even if they copy pasted it, they still wrote it with their own beliefs on how the ability functions.what is "it"? the thing they copy and pasted because they saw no reason to change it? or is "it" the FAQ response? Regardless - its a change to the rules and should be addressed as Errata.
not really, as i said, i and others who have posted already used it this way, apparently the devs did to, there was no rule change, they clarified it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
even if they copy pasted it, they still wrote it with their own beliefs on how the ability functions.what is "it"? the thing they copy and pasted because they saw no reason to change it? or is "it" the FAQ response? Regardless - its a change to the rules and should be addressed as Errata.not really, as i said, i and others who have posted already used it this way, apparently the devs did to, there was no rule change, they clarified it.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that they copied the rules text from 3.5, yet in 3.5 it worked differently. It's quite similar to the whole metaphysical hands and unwritten rules debacle in terms of them taking a rule that worked one way in 3.5 and changing it completely while not adjusting the rules text.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that they copied the rules text from 3.5, yet in 3.5 it worked differently. It's quite similar to the whole metaphysical hands and unwritten rules debacle in terms of them taking a rule that worked one way in 3.5 and changing it completely while not adjusting the rules text.not really, as i said, i and others who have posted already used it this way, apparently the devs did to, there was no rule change, they clarified it.even if they copy pasted it, they still wrote it with their own beliefs on how the ability functions.what is "it"? the thing they copy and pasted because they saw no reason to change it? or is "it" the FAQ response? Regardless - its a change to the rules and should be addressed as Errata.
i'm not ignoring, i find it irrelevant since people interpreted it as they said it was in the FAQ, apparently the devs when copying it ruled it that way, and other people thought that was the way it was used. It was a clarification and how the devs ported over the rules from 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm not ignoring, i find it irrelevant since people interpreted it as they said it was in the FAQ, apparently the devs when copying it ruled it that way, and other people thought that was the way it was used. It was a clarification and how the devs ported over the rules from 3.5.
Except we know for a fact that isn't what the devs thought when porting it over from 3.5, as James Jacobs made clear on these forums 5 years ago.
So are the rules constantly in flux based on the fluid employee makeup of Paizo?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm not ignoring, i find it irrelevant since people interpreted it as they said it was in the FAQ, apparently the devs when copying it ruled it that way, and other people thought that was the way it was used. It was a clarification and how the devs ported over the rules from 3.5.Except we know for a fact that isn't what the devs thought when porting it over from 3.5, as James Jacobs made clear on these forums 5 years ago.
So are the rules constantly in flux based on the fluid employee makeup of Paizo?
Nah, the devs are always perfect and right about everything, and never contradict themselves. Just like we've always been at war with Eurasia and allied with East Asia.
Nah, the devs are always perfect and right about everything, and never contradict themselves. Just like we've always been at war with Eurasia and allied with East Asia.
i'm not ignoring, i find it irrelevant since people interpreted it as they said it was in the FAQ, apparently the devs when copying it ruled it that way, and other people thought that was the way it was used. It was a clarification and how the devs ported over the rules from 3.5.Except we know for a fact that isn't what the devs thought when porting it over from 3.5, as James Jacobs made clear on these forums 5 years ago.
So are the rules constantly in flux based on the fluid employee makeup of Paizo?
Well there is only one employee that has final word on the rules, that's Jason. So if the rules change, it's because he's changed his mind. The rest can make suggestions I guess but they don't set them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm not ignoring, i find it irrelevant since people interpreted it as they said it was in the FAQ, apparently the devs when copying it ruled it that way, and other people thought that was the way it was used. It was a clarification and how the devs ported over the rules from 3.5.Except we know for a fact that isn't what the devs thought when porting it over from 3.5, as James Jacobs made clear on these forums 5 years ago.
So are the rules constantly in flux based on the fluid employee makeup of Paizo?
1 dev isn't the "devs"
Nah, the devs are always perfect and right about everything, and never contradict themselves. Just like we've always been at war with Eurasia and allied with East Asia.
i'm not ignoring, i find it irrelevant since people interpreted it as they said it was in the FAQ, apparently the devs when copying it ruled it that way, and other people thought that was the way it was used. It was a clarification and how the devs ported over the rules from 3.5.Except we know for a fact that isn't what the devs thought when porting it over from 3.5, as James Jacobs made clear on these forums 5 years ago.
So are the rules constantly in flux based on the fluid employee makeup of Paizo?
you do realize that on a number of occasions you've said this to support my arguments right? you are entirely misjudging my character and opinion of the devs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 dev isn't the "devs"
i'm not ignoring, i find it irrelevant since people interpreted it as they said it was in the FAQ, apparently the devs when copying it ruled it that way, and other people thought that was the way it was used. It was a clarification and how the devs ported over the rules from 3.5.Except we know for a fact that isn't what the devs thought when porting it over from 3.5, as James Jacobs made clear on these forums 5 years ago.
