What massive increases?Oh, well, if they WEREN'T massive increases then your character isn't out very much at all, and the 'nerf' is equally small. After all, your characters wasn't relying on those bonuses much at all.
A +1 is still a +1; it is what it is. Sometimes it makes or breaks, other times it does not, but trying to say it's not a bonus, or perk to have, is also illogical.
The point here is that a +1 or +2 to a bonus type (that ironically enough, only a couple classes could produce for specific attributes) doesn't automatically convert to "I'M GETTING WISHES FOR FREE GAIS!" That, I can assure you, is massive, and gamebreaking, and by the rules, that sort of stuff is still allowed.
It doesn't need to be character destroying to be disappointing. If Iron Will was changed to only be a +1 bonus tomorrow because the author "meant" to write +1 but his hand slipped, it wouldn't destroy my characters that have it, but I'd still be pretty annoyed.
After the stat bonuses being "typed" and this, I would appreciate these FAQs, being properly called "errata". These are not answers to questions at this point. They are rewritings of rules. Not that I mind in the least faster errata, but a lot of these "frequently asked questions" have pretty straightforward answers, unless of course they get errated. Perhaps, instead of "flagging for FAQ" these questions should be "take issue with rules and hope they get changed"? And I while I would still be very disappointed to see one of the rare few "good" magic weapon enhancements be errated (instead of FAQ'd) into uselessness, I would be far more satisfied with it.
They are indeed frequently asked questions (not only was it frequent in this thread, this isn't the first time this has come up; I recall a bunch of threads a few years ago in particular because Herolab has always done it this way), but as this one said, it will be reflected in the next errata document too. Being "frequently asked" doesn't really imply anything in particular about whether the answer also needs to go into the next errata document. It just means people want to know the answer.
They are indeed frequently asked questions (not only was it frequent in this thread, this isn't the first time this has come up; I recall a bunch of threads a few years ago in particular because Herolab has always done it this way), but as this one said, it will be reflected in the next errata document too. Being "frequently asked" doesn't really imply anything in particular about whether the answer also needs to go into the next errata document. It just means people want to know the answer.
I have no doubt there are questions about it, but I believe the "questions" being asked in those cases are more "Is that *really* what this does?" rather then "I don't understand how this works." The first I would call "taking issue with the rules". That does not of course change it being question that is frequently asked I suppose, but if the answer to the question addresses a different question then the one asked it gives me the impression of errata. Look at it this way, say this was announced:
"The Courageous weapon property has been errated. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus."
If that was announced would anyone really have any questions as to what the Courageous weapon property did or did not do?
It's somewhat (maybe even mostly) a semantics issue and I concede it may only be my personal preference as to how it's worded. Regardless it is good to see stuff being adjusted even if I dislike the outcome.
Somewhere in this thread, about 300 posts ago, I stated that a FAQ was not needed, because there was no issue with the wording and with the impact on gameplay with this weapon enhancement.
As written, it was a good enhancement, and noone I know ever had any (!) issues with it. How many people in this thread did think, because they knew or believed to know the intent of the developers/designers, that the feat was only ever working on fear saves? I am generous: maybe ten people. Players who don't play PFS or are not that involved on these boards never had an issue, and the game never had a problem.
It was a slight buff for martials at higher levels (we play higher levels quite frequently).
I like that the developers admit that the wording was wrong, because that clearly shows that the (small) bunch of people who argued that the enhancement only gave a bonus on (fear) saves was based on the written text (RAW) was only a wish of someone without a good understanding on grammar and wording.
In the end it is just a game and everyone can play it as they like. It's just that I hoped that one time the developers/designers take up a stance in favor of martials.
|
I'll still add it as a total bonus. The difference is minimal and a +1 or 2 bonus for something that happens occasionally in exchange for a +1 bonus all the time is more than fair.
Its not in exchange for anything. It stacked with everything which is one of the reasons it was quite good. You can still take your enhancement bonus to +5 and could add this property on top.
And lets not pretend like keeping good hope, heroism, or a karyukai tea set, up for the vast majority of combats is all that difficult. I think the property would have been quite good if didn't scale (just increased morale bonus by 1) and was priced as a +2 bonus, with scaling its probably more in line with a +3 bonus.
