|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mentioned this back in the playtest, but the best and most obvious mechanic for Precise Strike and the other swashbuckler abilities was to have them apply to either finessable weapons, or create a list of 'swashbuckler weapons' and use that list, which would also be a valid weapon group for Weapon Training.
Instead, we got wording which included heavy picks, and a Dex to damage feat (finally!) which includes battle-axes but excludes rapiers and light weapons!
It's not so much that they got it so wrong, it's that it was so easy to get right that they had to go out of their way to get it so wrong, and did it anyway!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, in the main dex-to-damage thread I posted that I didn't believe light weapon were excluded from the slashing grace feat. I though it was an overly narrow reading of the feat.
Well I just read the class preview and it specifically mention snake style as a feat that allow a swashbuckler to use his abilities. Since unarmed attack are light weapons for the purpose of feats, we have pretty good evidence that light weapons were meant to be included in slashing grace.
While I agree that it is probably an overly narrow reading, the problem is, and always will be, rules english is not normal english. one handed weapon means a very specific thing in Pathfinder, namely a weapon in the one handed category. See also pummeling style, which for all the mentions of punching, because punching means nothing in pathfinder, means the style works regardless of weapon.
I really wish paizo would adapt a bracketing format around keywords, mostly because it makes intent far easier to find. because if it was normally done
Choose one kind of [one-handed] [slashing] weapon. When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a [one-handed [piercing melee] weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as aswashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike)and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.
would read different than
Choose one kind of one-handed [slashing] weapon. When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a [one-handed] [piercing melee] weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.
dot
actually, the group is "one handed melee", I don't think "one handed" exist.
There is a relevant FAQ somewhere about something related to this.
I don't remember what specifically, but I'll tell you that before swarms of people rant at you for making such a distinction.
You know, in the main dex-to-damage thread I posted that I didn't believe light weapon were excluded from the slashing grace feat. I though it was an overly narrow reading of the feat.
But with all of the attention on this feat, how would this perception not have been corrected? Jason Bulmahn's Fencing Grace reveal shows that he's perfectly aware of the discussion. Mark is aware of the discussion (according to at least one post that he's made). I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen has given some at-least-peripheral comment on the topic. The developers are clearly aware that there is an outcry regarding the 'Grace' feats and light weapons (among other things).
So if the intention was for the feat to work with light weapons, why wouldn't one of them stepped in to nip all this hullabaloo in the bud? It would go a long way towards addressing the disatisfaction surrounding these feats. I suppose they could be saving it for a FAQ clarification, but why not clarify early and avoid the firestorm in the first place?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i agree that these feats are problematic but i really don't understand why so many people feel it necessary to use such harsh rhetoric, especially directed at a staff that works hard to provide a game we all enjoy. if you've reached a point where you no longer enjoy it simply put down your books, log off the forum, and find a game you do enjoy; you'll feel better and it'll spare a lot of other people a lot of negativity.
i can understand the concerns for those who are in society play and thought they'd finally be able to play a build they've been wanting for a while but for everyone else, just house rule it. here are feats you could easily put into play:
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, +1 BAB
Benefit: You may apply your Dex modifier in place of your Str modifier on damage rolls you make with any weapon that benefits from weapon finesse. This bonus is not increased if the weapon is used in two hands but is halved for an off-hand weapon.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls even though it isn't a light weapon and you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike). The weapon must be appropriately sized for you in order to gain these benefits.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Graceful Combatant
Benefit: When using the Graceful Combatant feat, you may apply your full Dex modifier to weapon damage rolls on attacks made with your off-hand.
i can understand the concerns for those who are in society play and thought they'd finally be able to play a build they've been wanting for a while but for everyone else, just house rule it.
When you get a brand new and shiny book and MANY sections of the book make you think "just house rule it", what do you expect people to think/say? This book has a huge amount or errors/oversights/ect and it REALLY needed at least one more round of checks/editing. Getting the book out for Gencon was more important than getting it right it seems.
i agree that these feats are problematic but i really don't understand why so many people feel it necessary to use such harsh rhetoric, especially directed at a staff that works hard to provide a game we all enjoy. if you've reached a point where you no longer enjoy it simply put down your books, log off the forum, and find a game you do enjoy; you'll feel better and it'll spare a lot of other people a lot of negativity.
