Paizo needs to get their house in order

[Damon Griffin]

Mistakes happen. They might be minimized, but cannot be eliminated. Thus we rely on FAQs and errata.

While recognizing that regular monthly publication is a Good and Necessary Thing, I still wonder if it's a good idea, in light of the lack of adequate time for FAQ/errata maintenance, to continually expand on the breadth of regular offerings?

An Adventure Path every month, alongside alternating Core Rule, Companion and Campaign Setting books already seems like a lot to keep up with. Add one-shot adventure modules, map folios, card decks, the map packs formerly known as GameMastery, the fiction line, etc. More recently add prepainted minis (which I love, don't get me wrong) and pawns. And Pathfinder Online.

Creating an ever expanding list of types of products to keep up with is no doubt good for business, but doesn't seem like a good way to devote time to addressing known issues. I mean, if you're already on a bus that cannot drop below 50mph without a bomb going off, do you really need to be steering into heavier traffic?

[Barry Armstrong]

Ravingdork wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

RD is perhaps correct, but blowing it out of proportion.

I'm not the one blowing it out of proportion.

I have to agree with the masses here, RD. MOST of Paizo's products are sound. They've vastly improved upon a system that was handed to them broken. They fixed many things, and in doing so, broke others.

The few things you're concerned about are two mechanics flaws and some suggestions for some NPC ability interaction that they have said PCs cannot accomplish.

That hardly warrants an entire rant about "Needing to get their house in order" because they are human. Or "rife with errors" when there's really just one or two errors printed multiple times. I'll take their 85% stability rate over many other systems *cough*, I'm looking at YOU, FarScape RPG *cough* that are far worse off.

That being said, if Vital Strike works with Spring Attack, I think it should work with Dead Shot as well. And Dead Shot with Hammer the Gap.

There are some mechanics that are either fuzzy or outright broken due to semantic differences. And there always will be, as new rulebooks are introduced to "complicate" things and gum up the works.

Luckily, there's an Errata, FAQ, and PRD system in place to address all of that. Some systems don't have the support Paizo does. They're heading down the right road. We just have to relax and let them make mistakes like humans.

It sounds like the same customer service issue every large company has: The left hand not talking to the right. If you want an iconic example of this, go talk to a WotC or Blizzard CSR. Good luck retaining your sanity.

[Quandary]

Vital Strike isn't in the FAQ. These few things mentioned are far from all the things warranting this thread.
There is no point in mentioning each and every issue here in this thread, if the intent is to focus on the big picture.
Paizo seems to recognize that this is an issue. Are they nuts? If not, it was a valid issue to raise,
and James Jacobs specifically said that this thread has already prompted them to make changes. Is he nuts?

So it looks like RD's rant was warranted... [/hell freezes over] ;-)

[Barry Armstrong]

I never said he didn't have a valid issue, simply that the thread and semantics he was using was exaggerated. There are a few errors out there, they are being addressed, they may be either fixed or clarified. Clearly what the forums medium is for. But to say an entire company needs to "get with the program" simply because they are human and make mistakes is probably a bit much.

[Zark]

James Jacobs wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Fix the magic item system and I'll forgive a whole lot of feat/ability synergy issues. :)

And for the record... I for one don't think the magic system is broken.

Just in case you misread, I didn't say the "magic system" is broken.

I said the "magic ITEM system" is broken.

I like the magic system. That's why I play Pathfinder instead of 4e. But magic items and how they are created, priced, factored into the game and create the famous "Christmas Tree" effect are frequent targets of criticism, and not just from me.

Fair enough. I totally missed the word "item" in that system.

One thing that I think COULD be fixed with our current magic item system is to decouple its balance issues from the gold piece. Using item price as the method of balancing power cause far too many problems with magic item design and placement in adventures.

As for the "christmas tree" effect... that's something we HAVE tried to address. In part by limiting the number of item slots where things like ability boosts go. It's not yet been solved, and I'm not sure how much of it NEEDS to be solved since the idea of a high level character decked out with magic items actually kind of appeals to me anyway.

I think the best way to fix this type of concern is to do a new "adventures" style book like "Low Magic Adventures" (but with a different, catchier title) that presents detailed rules on how to take the Pathfinder rules from their current core assumptions and then build games and settings that model, say, a world like Westros or even real-world medieval or ancient world settings. And a companion volume called something like "High Magic Adventures" which would help you create settings like you see in Eberron or Harry Potter or Final Fantasy would be cool as well.

My Bold.

In my opinion this might have made things worse.

All characters like con.
Archers and melee characters main stat is a physical stat and both benefit from high str and dex.
Full casters main stat is a mental stat.

Again: All classes like con (and all classes will benefit from dex).

As a Wizard you get your headband of int and can get your belt of con or dex, or a belt of con and dex. The fighter needs str, the rogue needs dex and the str belt and the dex belt share the same slot as con. At lower levels (and at mid levels) and even at higher level this mean they can't have both. I've seen it in games. The party finds a belt of con and str +2and the melee dude has a belt of str +2. The eventually the groups sells it because the melee dude can't afford to upgrade the belt to +4 anyway. Or the party finds a belt or con +2. The rogue and fighter already has a belt +2 and can't use the belt so the caster (wizard or cleric or whatever) gets the belt.

At higher levels the full caster can get a belt of dex and con and get a headband to boost his casting stat. The melee dude and the archer can't boost his main physical stat and the two remaining physical stat.

Looking at classes like the rogue and especially the fighter, they need three good physical stats. They want good will saves so boost wis is good. If they want feats that demand int 13, they need 13 int as well.

I'm using fighter and rogue as examples. I could just as well have used ranger, monk, etc.

Hybrid classes as the Bard and Inquisitor also suffer somewhat from this problem, especially bards since they can only use light armor, but they still can really on magic to help out and they both got good will saves.

