|
Wow! I can't believe that I just read all that. LOL! For what it's worth, I think Paizo is making top-notch products. I enjoy those products and I love Paizo and Pathfinder. I can deal with the occasional mistake that pops up. They'll continue to have my business and support... unless they come out with Pathfinder 2nd edition before 2017. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really terrifying when the NPCs use teamwork against PCs.
PC wizard starts an incantation.
NPC cleric casts Silence on NPC Monk.
NPC Monk goes and plays "Hostile Chiropractor" on the PC Wizard.
NPC Tripper Build sets up Combat Patrol and stands between the NPC cleric and the PCs.
NPC Cleric channels negative energy, gets entire party.
NPC Monk keeps Wizard in silenced grapple, and does his IUS damage.
PC players realize that they don't have a way to save the Wizard AND threaten the cleric at the same time...and as the GM, I prohibit them from TALKING TO EACH OTHER if their PC is in the Silence area.
PC Wizard drops, having gotten no spell off in the fight. Monk attempts to Disarm fighter of his sword, draws AoO, and is told "I have a locked gauntlet." Monk spends Ki point for +4 AC.
Party cleric positive channels to heal. Party Rogue and Archer try to rush the NPC cleric...and fall to the NPC trip build fighter.
NPC cleric neg channels again.
Fighter attacks Monk. Does not kill Monk.
Monk Grapples fighter. Fighter is on ground. Fighter realizes that a shield strapped to his arm and a locked gauntlet means that he cannot do damage to the Monk while in the Grapple. Even worse, he can't even call for help...and while his CMB is good, he needs an 18, 19 or 20 to get out of an existing Grapple.
NPC cleric neg channels again. Most of the party drops.
NPC Monk goes for the Pin.
NPC cleric neg channels again...
And you get the picture.
Yes, a spy I had in a pathfinder game recently reported something strange. In the past we had some powerful characters, and they did well mostly due to teamwork. What he saw was a whole group of optimised power gamers with crazy stats, but they were dropping like flies because they just couldn't get their teamwork down, so they would die alone their allies nearby but not helping.Yeah, it started with the whole "It's never a good idea to heal during combat" craziness. Or that a Cleric should spend all his spells buffing HIMSELF into a CoDzilla, or that a tank should focus on DPR rather than stopping the bad guys from smearing the wizard...or any of another dozen really selfish things, rather than acting as a TEAM.
As a significant participant of the healing in combat discussions, I have to take exception to this characterization of the anti-healbot argument being that "it's never a good idea to heal during combat." I certainly never argued that and I never saw even the most ardent anti-healbot make any such claim.
The argument is that healing in combat should be an absolute last resort, which is a far, far cry from "it's never a good idea to heal during combat."
Of course if you cast your opponents' position in the most extreme manner possible, it's always easier to convince yourself you've won the debate.
They'll continue to have my business and support... unless they come out with Pathfinder 2nd edition before 2017. :P
I must be wired wrong, because I just don't share this very common aversion to new editions. If the new edition is an improvement, bring it on!
Improvement yes! Side-grade no!
Of course if you cast your opponents' position in the most extreme manner possible, it's always easier to convince yourself you've won the debate.
Which is funny, because that's exactly what the anti-healbot people do when they make arguments...
As often the case, the truth lies in the middle. Many times it is more efficient to heal after battle, but then again many times it's not. There is no right or wrong answer for all occasions, it's simply what's the right action at the time.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
.
.
Helpful tips I have learned from this forum:
1. Never roll a good alignment.
2. Never play a fighter when you can play a paladin.
3. It's super bad to heal other players.
4. Monks lol.
5. No seriously don't play a rogue ever because of every other class.
6. Never heal during combat.
7. Falchions.
8. RAW isn't just a pro wrestling show.
9. DPR or go away.
10. I'm not playing the right way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a significant participant of the healing in combat discussions, I have to take exception to this characterization of the anti-healbot argument being that "it's never a good idea to heal during combat." I certainly never argued that and I never saw even the most ardent anti-healbot make any such claim.
Some people make it, not everyone. I know you don't, but in this thread JrK was pretty close to doing exactly that. To be sure I'm not taking the following quotes out of context, check out the thread.
"Unless you only have a weak attack and healing left, there is something better to do than healing, all the imagined situations included.""If you cannot think of a better thing to do than healing (given that it's not the wounded + threatened wizard or you have nothing left) you should be more imaginitive."