So are the rules constantly in flux based on the fluid employee makeup of Paizo?
Also, the people who decide on rules are the designers (PDT is short for Pathfinder Design Team), of which James is not one. The developers, or "devs" do a bunch of other things that are really really important for Paizo, but they don't do that. It's something that almost every fan (including me before joining the company) gets wrong and that is very important when determining stuff.
So when the pathfinder role playing game first came out (what was it, 7 years ago) and decisions were being made as far as what to change from the SRD and what to keep (was that by the 'pathfinder design team' as well? Or was it less defined back then?)... Was it assumed that if the wording of something was not changed for the first CRB printing, that it would continue to functions it had back in 3.5 and the SRD?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i and others who have posted already used it this way, apparently the devs did to, there was no rule change, they clarified it.
There was a rule change. My group didn't play it that way, and no one I know (in person) who plays this game has ever played it the way you describe.
Prior to the "clarification" as you call it (hah!), there is nothing in the RAW that supported your interpretation.
When it comes down to it, the +3 for Wild armor seems mostly about the action economy (you don't need to don or remove the armor). You lose any additional "effects" of the armor as well--but it's always there.
Except...what happens when you fall asleep in it?
I understand why the FAQ was made. It's cleaner and more streamlined than a series of exceptions.
Except I don't believe that it is, Stompy. The so-called clean streamlining opens up far more exceptions and odd corner cases than it closed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except I don't believe that it is, Stompy. The so-called clean streamlining opens up far more exceptions and odd corner cases than it closed.
As is usual for FAQs and errata lately. Off hand the only recent FAQ that didn't cause more problems than it solved is the 10' pit one.
Cmon guys. They are doing the whole 3.0 to 3.5 without having to make you buy a new book. Show some appreciation.
Note: you may add or remove sarcasm as needed, as long as you find yourself in agreement with the above statement. I'll FAQ it later to conform it with the the interpretation I'll like more. Until I change my view of the subject, then I might FAQ it again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that to be quite disingenuous of you.
"Isn't really a complaint?" The fact that you consider them complaints in the first place shows that the basis of your reasoning has been colored by your attitude/interpretation.
What's the point of anyone answering your loaded question if you're just going to view it as a childish complaint anyways?
|
"Isn't really a complaint?" The fact that you consider them complaints in the first place shows that the basis of your reasoning has been colored by your attitude/interpretation.
What's the point of anyone answering your loaded question if you're just going to view it as a childish complaint anyways?
Sorry - I suppose I should have said "isn't really JUST a complaint". Pretty much everything I've seen isn't people being confused - it's trying to grab bits of the rules to either prove that the FAQ was wrong (mostly) or trying to argue that the old rule still applies somehow. (Obviously not - since it was FAQ'd.)
Well, you're right about that I guess.
True enough. I fully understand the new rules. I don't like them at all and I think Paizo dropped the ball with this FAQ, but I understand the rules.
I believe that to be quite disingenuous of you.Okay - name one 'exception' created by the FAQ which isn't really a complaint about cost/previous rulings/flavor text/'ruining' characters etc.
Now that you track type of armor with wild, medium and heavy armor may stop druids from flying. [as per barding]
As far as confused, I think it comes in on the why and the implementation. If you're going to make it like you're wearing the armor, why doesn't it get everything [like DR]. Seems an odd line to pick. If you're going to make it give out all the minuses why not the pluses?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's trying to grab bits of the rules to either prove that the FAQ was wrong (mostly) or trying to argue that the old rule still applies somehow. (Obviously not - since it was FAQ'd.)
This seems to happen a lot on various FAQ. I kinda wish we didn't do this. How they make the rules work doesn't matter. You either play by the rules or you modify them with rule 0. If you play PFS, then you follow the rules. Why is this so hard? Why is this so stressful to the point that people campaign to get things changed?
it's trying to grab bits of the rules to either prove that the FAQ was wrong (mostly) or trying to argue that the old rule still applies somehow. (Obviously not - since it was FAQ'd.)This seems to happen a lot on various FAQ. I kinda wish we didn't do this. How they make the rules work doesn't matter. You either play by the rules or you modify them with rule 0. If you play PFS, then you follow the rules. Why is this so hard? Why is this so stressful to the point that people campaign to get things changed?
Not everyone is a DM. Not every DM wants an extended list of changes. Without a bit of background and/or explanation, a new DM may not know the pros and cons of the errata to make an informed choice. It's not as easy as 'rule 0' means there is never a game issue.
Plus if you don't think they made the right call, why wouldn't you say so? The one that dislike it have as much right to say so as those of you that like it can say you love it or that's how you already ran it. What really seems odd to me is people like you that say 'just rule 0 it' chiming in. If the actual rules don't matter to you, why does our debate against the ruling change anything for you? Your stance is just rule 0 it anyway...