That said, after this FAQ courageous will be yet another magic enhancement effect that isn't worth the paper it printed on which I find to be a disappointment. It probably isn't worth 1,000 much less the minimum of 6,000gp that a +1 equivalent bonus costs. But it does put it right next the value of the majority of weapon enhancements that no one ever selects if given a choice.
Bane , Inspired, Fortuitous, Vicious and many others would like to speak with you. It was a stupid nerf that only effected martials.. thats why it went through. Just like Crane Style. People whined and thus it wa passed. It is another thing I would be glad to know most sensible GM's will ignore.
Bane , Inspired, Fortuitous, Vicious and many others would like to speak with you. It was a stupid nerf that only effected martials.. thats why it went through. Just like Crane Style. People whined and thus it wa passed. It is another thing I would be glad to know most sensible GM's will ignore.I'll still add it as a total bonus. The difference is minimal and a +1 or 2 bonus for something that happens occasionally in exchange for a +1 bonus all the time is more than fair.
Its not in exchange for anything. It stacked with everything which is one of the reasons it was quite good. You can still take your enhancement bonus to +5 and could add this property on top.
And lets not pretend like keeping good hope, heroism, or a karyukai tea set, up for the vast majority of combats is all that difficult. I think the property would have been quite good if didn't scale (just increased morale bonus by 1) and was priced as a +2 bonus, with scaling its probably more in line with a +3 bonus.
That said, after this FAQ courageous will be yet another magic enhancement effect that isn't worth the paper it printed on which I find to be a disappointment. It probably isn't worth 1,000 much less the minimum of 6,000gp that a +1 equivalent bonus costs. But it does put it right next the value of the majority of weapon enhancements that no one ever selects if given a choice.
My all time favorite is Cunning. It really just takes my breath away.
|
|
They are and note they do quite alot and depend on nothing else to do thier job. Would you nerf Bane? It does +2 to thit and Damage and +2d6 extra. The Elemental Damage applies to every attack and can UPGRADE into another one that works on crits.. Even creatures immune to crits the effect goes off. +1 enhancement applies to every hit and damage, multiplies on a crit and makes your weapon eventually BYPASS DR. Courageous had to be BOUGHT UP by those Enhancement bonuses to eventually be useful. Just because something is better for a class or fighting style doesnt make it more powerful than ANOTHER ability. It doesnt mean it needs to get nerfed either.
I would hardly call 2+Con+2/level "A few".
At level 5, A barbarian will be rocking around 14 rounds of rage. That gives them 3-4 rounds every combat if the standard 4 encounters/day system is in effect. That is plenty.
By the time barbarians are rocking +2 equivalent weapons they will have enough rounds to rage virtually all the time they are fighting.
I would hardly call 2+Con+2/level "A few".
At level 5, A barbarian will be rocking around 14 rounds of rage. That gives them 3-4 rounds every combat if the standard 4 encounters/day system is in effect. That is plenty.
By the time barbarians are rocking +2 equivalent weapons they will have enough rounds to rage virtually all the time they are fighting.
This is true, but again a +6 weapon should be giving some pretty huge bonuses. That's a lotta dosh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true, but again a +6 weapon should be giving some pretty huge bonuses. That's a lotta dosh.I would hardly call 2+Con+2/level "A few".
At level 5, A barbarian will be rocking around 14 rounds of rage. That gives them 3-4 rounds every combat if the standard 4 encounters/day system is in effect. That is plenty.
By the time barbarians are rocking +2 equivalent weapons they will have enough rounds to rage virtually all the time they are fighting.
Indeed, at the same time that a Barbarian is having an effective +6 Courageous weapon, the party Wizard will be casting spells like Prismatic Spray, or, God Forbid, a Dazing Metamagicked Spell, and ending counters before they even begin, with an item that has the same effective increase, and costing a fraction of what the Barbarian had to pay to get the same amount of bonus, meaning the Wizard could spend that money on much more important items.
That being said and done, the Barbarian's effective +6 Courageous weapon is about as valuable as, say, a Dragon's "Lucky" Toothpick, since you might as well use a toothpick to Coup De Grace by shoving it through their eye sockets compared to how much the Wizard trivialized the encounter.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It take a severe lack of reading comprehension to interpret the word "any" as "this specific thing and no other thing", which is the exact opposite of the definition of the word "any".