People are passionate about Pathfinder. They get frustrated when something so poorly designed as Slashing Grace makes it into the game. The fact that the devs often refuse to acknowledge mistakes and/or "fix" them with even worse patches (cough cough... Fencing Grace... cough) doesn't help.
I personally consider the ACG to the be the worst Pathfinder hardcover so far, and by a pretty wide margin too.
I can understand the concerns for those who are in society play and thought they'd finally be able to play a build they've been wanting for a while but for everyone else, just house rule it. here are feats you could easily put into play:
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, +1 BAB
Benefit: You may apply your Dex modifier in place of your Str modifier on damage rolls you make with any weapon that benefits from weapon finesse. This bonus is not increased if the weapon is used in two hands but is halved for an off-hand weapon.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls even though it isn't a light weapon and you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike). The weapon must be appropriately sized for you in order to gain these benefits.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Graceful Combatant
Benefit: When using the Graceful Combatant feat, you may apply your full Dex modifier to weapon damage rolls on attacks made with your off-hand.
These are pretty well designed. I wish Paizo would errata them into the rules instead of adding an awful excuse of a "fix" in another book.
I personally consider the ACG to the be the worst hardcover so far.
I actually think it is one of the better ones. Paizo finally got around to replacing both the slayer-rogue and the investigator-rogue. Hunter looks neat to me, and the idea of spont feats could be the break that martials have been needing. Heck the fighter gets two archetypes that replace everything but bravery and the combo is hands down better than anything you could have done before with the fighter and may even scale well into high levels.
I would put the ACG up there with Ultimate magic in terms of addressing niche holes(magus) and addressing problems(qinggong).
Oh, yeah... Bloodrager, Investigator and Slayer are great! The rest of the book ranges from mediocre to horrible. And the editing is so atrocious even the cover of the book is messed up.
|
Oh, yeah... Bloodrager, Investigator and Slayer are great! The rest of the book ranges from mediocre to horrible. And the editing is so atrocious even the cover of the book is messed up.
I dunno, most of the Feats are fine, and Brawler, Hunter, Shaman and Skald are all pretty darn cool, and a lot of the Archetypes are very good in and of themselves.
Can't argue on the editing, though.
The ACG has a lot of great options. Many of the bad options are there because of editing issues. I really wish they didn't rush this out to GenCon. Honestly, I'd rather they push back a hardcover that is well-edited, than push a low-quality product. I'm very worried in the direction Paizo is going and am a lot more hesitant to buy their products now.
|
|
The ACG has a lot of great options. Many of the bad options are there because of editing issues. I really wish they didn't rush this out to GenCon. Honestly, I'd rather they push back a hardcover that is well-edited, than push a low-quality product.
This, I agree with entirely. I'm displeased with the ACG's editing. Very displeased.
I'm very worried in the direction Paizo is going and am a lot more hesitant to buy their products now.
This seems really premature. There were some staffing issues in there (between SKR leaving and Mark Seifter getting hired), and more importantly I haven't noticed a trend of this sort of thing...and an isolated event should not generally make one worried about the direction things are going.
GenCon books have always had issues, though none quite to this level. Haven't seen editing issues this bad since the Ultimate Magic/Combat combo. What worries me is that with the turnover, Paizo felt like the product should still be pushed out by GenCon. And I feel the book suffered greatly from it. That's why I am very worried about this. It may be one book, but it was a book that people looked forward to. And it's editing is so bad that even the title is incorrect. Which, to their credit, they apologized for. But that's the only word we've heard from them about the editing. No other apologies beyond that.
I'm really glad I didn't waste $40 on the hardcover, because there are a lot of angry gamers at my FLGS that returned their book for store credit after they read the book. And most of them spent it on the competition. That's a bit scary.
stuff
I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why the ACG came out as a poorly-edited mess of a book. Yes, there are publication schedules to worry about, and the need to turn a profit in a reasonable timescale. Releasing it for GenCon was probably very important for Paizo's profit margin on the book.
However, whatever the reasons are, they don't change the fact that the ACG is poorly-edited and full of mistakes.
stuffI'm sure there are plenty of reasons why the ACG came out as a poorly-edited mess of a book. Yes, there are publication schedules to worry about, and the need to turn a profit in a reasonable timescale. Releasing it for GenCon was probably very important for Paizo's profit margin on the book.