Long post from me. Perhaps not well written, but I hope you understand what I mean.

And this:

Cheapy wrote:

[...]I'm not sure what documents that Sean sends all the new freelancers, but perhaps a list of common mistakes or relatively unknown rules would be helpful as well. I know that this thread was a great help to my understanding of the rules, and there's a somewhat-up-to-date compilation of the posts here.

I'm sure a counter argument would be "Well what are we paying them for if we have to tell them everything?", but such a list would really help smooth out author variation, as well as reduce the number of argumentative threads on the forums, which is always good :)

I think Cheapy's advice is a good one.

The list doesn't have to be 10 pages long. Perhaps only one page, perhaps two perhaps only a half page.

Even if I'm taking a healthy break from Pathfinder (Playing Call Of Cthulhu) and even if I don't care about the monk anymore I can see that the monk issue is really creating bad blood and this is bad for Paizo. I think an "early release" for in the form of a blog post is a good idea, waiting until a reprint until Jason or Sean reveal the 'fix' is a bad idea.

[LoreKeeper]

Zark wrote:

Even if I'm taking a healthy break from Pathfinder (Playing Call Of Cthulhu) and even if I don't care about the monk anymore I can see that the monk issue is really creating bad blood and this is bad for Paizo. I think an "early release" for in the form of a blog post is a good idea, waiting until a reprint until Jason or Sean reveal the 'fix' is a bad idea.

I've got a slightly different take on this: I think it would help Paizo to reveal their intended fix early (kind of like their playtests) such that customer feedback can temper the fix ever so slightly. Unless this isn't an option anymore because you're awaiting the printed shipments.

[Mir]

As a new player to pathfinder I would love to see more errata. There are lots of minor issues. I ran into the note in 3.5 about your first set of clothing not counting toward weight allowance. In Pathfinder it doesn't say anything about it. Searching through the forums I found notes that maybe this was just an oversight and a reference somewhere from someone that said it wasn't worth errata. Another reference said the Pathfinder NPCs never listed clothing toward that weight allowance. This is clearly a minor handwave issue but.. it had me searching through the boards for an hour. It required me emailing my DM and waiting a day for him to get back to me about it. I wonder how many other players that came up for. An errata would have taken no more time to write (I think) than the statement that it didn't need errata. I've had a number of things I did this with (do elves meditate or sleep, etc). They may be tiny things but they eat time. If a good percentage of things I look for answers for are like this (and enough of them have been) then it undermines my thoughts about the quality of the system as a whole.

The more major things like the debate over monk stuff may be more important but the little things impact new players and I would assume impact how much they come back and how much they use the boards.

I certainly understand that Pazio staff only has a certain amount of time and keeping the money coming in so they can continue is important. I do think once every so often going through and doing errata is a good thing. There is also a great player base here I'm sure many would be willing to add to a list of written errata that someone at Pazio could read through once in a while rubber stamp and add to the official errata.

[magnuskn]

LoreKeeper wrote:

Zark wrote:

Even if I'm taking a healthy break from Pathfinder (Playing Call Of Cthulhu) and even if I don't care about the monk anymore I can see that the monk issue is really creating bad blood and this is bad for Paizo. I think an "early release" for in the form of a blog post is a good idea, waiting until a reprint until Jason or Sean reveal the 'fix' is a bad idea.

I've got a slightly different take on this: I think it would help Paizo to reveal their intended fix early (kind of like their playtests) such that customer feedback can temper the fix ever so slightly. Unless this isn't an option anymore because you're awaiting the printed shipments.

And at that point, it would be too late. Yeah, I strongly support that idea by LoreKeeper. There are more than enough people concerned about the Monk that putting any planned revision before them would most probably help to point out any problems with a planned fix of the Monk.

[Gorbacz]

Oh, I can see how that would go: somebody declares that the fix is "not enough", demands for one of his house ruled TurboMonks to be used instead, 30 pages of death, fire and famine, somebody calls SKR a <<INSERT RANDOM EXPLETIVE>>, "you know, the only reason I'm not working as a game designer is that my job as a janitor is that much more prestigious", Player Advocacy vs. DM Empowerment, Rollplayers vs. Roleplayers, Ciretose vs. Ashiel, TOZ vs. Shallowsoul, 3.5 Royalist vs. The Universe...

...yeah, the Monk Situation is beyond salvation.

[Realmwalker]

shallowsoul wrote:

notabot wrote:

Unless you are playing society, why does it matter? Just issue a table ruling and go with it.

Because some people don't want to spend money on a system that they feel they have to change and houserule.

Hate to say this but no one system is perfect for everyone, there will always be a need to have a collection of house rules.

Just because one person thinks a feat like vital strike should be able to be used with an option like spring attack does not mean everyone does, because of this one group may need to house rule a rule set.

This is the same for all the people that cry bloat every time a new book comes out. Not every option will be liked by all players, that does not mean it shouldn't be created. Again by choosing to use or not to use a class, selection of feats etc is in affect house ruling.

I have patience with this and happily house rule anything that will increase the amount of fun my players will have. So far it has not been too bad.

[LazarX]

Sporge wrote:

I guess my thought was that paizo really needs a play test team or something. That way stuff that looks tooo good can be ran through something and then judged if broken. Some kind of positions best filled by a group of seasoned munchkins able to spot exploits and give it the hammer before the presses...

There is no better play test team than the players themselves. No company has gone to the level of playtest accessibility that Paizo did when they released the Alpha and Beta versions of Core (which still have a place in my library now) and they continued to do this with every major ruleset expansion including the current one in progress Mythic Adventures.

