It may just be that the devs forgot about Sawtooth Sabers. I know I hadn't heard of them before this. And even if the same devs who worked on this book worked on ultimate equipment, there are a LOT of rules to keep memorized. One unique weapon property could certainly have slipped through the mental cracks, as it were.
A more likely answer is taking Jason on exactly what he said: Dex to damage was added to Slashing Grace, a feat designed for swashbucklers, as an incentive to make what was considered a feat taxing feat more attractive. Not for any other reason or to further any other agendas or design philosophies.
From what I gather, the design team's been relatively tight-lipped because they've been working hard on the Occult Adventures playtest classes. Hopefully after that's over, we'll get some erratas and/or discussion out of them on some of the areas of the Advanced Class Guide that could use the extra attention.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been a perfectly correct thing to say. But the swashbuckler preview mention dex to damage. Where do we stop giving them excuse and just admit that something went wrong in the whole make a new book process? If it was only that, but there's a huge list of errors and balancing problem that just hint that there was poor editing and poor vision on this project.
I can't speak for the design team, but I can tell you this. Good designers hear and react upon criticism, such as this:
"It doesn't same appropriate that the swashbuckler can use her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls with weapons that she can't normally finesse, but she can't use her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls with weapons that she can normally finesse."
But when even the best designers receive insults like this:
"Where do we stop giving them excuses and just admit something went wrong in the whole 'make a book process'?"
Or this:
"There's a huge list of errors and balancing problems that just hint that there was poor editing and poor vision on this project."
Then two things occur. First, the designers don't feel the need to respond to your criticism because they rightfully assume that they're wasting their breath on such irrationally negative people and that their time is better spent working on new projects. Second, the designers become less willing to share their ideas and thoughts and previews with the public, because they determine that giving the public anything to mentally digest will set their expectations off in ways they can't predict, and therefore will generate a backlash of broken promises and expectations from the people that they wanted to excite with the product that they've been slaving over for anywhere from three to six months.
It would have been a perfectly correct thing to say. But the swashbuckler preview mention dex to damage. Where do we stop giving them excuse and just admit that something went wrong in the whole make a new book process? If it was only that, but there's a huge list of errors and balancing problem that just hint that there was poor editing and poor vision on this project.I can't speak for the design team, but I can tell you this. Good designers hear and react upon criticism, such as this:
"It doesn't same appropriate that the swashbuckler can use her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls with weapons that she can't normally finesse, but she can't use her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls with weapons that she can normally finesse."
But when even the best designers receive insults like this:
"Where do we stop giving them excuses and just admit something went wrong in the whole 'make a book process'?"
Or this:
"There's a huge list of errors and balancing problems that just hint that there was poor editing and poor vision on this project."
Then two things occur. First, the designers don't feel the need to respond to your criticism because they rightfully assume that they're wasting their breath on such irrationally negative people and that their time is better spent working on new projects. Second, the designers become less willing to share their ideas and thoughts and previews with the public, because they determine that giving the public anything to mentally digest will set their expectations off in ways they can't predict, and therefore will generate a backlash of broken promises and expectations from the people that they wanted to excite with the product that they've been slaving over for anywhere from three to six months.
It's also a fine line between being rude and being bluntly honest about the subject. These supposed "insults" aren't simply spouted once or twice by people who don't know what they're talking about half the time, or being purposefully hateful on the subject.
I too share those sentiments, as do several other regular, respectable users on the forums, not to mention those who aren't on these boards who might feel the same way. And quite frankly, the results don't lie or conflict with what's being said. There are several glaring issues that have been presented to the Dev team profusely that nearly every board user can agree on being present, and quite frankly they either dodge it by making up some subject that doesn't fix the issue at all, or do nothing, leaving the fate of the problem to those who play the game to deal with.
