because it offered an effective way to create a different character from the perspective of wielding a unique weapon, it just had too much attached to it. Heirloom Weapon made up for the fact that Exotic Weapon Proficiency requires +1 BAB.
If they had just removed the trait bonus from attack rolls that probably would have been sufficient to make it balanced.
If someone took the trait purely for that +1, they deserve to lose it. Most instances I know of its use, however, were for its intended purpose of marrying story to crunch, so that when the character said he knew how to use this particular weapon, he had the mechanics to back him up.
|
|
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
... having to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency forces you to change your entire concept?
If so, it wasn't much of a concept.
I have a character or two that are rendered completely useless in my eyes by this change, *BUT* I will say it needed to happen. It, simply put, was not a choice. If you were a melee character, opting not to take Heirloom Weapon was opting to be mechanically worse than you could be, there's just no argument against that.
Don't forget that to many people, the particular weapon they choose to wield can define them. King Arthur is not the same character without Excalibur, Zorro is not the same without a rapier. Heirloom weapon was one of the best traits because it offered an effective way to create a different character from the perspective of wielding a unique weapon, it just had too much attached to it. Heirloom Weapon made up for the fact that Exotic Weapon Proficiency requires +1 BAB.
If they had just removed the trait bonus from attack rolls that probably would have been sufficient to make it balanced.
Who said King Arthur was born with that sword? He completed a quest, specifically the quest to pull the sword from the stone.
Who says you get such things at first level? Zorro is not a first level swordsman, now is he?
Zorro is not a first level swordsman, now is he?
But he did have to train a whole hell of a lot.
Also, you can take additional traits as a feat, which in turn allow you to take heirloom weapon later on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone took the trait purely for that +1, they deserve to lose it...
I don't actually have an opinion about the trait because, quite frankly, I don't care about traits at all. But your line of thinking here bothers me. Its the same as saying "If someone took Improved Initiative purely for the increased chance to win initiative they deserve to loose it." or "If someone took a level in cleric purely for the chance to heal things, they deserve to loose it." That's silly. People take traits and feats and whatnot that fit their characters concepts. Sometimes those concepts include being awesome at what you do.