A small hired team of even the best players won't catch nearly the amount of bugs that a mass fanbase will when the material is thrown at them to look at and try out for fit. That after all is the primary engine on how Linux the original model for open source development improves itself. Not by in house development but by out of house participation. Paizo's playtest system uses that very proven model. It is of course incumbent on the players themselves to take advantage of these opportunities when offered. It's a system that works better when more cooks try their hands at the pot.

Does it guarantee a perfect product? No, because there is no such beast. But it does throw development out of closed rooms and into open review and it's a system that works.

[LazarX]

Mir wrote:

As a new player to pathfinder I would love to see more errata. There are lots of minor issues. I ran into the note in 3.5 about your first set of clothing not counting toward weight allowance. In Pathfinder it doesn't say anything about it. Searching through the forums I found notes that maybe this was just an oversight and a reference somewhere from someone that said it wasn't worth errata. Another reference said the Pathfinder NPCs never listed clothing toward that weight allowance. This is clearly a minor handwave issue but.. it had me searching through the boards for an hour. It required me emailing my DM and waiting a day for him to get back to me about it. I wonder how many other players that came up for. An errata would have taken no more time to write (I think) than the statement that it didn't need errata. I've had a number of things I did this with (do elves meditate or sleep, etc). They may be tiny things but they eat time. If a good percentage of things I look for answers for are like this (and enough of them have been) then it undermines my thoughts about the quality of the system as a whole.

Perhaps maybe one should take a step backward and ask themselves if perhaps they are getting too micro on their approach.

Really you held up how much because of an issue of the weight of basic clothing? Which is something that has been handwaved all the way back to the days of the first Red and Blue Boxes? Part of the art of mastering both play and gamemastering is learning to gloss over the things that are really not that important. And truly unless you're running characters on a regular basis with strengths under 5, it shouldn't be.

IF you spent that much time handwringing on this minor bit, an issue that would need severe upgrades of importance to merit the designation of "trivial" one wonders how you handled corner issues of really important rules questions. Raving Dork does this, but I suspect it's mostly for his entertainment at watching threads of minimally important subjects grow into the multi-hundred count.

I'm a strong believer that a roleplaying game needs to have a reasonable cap on how micro rules managing should push for. That rules should only be made for things that really need them. Personally I think the game already veers in excess in certain areas like one of the rules I consider not only redundant, unneeded, but opens gateways of abuse, the Leadership feat and it's associated mechanics. I've totally dispensed with Leadership in my home campaigns, and allow characters to find allies and cohorts through the way it should be done... by roleplaying.

[Ilja]

Gorbacz wrote:

Oh, I can see how that would go: somebody declares that the fix is "not enough", demands for one of his house ruled TurboMonks to be used instead, 30 pages of death, fire and famine, somebody calls SKR a <<INSERT RANDOM EXPLETIVE>>, "you know, the only reason I'm not working as a game designer is that my job as a janitor is that much more prestigious", Player Advocacy vs. DM Empowerment, Rollplayers vs. Roleplayers, Ciretose vs. Ashiel, TOZ vs. Shallowsoul, 3.5 Royalist vs. The Universe...

...yeah, the Monk Situation is beyond salvation.

One option, though it may ring bad with some, would be a closed playtest. They choose out a few people on the board that have been heavily involved in the monk discussions that they feel are good at analyzing changes, as well as a bunch of people that aren't optimizers and that are maybe even "newbish", and let these people look at the rules and give feedback.

[BiggDawg]

I just hope Paizo keeps doing exactly what they have been doing as it has produced a great game and game company. I think the internet distorts the magnitude of any rules issues as the vast majority of customers never come to this forum. Out of the 20 or so people I play with I am the only regular reader of the forums and there are two other people I know that will come here to look for information on certain builds from time to time.

I do believe that Paizo is dead serious about quality and supporting their customers and I trust that they will deal with issues as they can. In a perfect world they would be able to do this easily, but I am sure that there are plenty of things I as a consumer am unaware of that make it much harder than it appears (just like all industries). The dedication that Paizo demonstrates here on the forums is admirable (you don't see this from many other companies) especially given that the majority of their customers never come here.

While we wait we have the power of Rule 0 and the fact that none of these inconsistencies is game breaking so even in the case of sanctioned play it's not like these inconsistencies make the game totally unplayable. Sure it would be nice for certain builds, but you can still play the game use Vital Strike, Spring Attack, and other game features as is and be successful in the game.

[Gorbacz]

Closed playtests only work if there are NDAs involved, else you get the "I was a playtester so I win the Internets over people who weren't" and "Why this math-challenged miserable neckbeard roleplayer scum was made a playtester and I wasn't? I wrote a 85-page PDF of houserules and I feel insulted that nobody offered me to playtest!" problems.

And they both lead to the situation I described in the first post.

[W. John Hare]

James Jacobs wrote:

Alchemical Constructs: I wanted to address this bit separately, because the fundamental idea of an alchemist creating a construct is not only a cool idea, it's one that's already existing in fiction, and one that makes a lot of sense in play... particularly for constructs like alchemical golems, flesh golems (Frankenstein was likely an alchemist, after all), and homunculi. That means that even if you do say that an alchemist doesn't count as a spellcaster for meeting the prerequisites of taking the Craft Construct feat, there ABSOLUTELY should be an alchemist discovery (or heck, even an archetype) that allows an alchemist to build constructs. Just because we haven't designed and published that option for players doesn't mean it doesn't exist. SHOULD we have published that rules option in the adventure that featured an alchemist with a construct minion? Yes. But we didn't, and I'd quantify that as an error. Some day in the future, we'll get rules for alchemest-created constructs into the game.

Woot! I always find your comments insightful James!

And in our games Alchemists can take all the crafting feats to get Craft Construct... why, because it is cool! (although there was much discussion about it... :)

[Joko PO]

So I actually read this beast of a thread. Figured I might as well add my two copper.