Take Divine Protection feat for Oracles as a prime example of something that nearly everybody would claim is broken; that feat has one of the Paladin's most powerful and iconic class features, also one of the sole reasons people would dip Paladin levels, and now all it just costs is a feature that Oracles automatically have, skill ranks which every Oracle should possess no matter what, and some delayed access to similar effects (to getting it in compared to dipping, but for maintaining full spell progression and not having to sacrifice capstones, it's well worth it).
Such a powerful feat got through the Devs and got published; an eyesore to say the least. Their best "fix" was something like "If you already have a source that provides your Charisma modifier to Saves, this feat instead provides +1 to all saving throws." You're kidding, right? So they just openly admitted to allowing the power creep by editing it for a secondary effect, and not doing anything to tone down the overpowering effect. So they dodged it, leaving the consumer to deal with the problem.
PFS already decided to ban the feat days after it was revealed on the forums. Almost every home game that isn't power-creep oriented (90% of them) probably won't allow it, and it just ends up wasting valuable text and publishing space for a feat that could've been really cool, unique, and different.
Honestly, defending people when they are most certainly capable of defending themselves calls into question whether the intent of those "defending" isn't really just playing a game of teacher's pet. Quite frankly, it's much easier to say "Paizo doesn't really care," and probably the most likely answer in comparison to a conglomerate company whose complaining fanbase only equates to ~10% of their overall sales who would rather please the 90% of the people who don't speak out/remain active in the forums, but still buy the products because it's Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, defending people when they are most certainly capable of defending themselves calls into question whether the intent of those "defending" isn't really just playing a game of teacher's pet.
"You disagree with my practices, so therefore you must be a suck up" is your best retort?
My "motivation" for defending Paizo is quite simple: I liked when James Jacobs felt like he could be forthright with answering rules questions, but that was ruined. I liked when Jason freely posted on the boards and chatted about game design. Now I can only ever hear his discussions alongside dozens of others at convention seminars.
You can say that the line between being bluntly honest and rude is fine if you'd like, but both responses have the same effect: pivotal community members disengage from the community. If you want to continue to drive people away, by all means do so.
Honestly, I feel like there will never be a good, official Dex-to-Damage feat in Pathfinder. Feats like this cement that in this instance, the devs are unwilling to change this design philosophy, no matter how much evidence is brought up.
May as well give up and hope a 3PP comes up with something. Only thing more disappointing than this is the lack of dev response about the editing of the ACG.
It's getting harder and harder to defend Paizo these days. It really is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Alexander Augunas in the strongest possible terms, especially that last post. Politeness is a wonderful thing, and something we need more of directed at the people at Paizo on these forums than we have at the moment.
As for 'blunt honesty', in my experience, it is very possible to be honest about the issues you have with the game without being rude or insulting, making the claims of 'blunt honesty' in regards to such behavior ring more than a bit hollow.
I agree with Alexander Augunas in the strongest possible terms, especially that last post. Politeness is a wonderful thing, and something we need more of directed at the people at Paizo on these forums than we have at the moment.
As for 'blunt honesty', in my experience, it is very possible to be honest about the issues you have with the game without being rude or insulting, making the claims of 'blunt honesty' in regards to such behavior ring more than a bit hollow.
As someone who is bluntly honest, it is generally an exuse to be an a@!$%~& about our opinion. It's true :)
May as well give up and hope a 3PP comes up with something. Only thing more disappointing than this is the lack of dev response about the editing of the ACG.Eh. It's only been a couple of weeks and they've been pretty busy, give 'em some time.
A stickied thread that says "We know about the editing issues and are looking into errata in the future" would be nice. And easy too. But at this rate, we don't know if the errata is even being looked at, let alone when it's coming. Paizo used to be a lot more transparent and as a fan, it is disappointing when their worst edited product since Ultimate Combat/Magic is pushed and there is no word about it from the devs. At least saying "We are looking into it. Apologies for this mistake" would put me at ease.
Not that this matters for Dex to Damage, since the dev are so adamantly against it that they ignore all evidence to the contrary and instead give us mediocre or nonsense options (dex to damage for a bastard sword, but not daggers? really).
