Last post by Design Team is more than 2 months old


Website Feedback

101 to 150 of 283 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Steve Geddes wrote:

Well yeah, but I don't think you're correct about there being such a clear distinction between FAQ and errata.

That might be a good ideal, but life isn't perfect.

I think sometimes they change the rules via FAQ. I'm sure they'd rather not, but I think they sometimes think its the lesser of two evils.

Actually, there is. Errata (see errata documents) is actual changes to the rules, they are compiled, updated, and appear in further publication, and are updated into the PRD and are made part of the rules.


Yeah, but what I mean is that some changes are going to really mess with their pagination, were they to include it in future reprints. Hence they may decide to change the rule via FAQ rather than errata in order to avoid that issue.

I'm just speculating, but I've certainly heard of rules changes happening via FAQ before - that might suggest there's a different perspective or further constraints at work behind the scenes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I really don't think it's asking too much to put someone in charge of FAQ rulings that has these following:

Implying that the previous employees have NOT had the following.

Seriously Ash, if I'M agreeing you were insulting, you probably were. ;)

And Ashiel, if I'm also thinking you were merely stating some particulars, it's likely other people will be thinking you were "rude". Because offense exists everywhere, you just have to look for it hard enough.

If everybody could just ease up on imagining the worst we might be able to move forward and get some FAQs right. Let's stick to the FAQs shall we. ;)

Scarab Sages

Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah, but what I mean is that some changes are going to really mess with their pagination,

This has been cited by the developers as a reason for not making certain changes in the past, though I'm too lazy to look for the quote.


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

And Ashiel, if I'm also thinking you were merely stating some particulars, it's likely other people will be thinking you were "rude". Because offense exists everywhere, you just have to look for it hard enough.

If everybody could just ease up on imagining the worst we might be able to move forward and get some FAQs right. Let's stick to the FAQs shall we. ;)

I think the existence of rudeness or otherwise is relevant to the topic, personally. I don't know if you think I'm looking too hard for rudeness when I call out the following:

"....find someone who actually knows / comprehends the rules this time."

but I wasn't doing so just to read my own pixels. Quite apart from issues of politeness, I think it's in the community's interests to avoid being rude, as its more likely to engender engagement from the design team if our comments are about the rules rather than the perceived failings of the paizo staff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No worries Steve. And I agree with your basic premise that less rudeness = more engagement.

I think it can also be taken as an indication that there is a considered opinion that there is a level of inconsistency in the FAQs that could be interpreted as coming from people who aren't as knowledgable as perhaps they could be. A lot of coulds and perhaps, I know, but not just some inconsiderate rudeness. IMHO.


Yeah that's clear - there's a view of some inconsistency (its not a view I share, but that's not very important). My critique of the critique is directed towards the conclusion that professional failing is the only explanation.

Paizo are very open and transparent, so there's a temptation to think we understand how things work. nonetheless, i think there's a whole bunch of stuff we don't see which factors into this stuff. It's possible to raise the same issue without leaping to unjustified conclusions as to the causes.

Contributor

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
and it appears clear that whomever issued the FAQ did not actually consult the rules because this is not a matter of interpretation or opinion, it's just a matter of Y/N. It wasn't that hard to find the answer if you've been playing the game for a while as there's a fairly simple process for seeking out rules in our admittedly scattered ruleset (the question was about spells/SLAs, so I first checked the Magic chapter, then the glossary, then checked the Universal Monster Rules, in an ordered process made trivial by Ctrl+F search functions).

NOTHING was posted to the FAQ without the approval of the ENTIRE DESIGN TEAM. You are making assumptions about the outcome (the FAQ) based on your biased, false assumptions about who decides what goes in them (you think it's one person who decides, but it's the whole team that approves what goes in the FAQ).