However, whatever the reasons are, they don't change the fact that the ACG is poorly-edited and full of mistakes.
That is true. And patching feats like Slashing Grace with another, weaker feat from a different suppliment was a poor choice and really poured salt on the wounds.
Zwordsman: It's VERY clear this needed more editing. From the dev's own posts here and in the blogs, it's clear there was a rush to push this out in time for Gencon. Saying "Getting the book out for Gencon was more important than getting it right it seems." is just adding those things together. We can debate if that was a good idea or not, but the facts seem clear to me.
zapbib: It was in a reply to a post that boiled down to "The book is fine, just house-rule it! Here's how!". I don't think that's acceptable in a brand new book and said as much.
To the rest: Over all I think the book is good. What annoys me is that with just a little more work/effort I think it could have been a great/awesome book. Myself, I'd rather get an awesome book late than an ok book on time.
On Fencing Grace: I find it a rather lackluster 'fix' to Slashing Grace. If I was to judge it on it's own merits, I'd say it an ok feat. It's really just the 'scimitar' feat with that weapon crossed off and replacing it with "rapier" plus a few minor changes.
Overall I find the dex to damage options better than nothing but no where near what I'd like to see. I was hoping for more choice of weapons like a generic feat. More like the same feat but cross out rapier and replace it with any light weapon.
PS: Mark Seifter has been an awesome addition. I've got nothing but nice things to say about him or any current employee. I may not like that Paizo pushed out the book but I have no ill feelings about the staff themselves.
Oh, yeah... Bloodrager, Investigator and Slayer are great! The rest of the book ranges from mediocre to horrible. And the editing is so atrocious even the cover of the book is messed up.I dunno, most of the Feats are fine, and Brawler, Hunter, Shaman and Skald are all pretty darn cool, and a lot of the Archetypes are very good in and of themselves.
Can't argue on the editing, though.
Brawler and Shaman are okay-ish (brawler is too narrow-minded, IMO) and the Hunter class is still rather pointless, IMO (although I'll admit it ended up much better than the awful playtest). I don't know about Skald, as I'm still not sure how they affect the metagame.
Arcanist is a broken mess and Swashbuckler might very well be the greatest disappointment in Pathfinder history (I was more frustrated by two awful erratas, but I think the SB was more universally disappointing). Warpriests also were so overnerfed that I lost any interest in the class.
Then we have Divine Protection, Slashing Grace and Canny Tumble, all in the same book.
|
|
Brawler and Shaman are okay-ish (brawler is too narrow-minded, IMO) and the Hunter class is still rather pointless, IMO (although I'll admit it ended up much better than the awful playtest). I don't know about Skald, as I'm still not sure how they affect the metagame.
Hunter is better than you might think, at least in melee. Giving your pet Skirmisher Tricks plus Teamwork Feats makes for a rather absurd +6 to hit for the Hunter when flanking with his pet at 2nd level, and by 3rd they count as flanking when adjacent or riding said pet. The Animal Companion doesn't get quite that many bonuses, but it's still a very solid way to go.
And Skald looks very solid to me, without breaking the metagame too much (though giving Lesser Celestial Totem to everyone has serious potential, and Pounce for all is very nice...not on the same Skald, of course).
And what exactly do you mean by 'narrow-minded' on the Brawler? I'm curious.
Arcanist is a broken mess and Swashbuckler might very well be the greatest disappointment in Pathfinder history (I was more frustrated by two awful erratas, but I think the SB was more universally disappointing). Warpriests also were so overnerfed that I lost any interest in the class.
I don't think they're quite as bad as that...but you'll note I didn't list them in my previous post. There's a reason for that.
Then we have Divine Protection, Slashing Grace and Canny Tumble, all in the same book.
Slashing Grace is awkward, but not actually broken mechanically in a power level sense. And the other two are bad...but also two Feats out of many. I said 'most Feats' not all. :)
I think divine protection is ok if the arcanist is ok.
The arcanist is essentially better than the sorcerer and if that is ok then oracles needed a boost over clerics.
I think divine protection is ok if the arcanist is ok.
The arcanist is essentially better than the sorcerer and if that is ok then oracles needed a boost over clerics.
But the Arcanist isn't ok either...