1. Thread title could have been better. Even if it was not RD's intention, I cans see why it came across as hostile.

2. RD (and others that followed) make some valid point about internal inconsistencies at Paizo that make their way into finished products. This is far from a huge problem but defiantly not a small one either. While I think it is fair to bring our concern about this and other issues to light, we should all remember to be respectful.

3. This is speculation on my part, but I think this entire issue can best be described as "growing pains". Paizo has seen wonderful and even unexpected growth. While this has been great for them as a company and for us as a customer, it does lead to a certain amount of developer entropy. Some issues fall into the cracks and keep getting set aside with the best of intentions.

In conclusion I would would leave a note for Paizo.

Dear Paizo,

Thank you for your hard work and your wonderful products. I am a loyal customer and will likely be for the foreseeable future. From time to time I am going to bring forth problems that I deem worthy of your time and effort to solve. The inconsistencies mentioned in this thread are such a problem. It is my belief that Paizo needs to address this issue as a whole and not just the individual errors. I apologize but my unfamiliarity with your day to day working makes it difficult for me to offer suggestions. Thank you for your time and consideration.

From a self-appointed representative member of your customer base.

[Anthony Adam]

I have worked for over 30 years now since leaving education. I have never ever worked for a company with perfect communication - they simply don't exist.

A company, taking Paizo as the example, is a growing entity that becomes ever more complex the more successful and larger it grows. The sheer quality of the product produced monthly by this organisation is mind blowing.

Yes mistakes happen, yes rules will contradict sometimes, no developers with deadlines wont just drop everything because of threads on the forums being large. And that is true of any company anywhere.

The fact that developers do pop in and post occasionally shows they are actually listening, eventually problems will be fixed, we just have to trust them to be able to schedule such things in and around their main delivery deadlines.

Rather than tell them to get their act in order (which, to be honest, is in order), why not try the friendly approach of saying something like...

"I have been looking through the threads regarding rule xyz and am now more confused than ever. Please can you clarify for me under conditions abc. Many thanks."

Asking in such a way enhances not only the reputation of the people providing the support but also your own reputation. Everyone will be more willing to help and less likely to troll.

[Evil Lincoln]

Joko PO, you are wise.

It's great to see someone who can request a fix without condescending. I have trouble with that myself. Rock on.

[Kthulhu]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Fix the magic item system and I'll forgive a whole lot of feat/ability synergy issues. :)

And for the record... I for one don't think the magic system is broken.

Just in case you misread, I didn't say the "magic system" is broken.

I said the "magic ITEM system" is broken.

I like the magic system. That's why I play Pathfinder instead of 4e. But magic items and how they are created, priced, factored into the game and create the famous "Christmas Tree" effect are frequent targets of criticism, and not just from me.

I think that the magic system, if not broken, is at least fairly flawed. It has two main problems, in my opinion:

• There are too many spells that stomp all over the specialties of non-spellcaster classes. Seemingly one of the design parameters of d20 since it's inception has been that if something can by done under the system in a non-magical way, there WILL be a spell that does it just as well, if not better. For Pathfinder 2E, cull the spell list HARD, and hack away the spells that serve to duplicate what other characters can do. If you keep it, then either nerf it pretty severely, or raise the spell level substantially. The ideal solution would be to make these types of spells enhancement spells that would be better to cast on the character who can already do whatever it is you want done.

• There are too many spells that do more to take the adventuring out of playing the game than to make the game more interesting. Again, the spell list for Pathfinder 2E needs to be extensively culled, nerfed, and re-leveled.

To be blunt, both of these problems are far too entrentched in the current system for it to really attempt to address them in the current edition. Hopefully Pathfinder 2E will address them...as well as the magic items problem, crafting, and the overabundance of feats turning them into limiting factors instead of options.

[Skeld]

Joko PO wrote:

1. Thread title could have been better. Even if it was not RD's intention, I cans see why it came across as hostile.

Agreed. A thread's title goes a long way to setting the tone of the discussion. A contentious title tends toward a contentious discussion.

-Skeld

[vuron]

If PF needs any product it's the PF equivalent of Unearthed Arcana where a ton of optional rules can be put forth in attempt to provide a toolset for people to monkey around with their game.

Because it would all be optional rules the people that feel like the existing product line doesn't need significant revisions are appeased and the optional rules give those rule monkeys are common source of inspiration for working around perceived issues with the game.

Yes there is a potential risk of fracturing the user base and it's next to impossible to design APs to meet the needs of a heavily modded system but I think more and more products should exist in the optional design space rather than the core design space.

This is also where you can test some core patches to the system such as the stealth system without forcing a major rewrite to PFS and existing campaigns. Good ideas would bubble to the surface and could be included in some future iteration of the game.

Other than that I do think Paizo has maintained a ridiculously ambitious publication schedule which can be good from a sales perspective but can result in significant gameplay issues from the perspective that it's hard to integrate the efforts of numerous freelancers while also maintain high quality and compatibility with existing rules. Rules bloat is also a concern, 3.5 definitely suffered this towards the end of the active line.

[LazarX]

vuron wrote:

If PF needs any product it's the PF equivalent of Unearthed Arcana where a ton of optional rules can be put forth in attempt to provide a toolset for people to monkey around with their game.

They've included such material in every major rule product they put out... Words of Power for Ultimate Magic, Called Shots and Wounds/Vitality for Ultimate Combat. And quite frankly, in essence every rule in their supplements is "optional".

[vuron]

LazarX wrote:

vuron wrote:

If PF needs any product it's the PF equivalent of Unearthed Arcana where a ton of optional rules can be put forth in attempt to provide a toolset for people to monkey around with their game.