I have little faith in Occult Adventures and honestly, I think I'll skip out and wait for the second printing. Or more than likely, for it to be on the SRD with the editor's notes on what errata should be.
|
|
As someone who is bluntly honest, it is generally an exuse to be an a~+@~!$ about our opinion. It's true :)
Heh. :)
A stickied thread that says "We know about the editing issues and are looking into errata in the future" would be nice. And easy too. But at this rate, we don't know if the errata is even being looked at, let alone when it's coming. Paizo used to be a lot more transparent and as a fan, it is disappointing when their worst edited product since Ultimate Combat/Magic is pushed and there is no word about it from the devs. At least saying "We are looking into it. Apologies for this mistake" would put me at ease.
Well, there is this. not quite what you're looking for, but it's something.
Not that this matters for Dex to Damage, since the dev are so adamantly against it that they ignore all evidence to the contrary and instead give us mediocre or nonsense options (dex to damage for a bastard sword, but not daggers? really).
Eh, I think you're making it too monolithic a thing. Not everyone at Paizo thinks in lockstep. James Jacobs is a big advocate for Dex-to-damage, for example.
I have little faith in Occult Adventures and honestly, I think I'll skip out and wait for the second printing. Or more than likely, for it to be on the SRD with the editor's notes on what errata should be.
I'd be more inclined to wait a few days after it comes out to see if people have editing complaints about it. Or get the PDF (which gets updated). It's not like there's a long history of editing issues on this scale or anything.
Clearly, there's still enough devs against Dex to Damage that we still don't have a good feat. And looking at the current mediocre options, we probably never will. We may as well accept that and homebrew it. Or play another game where we don't have that problem.
I'd rather buy a PDF that doesn't require a great deal of errata. Yes, it can be updated. But I don't want to buy a rushed or incomplete product. I want something that has the quality that I've come to expect from Paizo. I don't give low quality when I work and I don't accept low quality from anyone. Not even my own family. It's how I was raised. Always give 100% work and get 100%. I can accept some issues here and there, but there's a point where the number of issues makes buying a product not worth it. Luckily, for me at least, I haven't had issues like this since Ultimate Combat/Magic.
While there isn't a history of editing issues this bad (even with UC and UM), it still worries me because there hasn't been a statement regarding any of them. Except for that hidden post you just linked for me, which I wouldn't have even known about if you didn't link it to me. Any change in quality for the worse will give any invested customer worries, even with a long history of failr good products.
The silence about it is what worries me. Surely they know, but do that even care? Are they looking into it or are they focused on the Monster Codex and finally getting the Strategy Guide out? Some form of "We're sorry and looking into it" would be nice and short to type. But we don't even have that. And all this after a large position change leaves one even more worried about the future of Paizo. Don't get me wrong, I like Rogue Eidilon. But after getting hyped from his posts, then seeing the mess that was ACG, I am a bit worried now. Maybe I have no right to be worried and things will be cool from here on now. But until a dev says they are looking at it, I am very worried.
At the very least, the Technology Guide was good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish Dragon78 were here. He'd say something optimistic and cheer me up today. :)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Silence doesn't necessarily mean the devs aren't listening—there is a lot on everybody's plate, and getting new product out the door is just one of them, along with everything else that goes into making the products that you all spend your hard-earned cash on. We can't please everybody all the time, and as has been pointed out, not everybody is in agreement over the kind of rules to add to the game.
Criticism is fine. We welcome it, and we listen to it.
But when those words are accompanied with personal attacks and insults, it is not helpful to having any sort of meaningful conversation. The message is tainted, and any point of view you're trying to pass along is lost in needless hostile language.
We're all better than that.
Tell us of your complaints—if you feel there are editing errors, mechanical flaws, poor production quality, whatever—we are listening. But don't resort to saying that people should be fired, should be hit, punished, or otherwise imply physical violence to get your point across. It is not needed, nor is that kind of behavior welcome on the boards.