I think a lot of the disdain for the opponents of combat healing comes from a few taking "don't heal in combat" a little to literally and then continue arguing it as a 100% TRUE WAY OF PROPER GAMING, kinda. A vocal minority.
Now, I'm kind of partial towards combat healing recieving more bad rep than it deserves, having seen a lot of clerics utilize it well through shield other, various defensive buffs, and good battlefield tactics preventing enemies from ganging up on individual party members, and I know others have different experience. But I think most people are fairly balanced in this, it's just a set few that make these stupid claims that "there is something better to do than healing, all the imagined situations included". Those more in favor of combat healing read this and it sticks, and then they interpret that as a general viewpoint from the opponents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They'll continue to have my business and support... unless they come out with Pathfinder 2nd edition before 2017. :PI must be wired wrong, because I just don't share this very common aversion to new editions. If the new edition is an improvement, bring it on!
What the problem is nowadays is that a “new edition” is expected to be a complete re-write. I even had this discussion with James Jacobs here. This is what happened when they went form 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 4th.
But the edition change from 1st to 2nd wasn’t as radical.
I think instead of a complete revised all new, 100% changed ‘edition”, what I’d like to see is a fully errated reprint with some minor rules changes.
Oh and guys? There’s lots of threads where healing in combat is debated. Let us not debate it here, OK?
Honestly? I'd rather a new edition be a NEW edition. Or at the very least have clear and concise compatibility.
But at the end of the day, I don't need 4 different editions to play the same damn game; players roll up adventuring characters, go on adventures, fight monsters, get loot, save the world maybe.
So sick of switching editions, at least in my part of town. Hell, DDN sounds interesting, and I'm still having knee-jerk reactions to essentially relearning what is basically the same. damn. game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that if/when they get around to plans on "a new edition" or similar, they rather make something like "Pathfinder Core - Revised" and just do it like a major overhaul of the core rulebook, fixing things like major class balance issues, skills and stuff that doesn't break the books that have come out after that - things that are at least 99.5% compatible with the APG, bestiaries, GMG, UC etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that if/when they get around to plans on "a new edition" or similar, they rather make something like "Pathfinder Core - Revised" and just do it like a major overhaul of the core rulebook, fixing things like major class balance issues, skills and stuff that doesn't break the books that have come out after that - things that are at least 99.5% compatible with the APG, bestiaries, GMG, UC etc.
I'd buy that, though I'd add major re-write/reorganization with an eye toward clarity to my wish list.
Of course, I'd also buy a drastic re-work. I play Pathfinder because of the network externalities and the APs/other non-rules content. I find the actual rules to be only so-so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure whether that's possible. Fixing the major issues while staying 99.5% compatible. They seem to have run into something like that while trying the Stealth fixes.
i believe they didn't implement the stealth blog playtest changes NOT because it was incompatible with the rest of the game, but because paizo just made a decision that they don't want to introduce signifigant changes via Errata, and the stealth playtest blog was beyond just changing inaccurate wording. at the end of the playtest, there weren't any signifigant 'compatability' issues that couldn't be addressed similarly to measures already included in the blog (e.g. updating special senses to acknowledge the hidden condition).
also probably because once they open that can they will be tempted to do more of it. they've also stated they don't do errata that would change page-number-references, even though 3rd party publishers are ordered to note make any page number references. of course, paladin smite was changed in function, and monk flurry looks set to be changed, but those still 'feel' like less of a change than stealth introducing a 'hidden' condition along with the actual functional differences introduced in the blog.i still hope they can clear up the current wording of stealth and perception (e.g. the concealment/dim lighting issue, issues with perception modifiers) without any deeper changes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people make it, not everyone. I know you don't, but in this thread JrK was pretty close to doing exactly that. To be sure I'm not taking the following quotes out of context, check out the thread.
"Unless you only have a weak attack and healing left, there is something better to do than healing, all the imagined situations included."
"If you cannot think of a better thing to do than healing (given that it's not the wounded + threatened wizard or you have nothing left) you should be more imaginitive."I think a lot of the disdain for the opponents of combat healing comes from a few taking "don't heal in combat" a little to literally and then continue arguing it as a 100% TRUE WAY OF PROPER GAMING, kinda. A vocal minority.