And specifically, the FAQs about SLAs were the outcome of an evolution of the design team's intent for SLAs to work, even if that deviated from the original SLA rules (which were written 14 years ago and have changed in the various iterations of the game from 3.0 to 3.5 to PF). SLAs act almost exactly like spells except for one or two corner cases (such as qualifying for prestige classes, and using them to craft items), and the design team has come to believe that those corner cases don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, and could go away without having a harmful impact on the game. Especially as in the original Core Rulebook, the rules for SLAs were described in two different places and contradicted each other (IIRC it was about whether they could be dispelled or counterspelled); this was eventually fixed, but it made the design team want to take a closer look at how SLAs work, why they are different than spells in the few places they are different, and whether that distinction needed to remain in the game.

If only I, Jason, and Stephen knew/comprehended the rules...

Contributor

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
All I ask is that, please, pleeeeaaaase, find someone who actually knows / comprehends the rules this time.

Stay classy!

And it's exactly posts like yours that make me think YOU are one of the people who is a problem on these boards. Not only do you insult staff members, you don't even realize that you are doing it, and when called out on it, you use your ignorance to justify it.

Act like a damn human being. And learn about what you're talking about before spouting off opinions about it.

Contributor

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, if you think I would just post whatever I wanted to the FAQ, do you think Jason (lead designer) doesn't actually read the posted FAQs? That he would see a FAQ I or Stephen wrote without his knowledge, and just leave it there even though he disagreed with it?

Not only are you saying that I don't know the rules, you're suggesting that Jason (the lead designer)
* doesn't read what gets posted to the FAQ (too lazy?),
* doesn't care what gets posted to the FAQ (too indifferent?),
* doesn't know the rules well enough to realize that a particular FAQ is "wrong" (ignorant/unqualified for his job?), or
* couldn't be bothered to get them "corrected" (too lazy?).

Do you still think you're not being insulting?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Isn't the FAQ a group thing anyway? I didn't think they were the work of one person.

I was hoping that was just for things that weren't covered in the rules or were for big confusions (like with monks). Getting a job that you don't actually have any more say in than the rest of your co-workers, while being the face for the job is just a bad idea all around.

Um, you pretty much just described customer service positions there :) No power to do anything about the underlying problem other than to smile politely and issue refunds, yet they still have to be the one facing the irate customers.

So yeah, that very setup is exactly why Sean tended to catch all the flak for the FAQ, being "the FAQ guy" that we all associated with it despite the fact the entire team work together on it (it's been said a few times in various conversations about them on here that one of the reasons why the FAQs get answered so slowly is that each one requires the dev team to sit and discuss it before coming up with an answer for publication on the site.)

If anything, I'd hazard a guess that it's probably best to consider the FAQ role as being subservient to the entire dev team, as the poor bastard that has to sit and do the paperwork after everyone's finished sitting around talking it over in the meeting, rather than having any real power over the FAQs. ;)

That, plus it's never, ever a good idea to assume any single staff member is behind anything in particular. It's always best to identify a specific perceived issue ("I don't like X about the FAQs") and leave the actual decision as to whether that really is a problem with the product (because it really can be that the "problem" is there by design even if an entire subset of players don't like it), and if so who is responsible for it (because the polite thing is to let that get handled privately behind closed doors, and not out here on the boards), to the company. Otherwise it can end up with message board conversations turning into a mob with flaming torches screaming "burn the witch!" ;)

In other words, always aim criticism well and truly at the product (or company) in question, rather than at a human being (e.g. "Google Chrome's UI changes over the past year are absolutely terrible and make it feel completely disjointed from the OS, as if for some reason Google feel their own look and feel is better than using the user-chosen theme for their computer. I've stopped using it because it doesn't feel like a web browser application any longer. That, plus the fact I don't trust Google any further than I could throw their datacenter." as opposed to "Whoever is in charge of UI design for Google Chrome must be totally blind and needs firing so hard that they end up getting a new job five years ago." - I speak from experience here :D )


I am ok with SLA's not being usable for prestige classes if eldritch knight and mystic theurge get changed to "level 1 arcane" and "level 1 arcane/level 1 divine".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
TIL listing a number of reasonable qualifications needed for a job is rude.

Listed job requirements aren't directed at previous employees, but the position to be applied to.