Honestly, I feel like there will never be a good, official Dex-to-Damage feat in Pathfinder. Feats like this cement that in this instance, the devs are unwilling to change this design philosophy, no matter how much evidence is brought up.
May as well give up and hope a 3PP comes up with something. Only thing more disappointing than this is the lack of dev response about the editing of the ACG.
It's getting harder and harder to defend Paizo these days. It really is.
Or a player cements his or her opinion that differs from the dev (and other players) that such an option needs to be limited and not open ended or that it would make DEX even more of a super stat than it already is.
If you are set that Dex to Damage is not game breaking and you want it spread wider in your games. Create a second feat that gives dex to damage with finessible weapons. Or make finesse as it is a weapon property of the current finessible weapons and at your table "Weapon Finesse" grants dex to damage.
Silence doesn't necessarily mean the devs aren't listening—there is a lot on everybody's plate, and getting new product out the door is just one of them, along with everything else that goes into making the products that you all spend your hard-earned cash on. We can't please everybody all the time, and as has been pointed out, not everybody is in agreement over the kind of rules to add to the game.
Criticism is fine. We welcome it, and we listen to it.
But when those words are accompanied with personal attacks and insults, it is not helpful to having any sort of meaningful conversation. The message is tainted, and any point of view you're trying to pass along is lost in needless hostile language.
We're all better than that.
Tell us of your complaints—if you feel there are editing errors, mechanical flaws, poor production quality, whatever—we are listening. But don't resort to saying that people should be fired, should be hit, punished, or otherwise imply physical violence to get your point across. It is not needed, nor is that kind of behavior welcome on the boards.
I haven't really seen any posts of the last kind. If they ARE floating around, I'm sorry to hear about it. I've only seen people either unhappy with the number of errors/imprecise wording or disappointed with the dex to damage options.
I for one am happy that the DEV's are listening. I do think that a quick note that things are being looked at in the more contentious threads might calm them down a bit. Even a quick blog post with a list of items under review would work.
I think one of the reasons people are SO upset about the errors/issues is that some problems are still unresolved after years of asking for help. For example we still don't have a definitive way to figure out what the source of a bonus is. Or brass knuckles still saying it's an unarmed strike... This makes each new error a potential problem for years to come.
|
|
I haven't really seen any posts of the last kind. If they ARE floating around, I'm sorry to hear about it. I've only seen people either unhappy with the number of errors/imprecise wording or disappointed with the dex to damage options.
For the record, I've absolutely seen posts of that kind. They get deleted by the mods eventually (and quickly if it's during business hours), but there've been a fair number I've seen, and I'm not on 24-7 (just often in the middle of the night).
And then there are the other posts with almost equally unpleasant language and accusations of incompetence or other insults, those are even more common.
I'm on in the middle of the night too. I caught threads with missing posts but it's been from people bickering with other posters from what I could tell. Now back when Sean was around yeah, but not lately. It's possible I have a different threshold on what I'd count as 'personal attacks and insults' or maybe I've been lucky.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm on in the middle of the night too. I caught threads with missing posts but it's been from people bickering with other posters from what I could tell.
It also depends on how often you update and similar things. And that certainly happens as well...but so do rather blatant insults to people at Paizo.
Now back when Sean was around yeah, but not lately. It's possible I have a different threshold on what I'd count as 'personal attacks and insults' or maybe I've been lucky.
Eh, my distinction is generally "Would this be insulting to say out loud to someone's face." That's a reasonable definition, I think.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I feel like there will never be a good, official Dex-to-Damage feat in Pathfinder. Feats like this cement that in this instance, the devs are unwilling to change this design philosophy, no matter how much evidence is brought up.
May as well give up and hope a 3PP comes up with something. Only thing more disappointing than this is the lack of dev response about the editing of the ACG.
It's getting harder and harder to defend Paizo these days. It really is.
Or a player cements his or her opinion that differs from the dev (and other players) that such an option needs to be limited and not open ended or that it would make DEX even more of a super stat than it already is.