They've included such material in every major rule product they put out... Words of Power for Ultimate Magic, Called Shots and Wounds/Vitality for Ultimate Combat. And quite frankly, in essence every rule in their supplements is "optional".

This is true, ultimate combat definitely included a bunch of slightly modified UA rules but I think having a toolbox book that is clearly labelled as such would allow for more detailed examination of core design issues without opening the door to "How do we integrate this with PFS or an existing campaign".

A inherent bonuses system to replace the christmas tree issue common in core PF, revisions to the skill system, even dramatic changes to the core classes could all be explored in a way that's difficult to do in a more traditional supplement.

[The Crusader]

Joko PO wrote:

3. This is speculation on my part, but I think this entire issue can best be described as "growing pains".

I actually see it another way. I think Paizo may have reached a "Customer Satisfaction Saturation Point".

That's my ridiculous way of saying that Paizo as a company, and as the leading company in its industry, has set the standard of product quality and customer satisfaction so high, that they can no longer exceed expectations.

Paizo, we are all surfeit with your exemplary products, friendly and accessible staff, open transparency, prompt problem resolution, player-first attitude, etc., etc., etc..!

[bugleyman]

I wonder if Paizo should think twice about continued growth; just because you can get bigger doesn't mean you should.

[Ilja]

Kthulhu wrote:

I think that the magic system, if not broken, is at least fairly flawed. It has two main problems, in my opinion:

• There are too many spells that stomp all over the specialties of non-spellcaster classes. *snip*

• There are too many spells that do more to take the adventuring out of playing the game than to make the game more interesting. *snip*

I somewhat agree, but not completely. I think the issue rather is having a single class/character being able to cast a broad amount of those spells with only minor swapping.

A caster being able to sneak as well as a rogue isn't an issue if sneaking is that caster's schtick. It's when caster classes schtick is "do anything" that the issue crops up.

The same I feel is true for the second argument to, albeit to a lesser deal. I don't know exactly what spells you are referring to, but I assume it's stuff like create water, endure elements, teleport, overland flight etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I see that the same way - there's no issue with being able to teleport, as long as such a powerful ability costs a major investment.

I think it could be dealt with in three ways:
1.Cut back on what spells are in the game - this works, but risks making magic feel boring. Especially if what's left is mainly combat spells.
2. Force casters to specialize - This is the one I would choose. If, for example, wizards only got access to a single school of magic, an illusionist or potentially transmuter could outsneak a ranger, but it wouldn't be able to crowd control as well as wizards are normally, and wouldn't match the ranger damages potential.
3. Make the limitation on spells per day _really_ feel, by cutting back on bonus spells, not letting the low-level slots become as numerous, no pearls of power, limiting wands etc. This might work but is a lot of work.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Kthulhu wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Fix the magic item system and I'll forgive a whole lot of feat/ability synergy issues. :)

And for the record... I for one don't think the magic system is broken.

Just in case you misread, I didn't say the "magic system" is broken.

I said the "magic ITEM system" is broken.

I like the magic system. That's why I play Pathfinder instead of 4e. But magic items and how they are created, priced, factored into the game and create the famous "Christmas Tree" effect are frequent targets of criticism, and not just from me.

I think that the magic system, if not broken, is at least fairly flawed. It has two main problems, in my opinion:

• There are too many spells that stomp all over the specialties of non-spellcaster classes. Seemingly one of the design parameters of d20 since it's inception has been that if something can by done under the system in a non-magical way, there WILL be a spell that does it just as well, if not better. For Pathfinder 2E, cull the spell list HARD, and hack away the spells that serve to duplicate what other characters can do. If you keep it, then either nerf it pretty severely, or raise the spell level substantially. The ideal solution would be to make these types of spells enhancement spells that would be better to cast on the character who can already do whatever it is you want done.

• There are too many spells that do more to take the adventuring out of playing the game than to make the game more interesting. Again, the spell list for Pathfinder 2E needs to be extensively culled, nerfed, and re-leveled.

To be blunt, both of these problems are far too entrentched in the current system for it to really attempt to address them in the current edition. Hopefully Pathfinder 2E will address them...as well as the magic items problem, crafting, and the overabundance of feats turning them into limiting factors instead of options.

Kthulhu, I don't disagree with either of your points. In fact I would say that there are a LOT of spells that need to be addressed.

But the "magic system" is a more abstract concept than individual spells. To me the magic system is the means by which spells are acquired, cast and managed. Although I am not a big fan of Vancian magic, I like it a lot better than the 4e system of daily/encounter/at-will powers. Also I consider the distinction between magic users and martial characters to be part of the "magic system." I like my wizards to feel like wizards. I like my clerics to commune with their deities. Etc. I think that one who wields awesome cosmic powers SHOULD be more powerful than a dude who swings a metal stick. Just my $.02.

Sure we can address individual spells, but that's a different conversation than whether the "magic system is broken.

[Starbuck_II]

Gorbacz wrote:

Oh, I can see how that would go: somebody declares that the fix is "not enough", demands for one of his house ruled TurboMonks to be used instead, 30 pages of death, fire and famine, somebody calls SKR a <<INSERT RANDOM EXPLETIVE>>, "you know, the only reason I'm not working as a game designer is that my job as a janitor is that much more prestigious", Player Advocacy vs. DM Empowerment, Rollplayers vs. Roleplayers, Ciretose vs. Ashiel, TOZ vs. Shallowsoul, 3.5 Royalist vs. The Universe...

...yeah, the Monk Situation is beyond salvation.

No, I got it, Monks are Mythic, non-monks are not.

That seems a doable fix for monks.

[Adamantine Dragon]

bugleyman wrote:

I wonder if Paizo should think twice about continued growth; just because you can get bigger doesn't mean you should.