It is rather absurd to suggest that all of the posted FAQs are perfectly consistent with the printed rules and are just clarifications, when a few of the FAQs explicitly say that they are changes to the rules. An example that springs to mind is the one about Inspired Spell and Wild Arcana, released shortly after mythic adventures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


If only I, Jason, and Stephen knew Comprehended The Rules...

Meh. That spell only let's YOU understand the rules, not convey the rules to others.


This is why we can't have nice things.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Friends,

Let's try to get this thread back on track. I'd still love to see any lists of FAQs anyone comes up with (and don't worry if not, I have my own list too!).

When it comes to the FAQ/errata distinction, I think a few people here have the wrong idea about what separates them. It's a pretty complicated distinction, so it's not surprising that it's confusing. It took me a while to figure it out too back when I started playing Pathfinder. Official errata is only issued when the book is reprinted. If it's in the errata, it's in your latest printing and your updated pdf. Everything else, including flat-out rules changes that were pressing enough to decide right away, even before the next printing, are in the FAQ.

To illustrate with an example, let's say that we designed a new archetype with an ability that was supposed to grant a +1 to hit but wound up granting a +11 to hit because someone hit the '1' key twice in a row, and it made it to print. Based on our errata policy, we cannot issue errata until the next printing. However, we wouldn't want PFS to have to ban the archetype until the next printing (which could be years later) or other GMs to become confused, so we would issue a FAQ, something like

Hypothetical FAQ wrote:


Q: Does the cool dude archetype really get a +11 to hit while wearing sunglasses?

A: No. In fact the cool dude archetype is meant to get a +1 to hit while wearing sunglasses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem I have with that is that it's been stated numerous times that the PDT* does not want to use FAQs as a tool to introduce "incremental change via errata", often as an excuse for why they don't fix many balance issues people complain about.

The problem is...they already do this.

Perhaps on a smaller scale, there's a big difference between "clarifying" an option to be something it was not before (the SLA rule) and changing a class as a whole/adding new class features to an existing class, but it seems to be skirting the edges of the truth at best to say rules change via errata is not something they do, as you point out.

*:
I don't include you in this as of yet because you haven't had a hand in any of the statements made so far and whatnot, not because I don't consider you an actual member of the team.


Rynjin wrote:

The problem I have with that is that it's been stated numerous times that the PDT* does not want to use FAQs as a tool to introduce "incremental change via errata", often as an excuse for why they don't fix many balance issues people complain about.

The problem is...they already do this.

Perhaps on a smaller scale, there's a big difference between "clarifying" an option to be something it was not before (the SLA rule) and changing a class as a whole/adding new class features to an existing class, but it seems to be skirting the edges of the truth at best to say rules change via errata is not something they do, as you point out.

** spoiler omitted **

That's a good point, Rynjin. I think in this case, what they meant was that they don't want to have a 100-page long FAQ full of errata that serves as an additional barrier to entry, but that they would instead prefer to limit the changes to those that are pressing (like the hypothetical example of the +11 to hit). If I'm right, then "incremental" is the key word. However, this is simply my understanding of those statements from before I joined on and is not based on any additional information I have as a designer, so I'm posting this as Rogue Eidolon without the Designer tag on it.


I haven't been on the Rule Questions forums long enough to put forward a "list of most pressing FAQs" with any degree of confidence, but since you ask:

The "Does concealment stop all precision damage" FAQ found here strikes me as something that, if clarified before the ACG is released, will help avoid a fair amount of headaches for PFS GMs when the Swashbuckler enters the fray. In that sense it would be really, really good if it could get FAQ'ed before the ACG release date in late August.

As Blackbloodtroll notes in that thread, it would also be great if we could get "precision damage" described and nailed down in general since it is referenced frequently but never really defined, though that's less pressing.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Stick to helping Mark change things for the better, not criticizing things that happened in the past, or I will lock this thread.


Ashiel wrote:
Ergo, it appeared to me, that the last person in the position either A) didn't know the rules, B) didn't understand them, or C) didn't respect the position enough to go through that much trouble (which wasn't much). I'm not sure what other conclusion there was to draw.

Perhaps D) the FAQ ruling was intended to supersede the rules as previously written, so as to account for situations that had not been foreseen at the time of writing?