If you are set that Dex to Damage is not game breaking and you want it spread wider in your games. Create a second feat that gives dex to damage with finessible weapons. Or make finesse as it is a weapon property of the current finessible weapons and at your table "Weapon Finesse" grants dex to damage.
"Do it yourself" is a hackeneyed excuse that doesn't contribute anything. That's great for when I GM, but what if I play with another GM that doesn't allow that? Or, heaven forbid, PFS, where I can't bring house rules in? What do I do now? That's why people want an official version and have brought enough evidence to show that it's not unbalanced. While the opponents haven't had the same evidence forward, mathematical or anecdotal. So it feels like no matter what evidence and politeness we use, their minds will never change and we'll never see what we want. Hence the frustration that nobody is listening.
Also gnomes do, in fact, rule :)
Silence doesn't necessarily mean the devs aren't listening—there is a lot on everybody's plate, and getting new product out the door is just one of them, along with everything else that goes into making the products that you all spend your hard-earned cash on. We can't please everybody all the time, and as has been pointed out, not everybody is in agreement over the kind of rules to add to the game.
Criticism is fine. We welcome it, and we listen to it.
But when those words are accompanied with personal attacks and insults, it is not helpful to having any sort of meaningful conversation. The message is tainted, and any point of view you're trying to pass along is lost in needless hostile language.
We're all better than that.
Tell us of your complaints—if you feel there are editing errors, mechanical flaws, poor production quality, whatever—we are listening. But don't resort to saying that people should be fired, should be hit, punished, or otherwise imply physical violence to get your point across. It is not needed, nor is that kind of behavior welcome on the boards.
I understand that things get busy. Totally feel you on that. And people being jerks sucks. As much as i complain, i at least try and not be insulting in my criticism. But seeing a quick, three sentence post saying something along the lines of "We are sorry and looking into it " would let people know and at least put some minds at ease. What you posted is exactly what I've been waiting for. And it doesn't even have to be that long. People just want to know that the devs are listening, even if it's just three sentences stickied in General Discussion.
Anyways, thanks for this post as it's what I've been waiting for.
Eh, my distinction is generally "Would this be insulting to say out loud to someone's face." That's a reasonable definition, I think.
What I'm saying is that what's insulting varies from person to person. You may think one post is a personal insult and I see it as an honest, and maybe blunt, comment. I know I've seen people say something was insulting and had struggled to figure out what they where talking about. When it comes to perspective, everyone has a different one.
|
A more likely answer is taking Jason on exactly what he said: Dex to damage was added to Slashing Grace, a feat designed for swashbucklers, as an incentive to make what was considered a feat taxing feat more attractive. Not for any other reason or to further any other agendas or design philosophies.
Which is part of what annoys me the most. Slashing grace, the feat, exists because the designers forgot what weapon proficiencies are for and put meaningless, pointless riders on class abilities to only work with light or one handed piercing weapons. Remove that needless text from the swash and slashing grace never needed to exist. Sure this would mean everyone would probably still be stuck with only going scimitars, due to the devs refusal to just do greater finesse, but it wouldn't be this dumb.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then there are the other posts with almost equally unpleasant language and accusations of incompetence or other insults, those are even more common.
While I never threw any personal insult against any member of the Paizo staff, I'll admit that I have often being a bit too vocal about my displeasure with Paizo's design policy. This year has been way too frustrating for me to contain my words.
But in my defense, seeing the erratas kicking martials in the teeth all the time, while caster/martial disparity grows more and more with each book, it's really difficult for me not to doubt Paizo's ability and/or interest in making Pathfinder a more balanced game. Especially when they continuously refuse to acknowledge the problems with game balance.
By now, I'm convinced that they either don't care or are just not very good at it.
For as long as the devs claim that Exploiter Wizard is fine, but a general Dex to damage feat is "too good even for Mythic", I can't help but question their competence at balancing game mechanics.