Well, that's a hard thing to convince the shareholders of...

[The Crusader]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I wonder if Paizo should think twice about continued growth; just because you can get bigger doesn't mean you should.

Well, that's a hard thing to convince the shareholders of...

Shareholders? Is Paizo publicly traded?

[Gorbacz]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I wonder if Paizo should think twice about continued growth; just because you can get bigger doesn't mean you should.

Well, that's a hard thing to convince the shareholders of...

Paizo is not publicly traded, so no shareholders here - just two owners, Lisa and Vic.

BUT because the RPG industry is one of the least profitable industries you can imagine, you gotta swim to survive. Not swimming = drowning. You can't say "oh, we did enough books, let's stop making new content and just earn those bazillions from what we already made". You could say that in some mainstream creative industry, but RPGs are not mainstream by a long mile.

Besides, I'm quite sure that Lisa and Vic are pretty damn proud of being able to provide classy jobs for geeky people who were otherwise stuck doing something they don't have much love for. IIRC most of Paizo employees were doing things completely not related to gaming before they got the opportunity to combine work with fun @ The Purple Golem.

I admire this, and I believe that any right-minded True American Patriot (with this whole carve your own destiny with your bloodied hands thing you folks have over there) should clap in approval every time Paizo has the resources to get a new cool person aboard. Doubly so in the current state of the economy over there.

[Adamantine Dragon]

One of the things that I think makes this whole subject a difficult one for Paizo to deal with is that even when they are willing to address the "issue", there are so many versions of the "issue" that it creates a sort of analysis paralysis in the design activity. When you have a list from a hundred different gamers of a thousand different problems, it's hard to know what really needs to be addressed.

In my experience this sort of thing has to be approached like any project. You have to plan it carefully, set expectations, manage the scope and then stick to the scope.

This is where user polls could be helpful. When I was managing our subscription software products I used to keep a "top ten" list of things to fix for each product, and I usually had someone working on dealing with that top ten list. When an item was fixed, that moved a new item onto the list. The list was maintained and updated monthly as we received mail from our users (this was pre-internet folks...) so the list was fairly dynamic.

In today's web-based world a webpage dedicated to tracking the top 10 or 50 or 100 items that need to be addressed would be much easier and much more up-to-date.

One thing this did was win us a lot of good will from our customers because they not only saw that we were listening to them, but what usually rose to the top were the things that most users really actually wanted fixed. It was a win-win really.

[Kthulhu]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Kthulhu, I don't disagree with either of your points. In fact I would say that there are a LOT of spells that need to be addressed.

But the "magic system" is a more abstract concept than individual spells. To me the magic system is the means by which spells are acquired, cast and managed. Although I am not a big fan of Vancian magic, I like it a lot better than the 4e system of daily/encounter/at-will powers. Also I consider the distinction between magic users and martial characters to be part of the "magic system." I like my wizards to feel like wizards. I like my clerics to commune with their deities. Etc. I think that one who wields awesome cosmic powers SHOULD be more powerful than a dude who swings a metal stick. Just my $.02.

Sure we can address individual spells, but that's a different conversation than whether the "magic system is broken.

I was thinking about the magic system more in terms of looking at it through the viewfinder of what magic should be able to do, rather than mechanically. Although I'd agree that I would like more distinction between the types of spellcaster. I wouldn't be opposed to arcane and divine magic using two seperate system...the way it works currently (and since the game began in 1974) I don't really feel much difference between the two power sources beyond a few bits of flavor text.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Gorbacz wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I wonder if Paizo should think twice about continued growth; just because you can get bigger doesn't mean you should.

Well, that's a hard thing to convince the shareholders of...

Paizo is not publicly traded, so no shareholders here - just two owners, Lisa and Vic.

BUT because the RPG industry is one of the least profitable industries you can imagine, you gotta swim to survive. Not swimming = drowning. You can't say "oh, we did enough books, let's stop making new content and just earn those bazillions from what we already made".

Besides, I'm quite sure that Lisa and Vic are pretty damn proud of being able to provide classy jobs for geeky people who were otherwise stuck doing something they don't have much love for. IIRC most of Paizo employees were doing things completely not related to gaming before they got the opportunity to combine work with fun @ The Purple Golem.

I admire this, and I believe that any right-minded True American Patriot (with this whole carve your own destiny with your bloodied hands thing you folks have over there) should clap in approval every time Paizo has the resources to get a new cool person aboard. Doubly so in the current state of the economy over there.

Well, shareholders or not, in most industries growth=survival. I don't know that I agree that the RPG industry is "one of the least profitable" industries because pretty much every industry I have ever worked in (and I've worked in a lot) claims to be the "least profitable" industry, including software development, paper-based publishing, retail sales, groceries, oil & gas, construction, finance.

OK, I take it back. The ONLY job I ever had where the business considered itself to be highly profitable was banking. But that was before the bank went bankrupt... go figure.

[Gorbacz]

I'm pretty sure that US industry leaders in retail, groceries, oil & gas, construction and finance could (theoretically) buy Paizo by spending their annual dividends.

I'm not sure what Lisa and Vic can buy out of their annual dividends, but I'm sure it's nice and sweet! :D

[Adamantine Dragon]

Gorbacz wrote:

I'm pretty sure that US industry leaders in retail, groceries, oil & gas, construction and finance could (theoretically) buy Paizo by spending their annual dividends.

I'm not sure what Lisa and Vic can buy out of their annual dividends, but I'm sure it's nice and sweet! :D

That's not the same thing as profitable Gorbacz. You are confusing scale with profitability.

For example, the oil and gas industry is one of the LEAST "profitable" industries out there. The profit on a gallon of gas is measured in fractions of a cent. But they sell a LOT of gas. So that miniscule profit adds up. But if anything erodes that miniscule fraction of a cent, suddenly that volume of sales is driving massive losses. The margins are exceedingly thin.