Not everyone is a DM. Not every DM wants an extended list of changes. Without a bit of background and/or explanation, a new DM may not know the pros and cons of the errata to make an informed choice. It's not as easy as 'rule 0' means there is never a game issue.
Exactly this. Most GMs I've played with prefer runt things more-or-less by the book whenever they can reasonably do so.
Not to mention proponents of "Just Rule Zero it" always seem to assume that everyone only plays in a single gaming gaming with one permanent GM. I can't help but compare that to my college gaming experience, where there was heavy GM and gaming group turnover every semester as some folks graduated, a couple dropped out, and some got heavier course loads/jobs and didn't have time to GM anymore.
"Have you GM Rule Zero it" works when you've been gaming with the same group and GM for five years. When you just joined a group where you barely know the GM or half the players...
|
|
it's trying to grab bits of the rules to either prove that the FAQ was wrong (mostly) or trying to argue that the old rule still applies somehow. (Obviously not - since it was FAQ'd.)This seems to happen a lot on various FAQ. I kinda wish we didn't do this. How they make the rules work doesn't matter. You either play by the rules or you modify them with rule 0. If you play PFS, then you follow the rules. Why is this so hard? Why is this so stressful to the point that people campaign to get things changed?
agreed... all this over a faq that affects one armor enchant? Come on... I don't think you could even tag this as a first world problem...
Fitting armor is fairly cheap and does almost what wild does. It's cheap enough you could add it to multiple armors: say, a set for flying forms, and a set for ground. Since it isn't polymorphed, you'd benefit from additional enchantments, too, and could really customize.
The problem is you'd need to don and undon it.
That is what I'd meant about the +3 seeming to be about action economy.
<@><@> Arg. .. Arg.
Come on... I don't think you could even tag this as a first world problem...
What about the Fey druids who were using this?
Wild Breastplate +1 is +7 AC in wildshape for around 16,000gp. That still seems like a good value to me.
@Stompy Rex - It looks like the Fitting enchantment just changes the size of the armor. If so it wouldn't change the shape of the armor or prevent the armor from melding when you polymorph. Since the Fitting enchantment is from the Giant Hunter's Handbook I suspect it was designed to help PCs get better value out of giant sized gear. It also sounds like an affordable enchantment for Small PCs who never seem to find magic gear in their size.
Wild Breastplate +1 is +7 AC in wildshape for around 16,000gp. That still seems like a good value to me.
@Stompy Rex - It looks like the Fitting enchantment just changes the size of the armor. If so it wouldn't change the shape of the armor or prevent the armor from melding when you polymorph. Since the Fitting enchantment is from the Giant Hunter's Handbook I suspect it was designed to help PCs get better value out of giant sized gear. It also sounds like an affordable enchantment for Small PCs who never seem to find magic gear in their size.
Including the cost of the armor, it's about 17000.
+1 Dragonhide Breastplate Barding is in the region of 2k. If you mostly limit yourself to a single form in combat, you can be rocking +3 armor with a couple of +1 sets for other forms plus a +1 set for humanoid time. The only downsides are weight(by the level you can blow 17k on armor, not a problem) and donning time. So Wild costs you a frigging 1/4 of your WBL at level 10 for a little convenience. Still seems horrible to me.
|
|
+1 Dragonhide Breastplate Barding is in the region of 2k. If you mostly limit yourself to a single form in combat, you can be rocking +3 armor with a couple of +1 sets for other forms plus a +1 set for humanoid time. The only downsides are weight(by the level you can blow 17k on armor, not a problem) and donning time. So Wild costs you a frigging 1/4 of your WBL at level 10 for a little convenience. Still seems horrible to me.
1. You're assuming that you'll never want to shift to better shapes as you level, making your current barding outmoded.
2. You're ignoring the benefit of picking a different form depending upon the situation / what you're fighting. Not to mention wanting decent AC when in a scout form etc.
3. The donning time is a bigger deal than you're making of it. A lot of the time combat may be sprung on you, or you're in an urban setting and walking around as a giant bear isn't a good idea. It's only MOSTLY a non-issue in a pure dungeon crawl game.
4. If you want to go with full plate (pretty common) the cost of the extra +1 armor & getting barding are both FAR more expensive. Non-magical full-plate dragonhide barding for a large creature alone is 13.2k. So - +1 barding for a large creature is 14.2k vs +1 wild full plate is 19.3k. If you want to go with huge barding it's 27.2k.
So yes - if you're in a pure dungeon crawl game, can deal with being stuck with the one combat form forever, want to go breastplate, AND don't mind dealing with the inconvenience, you can get an extra +2 AC or so your way when in your combat form of choice.