Am I being harsh? Yes, I am. But I'm not lying or exaggerating.
My biggest worry is that the editing issue is going to continue with Occult Adventures, seeing that GenCon will be earlier next year. Which means more of a rush to push it I'd imagine.
They better get on releasing that play test, hopefully for 3 rounds instead of two.
And then there are the other posts with almost equally unpleasant language and accusations of incompetence or other insults, those are even more common.While I never threw any personal insult against any member of the Paizo staff, I'll admit that I have often being a bit too vocal about my displeasure with Paizo's design policy. This year has been way too frustrating for me to contain my words.
But in my defense, seeing the erratas kicking martials in the teeth all the time, while caster/martial disparity grows more and more with each book, it's really difficult for me not to doubt Paizo's ability and/or interest in making Pathfinder a more balanced game. Especially when they continuously refuse to acknowledge the problems with game balance.
By now, I'm convinced that they either don't care or are just not very good at it.
For as long as the devs claim that Exploiter Wizard is fine, but a general Dex to damage feat is "too good even for Mythic", I can't help but question their competence at balancing game mechanics.
Am I being harsh? Yes... But I'm not lying or exaggerating.
I actually don't think the exploiter wizard is unbalanced. But I also think we need a dex to damage feat so...
Or at least a feat that allows damage to light weapons to keep two weapon fighting competitive with two handing.
Martials actually got a lot of good stuff in this book. It's just there is so much bad editing that you really don't know the full intent of some of the options.
Only things j don't like is Slashing Grace, the Paladin feature turned feat (which is more an issue with an FAQ) , and charmed life.
Honestly, defending people when they are most certainly capable of defending themselves calls into question whether the intent of those "defending" isn't really just playing a game of teacher's pet."You disagree with my practices, so therefore you must be a suck up" is your best retort?
My "motivation" for defending Paizo is quite simple: I liked when James Jacobs felt like he could be forthright with answering rules questions, but that was ruined. I liked when Jason freely posted on the boards and chatted about game design. Now I can only ever hear his discussions alongside dozens of others at convention seminars.
You can say that the line between being bluntly honest and rude is fine if you'd like, but both responses have the same effect: pivotal community members disengage from the community. If you want to continue to drive people away, by all means do so.
It's not really a bad one, given the track record of their publishing, this is just one of the many common problems brought up in this game, especially one that's rife with power creep and bloat like the ACG is, arguably about as much bloat and power creep as the optional Mythic Adventures book. You can't skip over a single page of threads on this forum without running into a Paladin Alignment discussion or a Caster/Martial Disparity thread, much less all the "Rogues Suck/Fighters Suck" content that's been thrown across this forum repeatedly, or any other sorts of shenanigans that players can cheese, and it leads to a serious case of questioning whether you must absolutely claim Paizo does everything right, and that they can't ever be wrong or even misguided in several areas, clinging blindly to something that has several obvious, gameshifting flaws, because it has "Pathfinder" scrawled on its cover.
Now, has Paizo spoken up about those subjects? Either directly or indirectly, but they have; look at what it's done, and the problems they end up creating again with their apparent solutions. They've stated before that the Fighter and Rogue classes are working as they intended them to, which tells us that they essentially mean "Well, they're weak classes, but that's okay, that's what we wanted them to be." In regards to the Caster/Martial disparity, it tells us they're okay with that sort of thing too, assisted by the content which appears in each splatbook they publish; others might be okay with Casters being stronger than Martials all around, but if balance was really a key factor in their design principles, they would have made more of an effort to close the gap they originally created with the splatbooks, including this one, instead of widening it with each publishing.
Even in this very situation, they decided to dodge the issue of Dex to Damage with making a Rapier-specific feat, which actually never changes the problem that was originally presented, something that should be trivial for a company like Paizo to accomplish, especially when I find that several forum users have proposed acceptable alternatives that actually fix the problem in the first place.