I'm not impressed by Hunters... At best, they're a mediocre class that doesn't allow any character concept that couldn't be achieved by playing a Ranger, Druid or Inquisitor with Fur/Feather domain exist.
The mechanics aren't enough to justify a whole new class, IMO.
And what exactly do you mean by 'narrow-minded' on the Brawler? I'm curious.
They still suffer from "hit stuff or do nothing" problem that plagues so many martial classes... Although not as badly as Fighters, of course. Nothing is as limited a Fighters (although Rogues do manage to be even less effective).
Well... At least they have some in-combat versatility. I think this class fills a necessary niche, but it could have used some improvements.
Arcanist is a broken mess and Swashbuckler might very well be the greatest disappointment in Pathfinder history (I was more frustrated by two awful erratas, but I think the SB was more universally disappointing). Warpriests also were so overnerfed that I lost any interest in the class.I don't think they're quite as bad as that...but you'll note I didn't list them in my previous post. There's a reason for that.
What can I say... Swashbucklers are DPR-machines stuck with 'stand still or suck" syndrome. Arcanists completely obsolete Sorcerer and make me question if Paizo even gives a damn about game balance. If they do, I'll question their competence instead.
Slashing Grace is awkward, but not actually broken mechanically in a power level sense. And the other two are bad...but also two Feats out of many. I said 'most Feats' not all. :)
It's a over-restrictive feat that fails to deliver. Apparently, the ability to drop your +31 rapier for the +2 dagger that you found on the drow assassin is overpowered, but Exploiter Wizards are a-okay!
Sadly... For me, the last year has been full of disappointments. ACG is one of the very few Pathfinder hardcovers I have no intention to ever buy (the other one being the Mythic rules). Not even the .pdf...
I'll buy the HeroLab data pack. And that's it.
Wait...
Brawler OP but arcanist is fine?
Brawler is far too powerful.
Arcanist is not so bad, it is good but not OP, but the White Mage Archetype on it does make it VERY OP.
Wait... You think Arcanists are balanced but Brawlers are too powerful?!
...
I don't even know how to start an argument against that...
I always expect full casters to be overpowered, this is D&D, they always kiss the ass of casters.
So if martials gain ground at all that is a problem?
And by the way, this is Pathfinder not D&D.
Zwordsman "I just default with more content vs prettier content.":
I'd agree but that's not really what I was talking about. You need to change 'prettier' to 'workable'/'understandable'. You have things like archetypes without any weapon proficiencies and feats no one can agree what weapons work with them just to start. Given the track record around here that some issues take YEARS to resolve (sources of bonuses/wielding/brass knuckles are STILL unarmed attacks/ect) if at all, every issue/error is another chance for years of trouble. That's why I'd like to see it done right the first time instead of being rushed out.
Making a base class obsolete does not make a class broken, otherwise people would have said that about ninja's a long time ago.
True... But a new class making obsolete a class that is already at the high end of power is a good sign that the new class is too powerful. Arcanists even give Wizards a run for their money!
@Whisperknives
That doesn't explain why brawler is OP.
In fact that explains the exact opposite...
So the effect of more feats than a fighter, less restrictions than a monk, better hit die than a monk, more skills than a fighter, and then some other bonuses thrown in on the side.
(Assuming all is true)
So?
Apparently by making the fighter obsolete the brawler is OP, but the arcanist is not because it obsoletes the sorcerer who really had it coming.
NOTE: An MMM warrior is a nice enough Fighter combo to equal or surpass the brawler.
So, about that Fencing Grace feat....
I always expect full casters to be overpowered, this is D&D, they always kiss the ass of casters.So if martials gain ground at all that is a problem?
And by the way, this is Pathfinder not D&D.
But remember, wink, Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.5, wink wink wink.
Mongrel mage and rasmiran false priests are still bad ass....
As for the whole arsonist thing... this guy is a troll... i mean, how can u honestly say the WHITE MAGE is OP? I mean... of all the archetypes... guess what? The white plumage can be replaced by the unlettered arcanist since witches also heal... Oh and if any archetype is nasty it is the occultist....
And if your measuring stick is the fighter and the monk... then you have some really low standards...
Oh and the brown fur mage gets NASTY with buff bot mages. Now you can take advantage of spells normally balanced by personal range and making them touch spells... ok and an extra +2 to any stat getting buffed is kind of nice