EDIT: And I see that Sean already covered this. Next time, I need to finish reading the thread before responding... :(

Designer

Cthulhudrew--I don't want to seem ungrateful for your well-thought-out statement of support here, but it seems from your edit that you hadn't noticed Vic's post. In order to help follow Vic's request to focus on change, we'll need to make sure that those who wish to support past actions also don't post counter-discussion when the people who are more critical of the past have been asked to change the topic. It seems only fair. If you happen to see this before the edit window expires, could you give your post a change in focus?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

And it's exactly posts like yours that make me think YOU are one of the people who is a problem on these boards. Not only do you insult staff members, you don't even realize that you are doing it, and when called out on it, you use your ignorance to justify it.

Act like a damn human being.

Explanation does not equate to justification. When it was pointed out to me that what I said was insulting and rude, I apologized, sincerely (I do not make apologies that I don't mean). That apology extends to both you, and to anyone else offended by what I said.

As for not realizing that I was being insulting, that is a demon I've had to wrestle with for a while, because I just don't react to things like other people do. Even as a child I struggled to understand certain emotions and reactions that others have had. It has caused some difficulty with person to person interactions in my life. It's something that I've been, slowly, learning to deal with over the years and is a contributing factor for my interest in understanding why people act like people. I guess it's just part of my goal to act like a "damn human being".

As for you thinking that I'm a problem on these boards, that's up to you. If I really am then I will accept a ban. However, I will say that I'd be very disappointed. When actual harassment (like when a certain poster was following me around through different threads, trying to start fights, constantly trying to disparage me as a person - not my ideas, but my identity - and posting my personal information on the boards trying to use my gender as a means of discrediting anything that I say) went unbanned, I'd be both let down and strangely amused by being barred from the forums because of a passing comment (inspired mostly by playing head-shoulders-knees-and-toes with magic fang).

Anyway, my apology was sincere, and still is. You can take it, or leave it. Either way, I'm just going to go spend a few months crafting some water balloons.

Good luck Mark!


Flagged SKR's post, two rudes don't make a polite.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Stick to helping Mark change things for the better, not criticizing things that happened in the past, or I will lock this thread.

The two are somewhat linked, IMO. Constructive criticism is really the only way to point out flaws that need to be pointed out to change things for the better.

Though perhaps less phrasing along the lines of "other people did this wrong, hope the new guy's better" and more "The old method seems a bit inconsistent, perhaps try to keep it more consistent going forward" could be used.


I am pretty interested in seeing what Mark will bring to the table. I haven't seen much by him before, save for some class guides which seemed pretty cool (re-reading them, as it's been a while). Big hopes. :)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Or possibly just "Here are rulings that are issues, here's why, could you look at them" which contains no possibility of rudeness as it's just talking about the decision not the people making it.
For example, the SLA ruling causes early entry into prestige classes for Aasimars. Possibly an unintented consequence, possibly not. But it is often mentioend and might need a new discussion, even if the same decision is made in the final analysis.
Or the "General rule for Sorcerer bloodlines" that is being used for the, IMO, daft proposition that Clerics can now spontaneously cast cure spells using wizard spells. Again, probably an unintented consequence that might need to look at the wording of the ruling to clarify and tighten the intent.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the introduction of the Warpriest, the most pressing and least controversial FAQ to start with would be a single unified chart for damage die increases.

Yes, this technically falls under errata in scope. It also would affect multiple source books. With the currently situation, there are simply no rules in place to handle certain scenarios that are becoming more frequent.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Why don't you wait until the Advanced Class Guide is out before you demand an erratum for it?


AFAIK, he has worked on two pathfinder books, Convergent Paths: Fey Archetypes, which has three new archetypes, and Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler, which expands on one of those archetypes.
I've heard good things about the Masquerade Reveler, which is a barbarian archetype that looks really interesting, although I haven't gotten a chance to use it yet (hmm, maybe I'll give it to my next martial melee npc...)
I haven't really looked at his other two archetypes yet.


Paul Watson wrote:

Or possibly just "Here are rulings that are issues, here's why, could you look at them" which contains no possibility of rudeness as it's just talking about the decision not the people making it.