Now, I'm kind of partial towards combat healing recieving more bad rep than it deserves, having seen a lot of clerics utilize it well through shield other, various defensive buffs, and good battlefield tactics preventing enemies from ganging up on individual party members, and I know others have different experience. But I think most people are fairly balanced in this, it's just a set few that make these stupid claims that "there is something better to do than healing, all the imagined situations included". Those more in favor of combat healing read this and it sticks, and then they interpret that as a general viewpoint from the opponents.
I have been in groups where the combat healbot approach made a lot of sense to how the party could be most effective. It isn't every party dynamic, but if other people who can do better things with their turn than you can are going to die or be ineffective without your intervention, that is what the party needs.
There are many way to play the game.
I'm not sure whether that's possible. Fixing the major issues while staying 99.5% compatible. They seem to have run into something like that while trying the Stealth fixes.i believe they didn't implement the stealth blog playtest changes NOT because it was incompatible with the rest of the game, but because paizo just made a decision that they don't want to introduce signifigant changes via Errata, and the stealth playtest blog was beyond just changing inaccurate wording. at the end of the playtest, there weren't any signifigant 'compatability' issues that couldn't be addressed similarly to measures already included in the blog (e.g. updating special senses to acknowledge the hidden condition).
also probably because once they open that can they will be tempted to do more of it. they've also stated they don't do errata that would change page-number-references, even though 3rd party publishers are ordered to note make any page number references. of course, paladin smite was changed in function, and monk flurry looks set to be changed, but those still 'feel' like less of a change than stealth introducing a 'hidden' condition along with the actual functional differences introduced in the blog.i still hope they can clear up the current wording of stealth and perception (e.g. the concealment/dim lighting issue, issues with perception modifiers) without any deeper changes.
Yes, if you read the discussions after the second Stealth blog you can see it opened a HUGE can of worms, impossible to fix with a FAQ or errata.
I cringe every time I see a new post added to this thread.
Removed a post. Don't point fingers.
Hey, a lot of good came out of it.
That being said, it could have been handled a lot better. I just want the title to go away.
*sigh* Saddening, but fair.
Hey, a lot of good came out of it.
Umm. No.
In fact, I think the damage will be far reaching and hurt more than we can imagine. But I honestly don't think you desired that, I think you wanted to be helpful.
Just to be clear, what kind of damage/price is everyone referring to, besides my own personal humiliation? It looks to me like it, along with many other perfectly valid consumer requests, finally motivated Paizo to start ironing out some of their inconsistency issues.
'dork you didn't hear? Paizo decided to totally close shop at the end of December totally based on the title of this thread....
'dork you didn't hear? Paizo decided to totally close shop at the end of December totally based on the title of this thread....
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks to me like it, along with many other perfectly valid consumer requests, finally motivated Paizo to start ironing out some of their inconsistency issues.
From the very first post in this thread to this most recent one, your un-relenting insight into the inner workings of Paizo amazes me.
My understanding is that from now on developers and such will limit posting in "rules" threads, in order to avoid any misunderstandings or situations where one Paizo person says one thing and someone else says another. James Jacob has already stated he won't be answering complicated rules questions in his ask James thread anymore.
.
.
.Helpful tips I have learned from this forum:
1. Never roll a good alignment.
2. Never play a anything when you can play a wizard.
3. It's super bad to heal other players.
4. Monks lol.
5. No seriously don't play a rogue ever because of every other class except bard.
6. Never heal during combat.
7. Falchions.
8. RAW isn't just a pro wrestling show.
9. DPR or go away.
10. I'm not playing the right way.
11. Everybody WANTS to play a cleric.....every time I've walked into a game in progress where they said "gee, we could sure use a cleric" was some kind of fluke.
fify
My understanding is that from now on developers and such will limit posting in "rules" threads, in order to avoid any misunderstandings or situations where one Paizo person says one thing and someone else says another. James Jacob has already stated he won't be answering complicated rules questions in his ask James thread anymore.
*facepalm*
This place seriously needs an enema.
From the very first post in this thread to this most recent one, your un-relenting insight into the inner workings of Paizo amazes me.
I know, right? They should totally hire me to cover quality control.
My understanding is that from now on developers and such will limit posting in "rules" threads, in order to avoid any misunderstandings or situations where one Paizo person says one thing and someone else says another. James Jacob has already stated he won't be answering complicated rules questions in his ask James thread anymore.
This has been a long standing position of Paizo. My thread has done nothing to change that. Also, James' thread has NEVER been about rules questions, hence why it is--and always has been--in the off-topic forum.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the very first post in this thread to this most recent one, your un-relenting insight into the inner workings of Paizo amazes me.I know, right? They should totally hire me to cover quality control.