With that said, it's much easier and more plausible to assume the "They don't care" and the "It's not in their design values" arguments because that's the only logical conclusion we can derive from the courses of action they have decided to take in regards to the issues we've pointed out so far.
If, in some way, we were to be convinced otherwise of some other more sensible reason for their choices, then maybe we would be more respectable of, or even in agreement with their design values. Unfortunately, that has yet to happen, and until that happens, we're stuck with the impasse which presents itself.
Of course, some people aren't prone or accepting of logic, and a lot of those people are the ones who throw out hateful insults, threats, etc. But I'm not certainly one of those people, especially when I have been convinced out of my original viewpoints, or at the very least understanding the other side before, and that hasn't changed. It's just that the argument which would convince me (or even make me understand) hasn't been thrown out there yet. And until it does, I find my viewpoint to be fairly valid, and a commonly-shared one as well.
|
|
What I'm saying is that what's insulting varies from person to person. You may think one post is a personal insult and I see it as an honest, and maybe blunt, comment. I know I've seen people say something was insulting and had struggled to figure out what they where talking about. When it comes to perspective, everyone has a different one.
I've seen such comments as:
"Was the editing team drunk?"
"Who's getting fired over this?"
"The people at Paizo clearly don't understand their own system or how it works."
"Whoever wrote this was a complete moron."
And similar statements. The last two pretty often. That's insulting and offensive language by most reasonable definitions of the term.
While I never threw any personal insult against any member of the Paizo staff, I'll admit that I have often being a bit too vocal about my displeasure with Paizo's design policy. This year has been way too frustrating for me to contain my words.
But in my defense, seeing the erratas kicking martials in the teeth all the time, while caster/martial disparity grows more and more with each book, it's really difficult for me not to doubt Paizo's ability and/or interest in making Pathfinder a more balanced game. Especially when they continuously refuse to acknowledge the problems with game balance.
By now, I'm convinced that they either don't care or are just not very good at it.
For as long as the devs claim that Exploiter Wizard is fine, but a general Dex to damage feat is "too good even for Mythic", I can't help but question their competence at balancing game mechanics.
Am I being harsh? Yes, I am. But I'm not lying or exaggerating.
This is indeed a bit harsh, and I think a bit inaccurate (the ACG has problems...oh yes, but I'm not sure it actually increased Martial/Caster disparity in any meaningful fashion...and Pathfinder Unchained strongly implies they're aware of Martial/Caster disparity and going to do something about it), but it's not actively insulting by my definitions. For the record. :)
And where, when, and who claimed the Exploiter Wizard was fine but Dex-to-damage wasn't okay for Mythic? Because Dex-to-damage happened in Mythic, and it easily might not even be the same person.
Jason Bulmahn wrote a post on Mythic Weapon Finesse two years back, I think that might be the relevant one?
You're an expert with weapons that rely on your agility.
Prerequisite(s): Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: When using Weapon Finesse, you may also use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on your damage rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty doesn't apply to either the attack rolls or the damage rolls.
I think people may be reading a little too much out of what is basically an off-hand reply post in a playtest. I think Slashing and Piercing Grace show willingness to meet the dexterity fan base on this issue, but the execution of those feats could have been done better.
I truly hope that leaving out light weapons was an accident and not an intentional restriction.
I've seen such comments as:
"Was the editing team drunk?"
"Who's getting fired over this?"
"The people at Paizo clearly don't understand their own system or how it works."
"Whoever wrote this was a complete moron."And similar statements. The last two pretty often. That's insulting and offensive language by most reasonable definitions of the term.
Out of those 4 examples, I'd only count 1 as clearly insulting.
"Was the editing team drunk?" : While not exactly polite, it's asking what went wrong. When I see this, I don't think anyone LITERALLY thinks they where drunk just saying something went very wrong.
"Who's getting fired over this?": Boiled down it's asking if there are going to be repercussions for what went wrong or are things going to stay the same. It's like seeing a recall for car and asking the same thing.