For example, the SLA ruling causes early entry into prestige classes for Aasimars. Possibly an unintented consequence, possibly not. But it is often mentioend and might need a new discussion, even if the same decision is made in the final analysis.
Or the "General rule for Sorcerer bloodlines" that is being used for the, IMO, daft proposition that Clerics can now spontaneously cast cure spells using wizard spells. Again, probably an unintented consequence that might need to look at the wording of the ruling to clarify and tighten the intent.

Yes,those are good examples.

Another possible unintended consequence is now with the Crossblooded Sorc, you can take one dip into that, then go into wizard, getting all the advantages and few of the disadvantages.

"Scry & Fry". "Simulacrum".

Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Good luck Mark!

Thanks, now on to the future! (this is a reply talking to everyone, not just to Ashiel)

One thing that I always try to remember and I hope that everyone will remember too is that everyone posting here, agree or disagree with them, and whether their tone is positive or negative, is passionate and excited about the game. If they weren't, they wouldn't be spending their time and energy here on the boards instead of doing other things. I can't promise that everyone will always agree with the decisions we make (trust me, I'm sure we'll make some decisions that are counter to the ones I would have made if I was going it alone; that's part and parcel of being on a team), but what I can promise is that I'll never lose sight of that fact. We're all here because we care about the game.

That's fundamentally important to me, so I thank everyone here for their feedback. And even the feedback given in a really negative tone can be useful. If you have a solid analysis, I will be grateful for your feedback. But let me explain to you why you'll be able to help me help you the most if you give feedback more analytically and with less negative connotations.

Let's say that we have a new member on the Design Team named Bob who designed a rules element that has a extremely subtle glitch in it and needs to be fixed via FAQ. Now, nobody outside Paizo knows it was Bob who designed the rules element, but Bob sure does. Now, let's assume that one of you guys is playing with this rules element, maybe in a playtest or maybe afterwards, and you suddenly discover the problem. You immediately come onto the forums and explain the problem in a particular fashion (for now, let's not worry about how you explained it), and you completely convince me that I want to work on this problem. However, it's a team effort, so we need to come to a consensus, and since Bob designed this element, he would likely be more of a custodian for that element as well. So I bring up your post at a meeting. Bob has also been following the thread somewhat and read your post, but he didn't have time to read every piece of analysis thoroughly before I brought it up. Now let's consider how you phrased the post: in Universe A, you phrased it in a constructive and supportive way and in Universe B, you phrased it confrontationally and negatively, saying that "Whoever designed that rules element doesn't know what he's doing and needs to be fired" or something like that. Since Bob has read your post, in Universe B he's much more likely to be on the defensive against anything else you said, and it's much less likely that I would be able to convince him to listen to your other arguments.

So, you see, in order to help me help you, the best thing to do is to try to keep things constructive and avoid personally attacking the designer, even if its anonymous and you don't know who exactly that designer was.


So, then; "Bob only did that as he hates Elements!" is NOT being helpful?

;-)

I am eagerly awaiting your first FAQ! Make it a easy one.


137ben wrote:

AFAIK, he has worked on two pathfinder books, Convergent Paths: Fey Archetypes, which has three new archetypes, and Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler, which expands on one of those archetypes.

I've heard good things about the Masquerade Reveler, which is a barbarian archetype that looks really interesting, although I haven't gotten a chance to use it yet (hmm, maybe I'll give it to my next martial melee npc...)
I haven't really looked at his other two archetypes yet.

I think Rite actually has the relevant pdfs on sale for half off to celebrate my new position.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Why don't you wait until the Advanced Class Guide is out before you demand an erratum for it?

The rules clarification people are asking for regards an issue that has around for a long time. There is a FAQ request thread with hundreds of people requesting the FAQ, with no drama anywhere on the thread.

The addition of the Warpriest just makes the existing problem more urgent.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

So, then; "Bob only did that as he hates Elements!" is NOT being helpful?

;-)

I am eagerly awaiting your first FAQ! Make it a easy one.