My understanding is that from now on developers and such will limit posting in "rules" threads, in order to avoid any misunderstandings or situations where one Paizo person says one thing and someone else says another. James Jacob has already stated he won't be answering complicated rules questions in his ask James thread anymore.This has been a long standing position of Paizo. My thread has done nothing to change that. Also, James' thread has NEVER been about rules questions, hence why it is--and always has been--in the off-topic forum.
That thread was never about rules questions, yet people (you included) kept asking them. And James did keep, to the best of his ability, try to answer them, including the really weird/corner-case ones, and even those famous "questions within questions" of your variety.
I did actually at one point ask him if he's not afraid of his answers contradicting Jason/SKR, but he answered that he makes it crystal clear that these are his home rulings and not official errata. Yet people persisted in using his answers (in particular the ones they didn't like, trip weapon property and AoMF I am looking at you) to bludgeon others to death.
Then he woke up one day and saw this thread, which is basically a dump taken on the work of him and his collegaues. Sure, maybe you didn't want it to come off as such, maybe you really wanted the best, maybe you honestly came back from work and said "oh crap why oh why did I name this thread so, wish I could edit it now...", but the damage is done, the balls were dropped and the pooch was screwed.
was it a pretty furry pooch that smells like perfume?
MMMMMmmmmmmm poooooooch.
That thread was never about rules questions, yet people (you included) kept asking them. And James did keep, to the best of his ability, try to answer them, including the really weird/corner-case ones, and even those famous "questions within questions" of your variety.
I did actually at one point ask him if he's not afraid of his answers contradicting Jason/SKR, but he answered that he makes it crystal clear that these are his home rulings and not official errata. Yet people persisted in using his answers (in particular the ones they didn't like, trip weapon property and AoMF I am looking at you) to bludgeon others to death.
Then he woke up one day and saw this thread, which is basically a dump taken on the work of him and his collegaues. Sure, maybe you didn't want it to come off as such, maybe you really wanted the best, maybe you honestly came back from work and said "oh crap why oh why did I name this thread so, wish I could edit it now...", but the damage is done, the balls were dropped and the pooch was screwed.
It looks like we're in agreement then: this has been a long-running problem, not one that began with this thread.
NO U!
LOL
OMG. I totally 100% disagreed one time with one of JJ's rules interpretations.
And yet,.....the sun still rose the next morning in the east and that evening it set in the west. People seriously need to get a grip.
I mean, JJ answers like 200 questions a day out of the kindness of his own heart on that thread, and you guys are going to go over that s@&* with a fine toothed comb? Really?
Re: contradictions.......they SHOULD contradict each other. ABC news took some guy's tax returns to 200 different accountants one time, and guess what: 200 different tax returns. Imagine that. And,......nobody went to jail! Nobody lost their license! They were all legitimate!
Three different people SHOULD contradict each other. It means they're not sock puppets.
Paizo does not need to get their house in order. If anything, certain people need to unclench.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh,.....and reading JJ's thoughts about the interpretation, regardless of whether or not I agreed with them, was still useful to me in arbitrating my decision as a dungeonmaster.
So, anyway,........glad that that wellspring has been tapped out now.
Congratulations; I wish you guys luck with winning the internet.
|
|
It looks like we're in agreement then: this has been a long-running problem, not one that began with this thread.That thread was never about rules questions, yet people (you included) kept asking them. And James did keep, to the best of his ability, try to answer them, including the really weird/corner-case ones, and even those famous "questions within questions" of your variety.
I did actually at one point ask him if he's not afraid of his answers contradicting Jason/SKR, but he answered that he makes it crystal clear that these are his home rulings and not official errata. Yet people persisted in using his answers (in particular the ones they didn't like, trip weapon property and AoMF I am looking at you) to bludgeon others to death.
Then he woke up one day and saw this thread, which is basically a dump taken on the work of him and his collegaues. Sure, maybe you didn't want it to come off as such, maybe you really wanted the best, maybe you honestly came back from work and said "oh crap why oh why did I name this thread so, wish I could edit it now...", but the damage is done, the balls were dropped and the pooch was screwed.
No, we're not. This thread was a catalyst.
You're trying to find something in my post that will help you think: "well, this thread was a blooper, but it's not like *I* dropped the ball, this all was an ongoing thing and I was just a little tiny part of it, *phew*!"
You'll find nothing like that.