Just because you GUESSED correctly about what it was MEANT to say does not mean that's what the text actually says.
There were a fair number of people who interpreted this use of the word any to be restricted to various things like "all saves" and "all fear saves" by trying it to the previous sentence.
This is a prime example of the concept that there is no "one true RAW" as genuinely unclear abilities can have different camps interpreting them in different ways. Accepting of this fact, makes for a better forum environment.
It take a severe lack of reading comprehension to interpret the word "any" as "this specific thing and no other thing", which is the exact opposite of the definition of the word "any".
Just because you GUESSED correctly about what it was MEANT to say does not mean that's what the text actually says.
There were a fair number of people who interpreted this use of the word any to be restricted to various things like "all saves" and "all fear saves" by trying it to the previous sentence.
This is a prime example of the concept that there is no "one true RAW" as genuinely unclear abilities can have different camps interpreting them in different ways. Accepting of this fact, makes for a better forum environment.
So if I interpret the use of the word penalty in power attack to be a bonus does that make it a RAW reading?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I like that the developers admit that the wording was wrong, because that clearly shows that the (small) bunch of people who argued that the enhancement only gave a bonus on (fear) saves was based on the written text (RAW) was only a wish of someone without a good understanding on grammar and wording.
That isn't it at all. It is more an admission that the wording wasn't clear and didn't convey the meaning the developers wished.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So if I interpret the use of the word penalty in power attack to be a bonus does that make it a RAW reading?
If you can show a word use or sentence to mean a bonus, sure.
I see what you are doing tho. You are saying that someone might interpret anything as anything else. But your assertion assumes fraud or deceit. How about you and I agree to limit our discussion to issues where there are multiple interpretations and the players/GM involved are genuine in their believe the words mean what they say. Which just happens to be opposite meanings.
I know Pathfinder is always bad in balancing things between martial and magic because it came from D&D, but it is very silly to take away the most useful bit of Courageous weapon. I didn't get to finish my study in game design, but even I know the basics of balancing abilities. I think it's going to get messier and messier...
Courageous is fine the way it was because it will take a lot of effort to find all those morale bonus to make it really powerful. And if you have gone through the effort and teamwork to make it work, you deserve to swing your courageous weapon with very deadly blows. After all, Courageous weapon is the only weapon ability in Pathfinder that screams HERO. Nerfing it means we don't need hero in the game. No one would pick courageous with it nerfed just like no one liked Fighter's bravery. It sounded cool, but does almost nothing. I know Barbarian and Paladin might be very "OP" when they have a Courageous weapon, then that's because no designer DESIGN something with fighter in mind other than Transformative. Say if Fighter's Bravery has changed to Heroism instead. I think the old courageous might be a bit too powerful because most full BAB classes can use them well. However, it should not be nerf. Make it a +2 bonus instead. Just very basics of game design, first day you go to class, they will ask you what is the most important thing about game design. Very basic, fair and fun.
Sorry for the necro:
Does the "new" wording make sense?
The rules say: "Multiple morale bonuses on the same character do not stack. Only the highest morale bonus applies." (the wording here shall not concern us now - I believe "character" here somehow means "ability" - it is well established that a character could benefit from a morale bonus to strength (e.g. rage) and at the same time from a morale bonus to attacks, (e.g. inspire courage).
Do I read "in addition" (in the descrption of the weapon property) the wrong way? So that it's actually either or? Whatever is higher?
E.g. a bard of 11th level with a +4 courageous weapon and inspire courage running: if all bonusses did stack he would accrue: +3 morale for IC, adding +2 from the secondary ability AND +4 from the primary ability. This is against the rules, I believe, so he can only take the better of the two abilities (secondary additon) because the primary does not stack with IC.
What throws me off is "in addition", but now it seems to me that this only indicates that in addition to the first ability the weapon get's a second ability.
Right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As it is now, due to the nonstacking nature of morale bonuses to saving throws against fear effects, only one of the two benefits of courageous will ever matter at a given time. The bard in your example would get a +4 morale bonus from the weapon's enhancement and a +5 (+3 plus (+4 / 2)) morale bonus from inspire courage. Only the +5 would actually apply. If inspire courage ended or was somehow neutralized, then the bard would still get the +4 morale bonus from the weapon's enhancement bonus.