An example of a better way to do it would be:

"I love the new cool dude archetype. However, based on the wording of the too cool for school ability they get at level 3, when combined with the sunglasses of immense style from the Magic Items chapter, it seems to create an infinite loop that gives the cool dude an infinite bonus on Charisma-based skill checks. I only noticed this last night when I bought the sunglasses and put them on my cool dude, but I think you might want to look into changing the way the too cool for school ability works in order to avoid this."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Here are some FAQs I would like to see:

* An FAQ stating that a worn outfit (perhaps under 8lbs, or some such-- I choose 8lbs because it's the weight of an Explorer's Outfit) does not count against encumbrance. I believe this was in 3.5, but it's not in Pathfinder. I've seen some of the devs stating that this was the intention, though. This can make a big difference for STR 10 (or lower) characters trying to bring just a little bit of stuff with them, but won't make much difference for strong fighter types who wear armor anyway. This is a rules change, but still, it's one I'd love to see. (Easily houseruled in a home campaign, but we need something official for it to work in PFS; plus, making it the default will make it more likely that more GMs will use it.)

* A clarification that "bleed damage" happens on the target's turn, and is not a type of damage like "fire damage". Although the terminology is a bit unfortunate and confusing, I think it's clear in the rulebook that you never take bleed damage when the weapon hits, only on your turn, but we had a giant debate in a recent game where one person was convinced that "bleed damage" meant different things in different places. It was a James Jacob post in his gigantic thread that made it clear that that one person was wrong and the rest of us were right. A simple clarifying statement that "whenever you see 'bleed damage', it's not damage that you take with the attack, but it means that you get the bleeding condition with the associated numerical value" would be helpful.

* When a bard gets Versatile Performance, can he reassign the pre-existing skill ranks that become "useless" because of it? I've read some devs using this as a house rule, and James Jacobs has said that he thinks of it as RAI, although it may not be universal. If the intention really is for Versatile Performance to give the Bard more skill utility, this would be a really nice thing to add. It's worth figuring out if amongst the devs this is RAI; if so, please turn it into RAW in the FAQ.

* How long does it take a monster to use the Summon (Sp) ability? (E.g. a demon summoning other demons with a % chance to succeed.) There is genuine debate about this. Some point out that unless stated otherwise, Spell-Like abilities are a Standard Action, and rule it that way. Others look at the "Summon" description saying "much as though casting a summon monster spell", and conclude that the Summon ability should be a full-round action. Myself as GM, I look at the "much as" meaning that you shouldn't treat the Summon ability as being just like the spell, and fall back on Sp abilities being a standard action. It would be nice in the FAQ to have this clearly spelled out one way or the other, because it is something that people do debate, and it is something you could make a case for either way using RAW.

Designer

rknop wrote:

Here are some FAQs I would like to see:

* An FAQ stating that a worn outfit (perhaps under 8lbs, or some such-- I choose 8lbs because it's the weight of an Explorer's Outfit) does not count against encumbrance. I believe this was in 3.5, but it's not in Pathfinder. I've seen some of the devs stating that this was the intention, though. This can make a big difference for STR 10 (or lower) characters trying to bring just a little bit of stuff with them, but won't make much difference for strong fighter types who wear armor anyway. This is a rules change, but still, it's one I'd love to see. (Easily houseruled in a home campaign, but we need something official for it to work in PFS; plus, making it the default will make it more likely that more GMs will use it.)

* A clarification that "bleed damage" happens on the target's turn, and is not a type of damage like "fire damage". Although the terminology is a bit unfortunate and confusing, I think it's clear in the rulebook that you never take bleed damage when the weapon hits, only on your turn, but we had a giant debate in a recent game where one person was convinced that "bleed damage" meant different things in different places. It was a James Jacob post in his gigantic thread that made it clear that that one person was wrong and the rest of us were right. A simple clarifying statement that "whenever you see 'bleed damage', it's not damage that you take with the attack, but it means that you get the bleeding condition with the associated numerical value" would be helpful.