Apple Computer, on the other hand, makes insane profits on each iPod and iPad they sell, plus they sell a LOT of them. Which is why they are the most valuable tech company on earth now.

The overall market for RPGaming is small, but that doesn't mean that the industry is unprofitable. It just means that the pie isn't very big.

[The Crusader]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

The overall market for RPGaming is small, but that doesn't mean that the industry is unprofitable. It just means that the pie isn't very big.

Which means that market saturation of a single product is very, very quick. They will not long reap dividends on currently published material. They have to publish or fail.

[Adamantine Dragon]

The Crusader wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

The overall market for RPGaming is small, but that doesn't mean that the industry is unprofitable. It just means that the pie isn't very big.

Which means that market saturation of a single product is very, very quick. They will not long reap dividends on currently published material. They have to publish or fail.

Indeed, which is why I said that in this, and most other, markets, success = growth.

There are actually a lot of markets like this where you can enter the market and make a decent profit with an introductory product, but then the market is saturated and a new business is forced to deal either with cannibalizing existing competitors, or else breaking out of the niche into the mainstream where profits may stay the same, but the pie grows massively.

In the software industry they call that the "killer app."

Right now the 3D printer market is right on the verge of that breakout, but for now that market is all about cannibalization. The companies that survive the next year or so will be the ones that exploit the mainstreaming of that market.

I dunno if there is any "killer app" for RPGaming. Maybe there is. Some people might say that MMORPGs were that killer app...

[Lamontius]

So how many people here run their own business that is the only source of their income and the only way they can provide for the people they love?

[Adamantine Dragon]

Lamontius wrote:

So how many people here run their own business that is the only source of their income and the only way they can provide for the people they love?

Now? Or at any point in our careers?

[shallowsoul]

Realmwalker wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

notabot wrote:

Unless you are playing society, why does it matter? Just issue a table ruling and go with it.

Because some people don't want to spend money on a system that they feel they have to change and houserule.

Hate to say this but no one system is perfect for everyone, there will always be a need to have a collection of house rules.

Just because one person thinks a feat like vital strike should be able to be used with an option like spring attack does not mean everyone does, because of this one group may need to house rule a rule set.

This is the same for all the people that cry bloat every time a new book comes out. Not every option will be liked by all players, that does not mean it shouldn't be created. Again by choosing to use or not to use a class, selection of feats etc is in affect house ruling.

I have patience with this and happily house rule anything that will increase the amount of fun my players will have. So far it has not been too bad.

Sorry but fixing things with houserules is a fallacy and something I don't want in a game system.

I want the "option" of houserules which is a big difference.

I know that RPG's are not perfect but that doesn't mean the team shouldn't try to fix the errors, especially the ones that are blatantly obvious.

[vuron]

The problem is that if there is only so large of a market for your products further products within the same marketplace can act as competitors to your existing product resulting in lower sales of both products.

Honestly being that we don't really see the whole financial picture it's really hard to make informed statements one way or another but it's definitely possible for a game company to spend so much time generating product that they can actually cannibalize their own userbase.

That seems to have contributed at least in part to TSRs difficulties in the later part of Lorraine Williams tenure (even if dragon dice was the straw that broke the camels back).

So while managed growth is generally good for a company it's certainly possible for growth to distract you from your core competencies and dilute your product and brand.

[Adamantine Dragon]

shallowsoul wrote:

Sorry but fixing things with houserules is a fallacy and something I don't want in a game system.

I want the "option" of houserules which is a big difference.

I know that RPG's are not perfect but that doesn't mean the team shouldn't try to fix the errors, especially the ones that are blatantly obvious.

Pathfinder is a product. It is purchased to perform a service. The service it provides is consistency and authority for gamers who enjoy playing a game that relieves them of the onerous difficulty of creating all the rules and gaining consensus on that authority themselves. That's what it does.

"House Ruling" is the process where someone who purchases the product has a different idea about how something should function, and decides that they will modify the rules accordingly.

This discussion is not about "house ruling". Shallowsoul is correct to call that argument fallacious. Nobody is arguing that GMs should or should not be allowed to house rule.

To argue that "house ruling" is a means to fix rules that don't work is not an answer to the broken rule. It puts the onus on a GM to make a ruling that they otherwise would not need to make. Since the purpose of purchasing the product is to provide the GM with a rules set so they do not have to create them, every time a GM is forced to "fix" a broken rule, that degrades the value of the product.

The argument that "house ruling" fixes all the broken rules is a tautology. If a rule is broken the GM HAS to fix it.

This is a bug, not a feature.

So please stop arguing that it is OK for the system to have broken rules because the GM can be forced into fixing them for the game to be played. That is not the focus of this discussion and is completely beside the point. House ruling as a concept is not a means to fix a broken game system. If that were the case GMs would not purchase a game system to begin with, they would just create their own.

Every broken rule that a GM has to fix that would otherwise be left as designed is a specific and quantifiable reduction in the value of the product. Period.

[CheshireElf]

Quandary wrote:

Darklord Morius wrote:

I just want one thing: Don't take away or House Rulling rights.

Um, how could this possibly be achieved? Clones of James Jacobs being sent to your living room to enforce RAW?

How cool would that be - having a clone of James Jacobs in your living room? That woud be even better than Paizo Gamespace!!

Of course, we'd need to send a couple of clones to help out the real James Jacobs to free up some time for him to work on Unspeakable Futures.
:)

[Ravingdork]

Man, this thread just exploded as I slept.

Nordlander wrote:

People CARE about this game. RD and many of the subsequent posters are among the best, brightest and most articulate people on these forums.

