Ultimate Mechanics... We Need this book

[Reecy]

We definitely need to take a step back and let Paizo catch a breathe and do something completely new.

Take all Major Mechanics
Feats
Skills
Combat
Class Skills

Break them down and develop a book that shows us better depth on what is expected of their use. Honestly I have seen 75% of these Forum questions start off with a question and then it wanders into 10 other discussions.

I would definitely buy this book and I am sure others would to but we need to stream line a bunch of this stuff with strictly the mechanic the rules that relate to them and what stacks and what works.

I know this may get a few votes and it may get blasted but it would really be a nice addition.

[ED-209]

Oh ho ho. It's a request for Ultimate Errata!

[wraithstrike]

Reecy wrote:

We definitely need to take a step back and let Paizo catch a breathe and do something completely new.

Take all Major Mechanics
Feats
Skills
Combat
Class Skills

Break them down and develop a book that shows us better depth on what is expected of their use. Honestly I have seen 75% of these Forum questions start off with a question and then it wanders into 10 other discussions.

I would definitely buy this book and I am sure others would to but we need to stream line a bunch of this stuff with strictly the mechanic the rules that relate to them and what stacks and what works.

I know this may get a few votes and it may get blasted but it would really be a nice addition.

A lot of the rule disputes come from corner case, and the devs can't compete with the minds of thousand of people. That means future corner cases will also come up.

Many of the people here would still argue about was meant if the rule is not written in a very exact way, so it would not really change much.

I have had rules and devs quotes during a debate, and people would tell me the dev was wrong, they forgot to change the rule, or say that the dev said the exact opposite of what I just quoted him as saying.

[Deanoth]

Paizo has already stated they do not want to redo rules from other books to much and this would be TOO much!

[DrDeth]

Also, most of the debates come from 3.5 debates, where the placement of a comma could greatly change a rule or power.

The Devs here have strongly said it's RAI and common Sense, not legalistic wrangling.

Each rule or power currently covered by a paragraph or two would require a page or two.

No thanks.

I'll just keep telling Wraithstrike he's wrong again. (I kid!)

[Reecy]

Well this more than a book of mechanics guys

This taking Skills deeper and assisting in working out all the Kinks in weirdness that will occur... In reality every argument ends in what ever the DM says is how it goes.

But it would be nice to cut the fluff out of some of this and just get the meat of the rule as intended...

Heck they errata ed Stealth and people now want to argue Uncanny Dodge this is getting out of hand.

[Gorbacz]

There's little point in a book that would be invalidated by the very next hardcover rulebook after it.

[Reecy]

Uh how would be invalidated if its centered around skills and basic mechanics?

[Tempestorm]

wraithstrike wrote:

Reecy wrote:

We definitely need to take a step back and let Paizo catch a breathe and do something completely new.

Take all Major Mechanics
Feats
Skills
Combat
Class Skills

Break them down and develop a book that shows us better depth on what is expected of their use. Honestly I have seen 75% of these Forum questions start off with a question and then it wanders into 10 other discussions.

I would definitely buy this book and I am sure others would to but we need to stream line a bunch of this stuff with strictly the mechanic the rules that relate to them and what stacks and what works.

I know this may get a few votes and it may get blasted but it would really be a nice addition.

A lot of the rule disputes come from corner case, and the devs can't compete with the minds of thousand of people. That means future corner cases will also come up.

Many of the people here would still argue about was meant if the rule is not written in a very exact way, so it would not really change much.

I have had rules and devs quotes during a debate, and people would tell me the dev was wrong, they forgot to change the rule, or say that the dev said the exact opposite of what I just quoted him as saying.

To add my bit to this... a lot of rules disputes come from people Intentionaly breaking the game (as wraith said, corner cases). Any game system can be rules lawyerd to death and broken into little bitty bits. Most people who expound on these cases admitt that their interputations are silly, but still rail that it must be fixed even though no reasonable person would run it that way.

Simply read what is there. Interput it. If there are more than one possible way of interputing it choose the one that isn't silly. If, and only if, all interputations are silly then maybe there is a real problem.

PS. Ban bricks from the table. If people don't have bricks for with to hit Pathfinder then it will be broken a lot less.

PSS. I, personaly, would not purchase such a book becase I don't need a RFE (Rule for Everything). There are TMRAII (Too Many Rules as it is)already.

PSSS. If they do put out such a book I will not complain that they are wasting time and should be making products that I want.

[Gorbacz]

Reecy wrote:

Uh how would be invalidated if its centered around skills and basic mechanics?

Simple, imagine a book that says "this is how skills work and how they interact with whatever else is out there (say Craft vs. fabricate, Perception vs. Invisibility).

The next hardcover is Psionics, which introduces "Psionic Unseeing" which is like invisibility, only different; and Psychic Creation which is like fabricate, but not quite.

And suddenly your Ultimate Mechanics is pretty much pointless, because it's not forward-compatible. Books that try to "give definitive answers to every problem" are best, if at all, published at the end of game's lifecycle. And consiering that Pathfinder 2.0 is still ways off ...