* When a bard gets Versatile Performance, can he reassign the pre-existing skill ranks that become "useless" because of it? I've read some devs using this as a house rule, and James Jacobs has said that he thinks of it as RAI, although it may not be universal. If the intention really is for Versatile Performance to give the Bard more skill utility, this would be a really nice thing to add. It's worth figuring out if amongst the devs this is RAI; if so,...

Nice! Keep these coming. Some of those were already on my list, and some weren't yet.


Mark Seifter wrote:
*post about feedback and stuff*

Oh...oh I like you. It's going to be waaaaay more fun talking mechanics with you now. And don't worry about analysis. I can be painfully long winded. (@o@)


Jason has already covered the clothing weight issue.

Presumably, the issue was revisited and kept the way it is? Or maybe he's still planning on revisiting it, 5 years later :)


Cheapy wrote:

Jason has already covered the clothing weight issue.

Presumably, the issue was revisited and kept the way it is? Or maybe he's still planning on revisiting it, 5 years later :)

Seoni is just optimized. :)


Welcome Mark! Thanks for doing this, and please try to maintain your sense of humor about what people write on the internet.

My big question is:

If you interact with an illusion once and fail your save, do you get to save against the illusion every time you interact with it again, or are you stuck believing the illusion unless you get incontrovertible proof or are told by someone else that it is an illusion?

What counts as an interaction? Every action a person can take against an illusion in a round? Every attack (so a full round action that is 5 attacks would get 5 saving throws?) Do attacks on the illusion that miss count as interactions?

Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
*post about feedback and stuff*
Oh...oh I like you. It's going to be waaaaay more fun talking mechanics with you now. And don't worry about analysis. I can be painfully long winded. (@o@)

Since you agree with my thrust in that post, you may want to consider why some of your posts come across as negative when you don't intend for them to do so. Having studied linguistics, I think a likely reason might be because of Gricean implicatures. Most people are hard-wired to read implicatures into anything you say, even though they are not directly stated, and linguists consider this to be a peculiar and interesting fact about language and communication. The link I included has some good examples.

Especially when criticizing, you may want to keep implicatures in mind and try to ask yourself if what you were saying might carry an implicature beyond the direct words you have said. For instance, if you are ordering at a restaurant and say "I'd like the steak, and I hope it isn't terrible this time," while it may very well be true that you really do hope that it isn't terrible this time, there is an implicature that you have ordered steak here before and it was terrible.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
137ben wrote:

AFAIK, he has worked on two pathfinder books, Convergent Paths: Fey Archetypes, which has three new archetypes, and Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler, which expands on one of those archetypes.

I've heard good things about the Masquerade Reveler, which is a barbarian archetype that looks really interesting, although I haven't gotten a chance to use it yet (hmm, maybe I'll give it to my next martial melee npc...)
I haven't really looked at his other two archetypes yet.
I think Rite actually has the relevant pdfs on sale for half off to celebrate my new position.

HUZZAH!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
*post about feedback and stuff*
Oh...oh I like you. It's going to be waaaaay more fun talking mechanics with you now. And don't worry about analysis. I can be painfully long winded. (@o@)

Since you agree with my thrust in that post, you may want to consider why some of your posts come across as negative when you don't intend for them to do so. Having studied linguistics, I think a likely reason might be because of Gricean implicatures. Most people are hard-wired to read implicatures into anything you say, even though they are not directly stated, and linguists consider this to be a peculiar and interesting fact about language and communication. The link I included has some good examples.

Especially when criticizing, you may want to keep implicatures in mind and try to ask yourself if what you were saying might carry an implicature beyond the direct words you have said. For instance, if you are ordering at a restaurant and say "I'd like the steak, and I hope it isn't terrible this time," while it may very well be true that you really do hope that it isn't terrible this time, there is an implicature that you have ordered steak here before and it was terrible.

Your Knowledge (Local) is impressive Mark as you've identified my weakness for fascinating subjects and interesting words! *gobbles wikipedia link*

*rolls over fat and satiated* "Waiter, I'll have the steak please, and I'm looking forward to it being even better than last time"!