Thank you for the kind comment. :D

Ah, ugh, I think I got something in my eye. No. Really, it's just a speck of dirt or something. *sniff*

Greg Wasson wrote:

UNSPEAKABLE FUTURES!!!!

Just for continuation of a thought.

Greg

Thank you for doing this. Remember everyone, this thread is about...

Ross Byers wrote:

...quality control, the editorial process, and things along those lines.

Also, let's please not turn this into a monk thread. We have plenty of those already.

James Jacobs wrote:

Wheels are in motion, folks, and they just got greased to make those wheels go faster. This thread got some folks' attention, in other words! :-)

*Stops trying to hide his happy tears*

Gorbacz wrote:

Ciretose vs. Ashiel, TOZ vs. Shallowsoul, 3.5 Royalist vs. The Universe...

Where's my adversary?

[Ilja]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

"House Ruling" is the process where someone who purchases the product has a different idea about how something should function, and decides that they will modify the rules accordingly.

This discussion is not about "house ruling". Shallowsoul is correct to call that argument fallacious. Nobody is arguing that GMs should or should not be allowed to house rule.

To argue that "house ruling" is a means to fix rules that don't work is not an answer to the broken rule. It puts the onus on a GM to make a ruling that they otherwise would not need to make. Since the purpose of purchasing the product is to provide the GM with a rules set so they do not have to create them, every time a GM is forced to "fix" a broken rule, that degrades the value of the product.

HOWEVER, if the rule is broken/undesirable for the GM due to personal tastes or campaign or simply a different view on things like class balance, that is a different thing.

Take the examples of Prone Shooter and the monk weapon descriptor/monks not being proficient with them.

Prone Shooter is a bug, it's simply a broken rule that does not work at all. To say "If you don't like it, you can house rule it" is a fallacious argument.

There are some weapons with the monk description that the monk is not by default proficient with. Many people see this as broken bad, especially when fighters get proficiency with them. Other see it as part of the rules as intended (and I think the dev's even have said so - though I don't have any source for that at all) and that monks have to train specifically to use them. When someone starts a thread on that subject and wanting an errata, saying "it's probably working as intended, if you don't like it you can always house rule it" is not a fallacious argument, since the rule isn't "broken" per se but rather that a lot of people don't like how it works.

Other things are more gray areas in between those, where it's a measurable effect and gives clearly undesirable results from a design point of view, but the rule is still functional, like monk flurry (except for the zen archer bit, that is a broken rule).

I don't think it's as black and white as "suggesting house rules is fallacious", though in many circumstances it can be.

[johnlocke90]

Gregg Helmberger wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Gregg, if the things I am talking about were complex issues requiring complete rewrites of significant portions of the rules to resolve, I would agree with you.

In fact in those cases I do agree with you. And there are plenty of those cases.

But there are plenty of simple, easy to answer questions that generate repeated massive tomes of posts that could be answered in five minutes with a simple "yes" or "no" and there is simply no way to convince me that doing so would negatively impact the rest of the work Paizo is doing.

"Does 'Instant Enemy' work with a ranger's 'Bane' bow?" Yes or no. End it. Get it done. Stop the insanity.

When there really is a major issue that is involved, say so. "We really can't address the vital strike issue because we've discovered it involves some core issues around the definition of 'attack action'. We'll get back to you on this but this is a top priority of our core game designers to resolve."

That's what they should do. Sometimes they do, and everyone says "cool, in the meantime I'll make my own ruling." Sometimes they don't, and when it is obviously a simple, straightforward question that only they have the authority to settle, it reflects badly on them.

For all my problems with 4e I will give them credit for actively looking for ways to resolve such questions. They went overboard with it which led to too much churn in their errata, but Paizo goes too far the other way.

Insofar as there is insanity around any concrete examples mentioned in this thread, I would suggest that it's due to people getting het up about trivia that doesn't impact the vast, vast preponderance of games. It doesn't mean that when those problems come up, they shouldn't be addressed as the devs make the decisions and get the time to hammer out the details and tell the world. As James has explained, that process generally takes longer than it would in a perfect world, and it takes infinitely longer than the people who scream about it over and over...

'

They can be game derailing when you are using them. If I show up to a table with 7 feats invested in vital striking and spring attacking, it definitely could derail combat if suddenly my combo doesn't work.

[Lamontius]

Ravingdork wrote:

Where's my adversary?

Man I would step up all battle-rap style and call a sucka out onto the dance floor but I actually like most of the things you say, just in this case, not really the way you said this one.

[johnlocke90]

James Jacobs wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

It would help me immensely just to know that Paizo is aware of these issues and they are on someone's task list to address.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I appreciate that James and others from Paizo participate on these boards, but as much as I appreciate what they do, they are no more beyond reproach than any other business is. When they do something right, I applaud them. When they need a kick in the butt, I kick.

Waiting for my applause or my kick for attempting to help you immensely by letting you know that Paizo is aware of these issues and we're trying to address them.

So, James, where is the link to the list so I can review it and see where "Instant enemy and Bane" is listed?

Just for one example.

There is no link. I don't have answers for everything. No one here at Paizo does. And we have to take care NOT to just render answers off the cuff because, as you've seen in this and other threads, that leads to confusion and gnashing of teeth when it becomes apparent that Paizo is not a hivemind and that its employees have different interpretations of how to solve different problems. Furthermore... we can't just immediately drop everything and reply to/solve every single possible error or address every clarification in real time. Because we have other jobs apart from customer service. By posting this, for example, I'm putting of the development of a very very late project that's in pretty bad shape—what's the better use of my time? Answering questions/customer service? Or getting a late product back on schedule?

This is why you should have someone dedicated to customer service(as was explained elsewhere). Even if it wasn't full time, one guy whose job is to get answers from developers about these questions would help a lot.