I just read through the Fey Archetypes Mark wrote.
The cavalier archetype is very flavorful, and the introduction is amusing. The crunch is rather bland, though. It's main feature is that its mount gets the fey-creature template. While approrpriate and potentially useful, it 'outsources' the most interesting mechanics to an already-published template from the Bestiary 3.

The monk archetype is better--it gets a bunch of abilities to bluff and diplomacize others (Flurry of Words :) ). I'm not sure why its called Laughing Man, though, there seems to be a disconnect between the name, the fluff, and the crunch. It's a really well-written archetype, it just needs a different name.

The barbarian archetype is by far the best part of the supplement. It wears masks which give unique abilities, including eidelon evolutions, to the barbarian. It also has strong fluff which fits with the crunch but is not overly restrictive. Secrets of the Masquerading Reveler significantly expands this archetype.


137ben wrote:

I just read through the Fey Archetypes Mark wrote.

The cavalier archetype is very flavorful, and the introduction is amusing. The crunch is rather bland, though. It's main feature is that its mount gets the fey-creature template. While approrpriate and potentially useful, it 'outsources' the most interesting mechanics to an already-published template from the Bestiary 3.

The monk archetype is better--it gets a bunch of abilities to bluff and diplomacize others (Flurry of Words :) ). I'm not sure why its called Laughing Man, though, there seems to be a disconnect between the name, the fluff, and the crunch. It's a really well-written archetype, it just needs a different name.

The barbarian archetype is by far the best part of the supplement. It wears masks which give unique abilities, including eidelon evolutions, to the barbarian. It also has strong fluff which fits with the crunch but is not overly restrictive. Secrets of the Masquerading Reveler significantly expands this archetype.

Yep, parents shouldn't favor one child, but the reveler is definitely the best one. There's a reason Melusine got her own book more than twice as long as the original book, even though the original included all three archetypes and a new fey. That archetype was the seed behind the whole project (I had been sitting on it since writing it for RPG Superstar the year the APG came out in case I made Top 32 that year, so when I was approached to write three archetypes with a common theme, that seemed perfect).

I'd love to talk about it more with you, but let's continue in either my welcome blog or one of the two product threads for those two products!

EDIT: It's a quick but solid review of all three archetypes in CP:FA, so I've cross-posted it in that product thread here. Happy to chat about it a bit there too!

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Ashiel,

Whatever your problems, I'm very glad whenever I see somebody 1) acknowledge them, and 2) try to improve. Keep it up! 8^)

Liberty's Edge

Mark Seifter wrote:
Nice! Keep these coming. Some of those were already on my list, and some weren't yet.

Well, someone already linked the thread I started, but if you're asking for topics, here's a brief summary:

It's unclear if all precision damage is negated by concealment, or if that's specific to Sneak Attack (and other things that explicitly say so). Or, indeed, what precision damage even is or means as a damage type, mechanically speaking.

This isn't a huge deal at the moment given the rarity of precision damage other than Sneak Attack...but given that Swashbuckler is an upcoming base class, and relies on such damage, it's gonna become real relevant real soon. Especially since Investigators use precision damage as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mounted combat: Help?

Overrun: How does this actually work?

AoO bite attack with grab: Do you get grab on these? what about grappling interrupting a charge? If you get grappled while charging, does that stop you?

Thunder and Fang and phalanx fighter archetypes: Can you dual wield two handed weapons with these feats? (Treats earthbreaker as 1 handed, treats polearms as 1 handed while wearing a shield, can have a buckler and wield a weapon in that hand).

Titan Mauler: Can you undo the faq that makes it not do anything so it does stuff instead?

Planar Binding: Can you just bind unlimited things for basically free? Can we have some mechanics
Planar binding A: Does the wizard discovery "True Name" really just skip all the binding mechanics for a permanent pet?

Charm Person: How far can the opposed charisma check get you?

Prismatic spray: If you roll and 8, and then another 8, does the opponent just get hit by nothing, or should it say "If you roll an 8, roll twice and reroll 8s as 2 rays strike a guy"or "If you roll an 8, an additional ray strikes for up to 7 rays"

That is all I have for now

101 to 150 of 283 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / Last post by Design Team is more than 2 months old All Messageboards