"The people at Paizo clearly don't understand their own system or how it works.": There are time when it's clear this is actually the case. It's not a new situation. When Eberron came out, I had a long debate with Keith Baker about warforged and the special materials in their armor. It seems he used a houserule that things like mithril can only be forged once. He'd forgotten it was his own house-rule and not the actual rule and in that situation he clearly didn't understand how the actual system worked. It took MONTHS to convince him of this.*
"Whoever wrote this was a complete moron.": Yes, totally insulting.
* I know that was WOTC and not Paizo, but the point is valid.
"The people at Paizo clearly don't understand their own system or how it works."
Not gonna lie... That thought crossed my mind a few times.
This is indeed a bit harsh, and I think a bit inaccurate (the ACG has problems...oh yes, but I'm not sure it actually increased Martial/Caster disparity in any meaningful fashion...and Pathfinder Unchained strongly implies they're aware of Martial/Caster disparity and going to do something about it), but it's not actively insulting by my definitions. For the record. :)
Charmed Life x Divine Protection. If that doesn't show the obvious double standard in design policy for creating tools for casters and tools for martials, I don't know what does... Actually, I do. Crane Wing errata vs Dazing Spell. And a bazillion other examples.
And where, when, and who claimed the Exploiter Wizard was fine but Dex-to-damage wasn't okay for Mythic? Because Dex-to-damage happened in Mythic, and it easily might not even be the same person.
Kudaku linked the post. And the devs obviously think Exploiter Wizard is okay, since they added it to the book. Or they just don't care... Which is the other possibility I mentioned.
|
|
Not gonna lie... That thought crossed my mind a few times.
Thinking and saying are different. :)
Charmed Life x Divine Protection. If that doesn't show the obvious double standard in design policy for creating tools for casters and tools for martials, I don't know what does... Actually, I do. Crane Wing errata vs Dazing Spell. And a bazillion other examples.
I think that says way more about Divine Protection being broken than it does Martial/Caster disparity. That Feat is too good for anyone on a profound level. And I expect it to get Errata-ed relatively shortly.
Kudaku linked the post. And the devs obviously think Exploiter Wizard is okay, since they added it to the book. Or they just don't care... Which is the other possibility I mentioned.
That post really didn't say that generic Dex-to-damage was too powerful per se. And the devs are more than one person, and thus have more than one opinion on such things.
Thing about Mythic Weapon Finesse is that it applies 1.5 DEX on damage with two handed weapons such as a Dueling Sword in two hands or an Elven Curve Blade.
I am fine with a small feat and ability tax on DEX to Damage. Something like DEX 15 and Weapon Finesse as prerequisites is fine. I feel it oughta have the same wording as the Agile weapon enchantment, but as has been stated by the devs, the verbiage of descriptions is not meant to be parallel, consistent, or congruent.
Dreamscarred's Path of War line has a feat called Deadly Agility that applies dexterity to damage with any finessable weapons (don't have to choose one, don't have to one-hand it, don't have to single-weapon or no-shield it, just straight up Dex instead of Str to damage), you don't get 1.5x Dex to two-handed though but you also don't get 0.5 Dex to TWF off-hand. Honestly I think that is within reason. It gives TWF a buff it really needs and makes dexterity based characters viable even without being a swashbuckler, but it is still a feat tax of 2, which also doesn't invalidate traditional STR based melee.
Dreamscarred's Path of War line has a feat called Deadly Agility that applies dexterity to damage with any finessable weapons (don't have to choose one, don't have to one-hand it, don't have to single-weapon or no-shield it, just straight up Dex instead of Str to damage), you don't get 1.5x Dex to two-handed though but you also don't get 0.5 Dex to TWF off-hand. Honestly I think that is within reason. It gives TWF a buff it really needs and makes dexterity based characters viable even without being a swashbuckler, but it is still a feat tax of 2, which also doesn't invalidate traditional STR based melee.
That seems like an easy way of giving people what they want without making the feat broken. I can even see the logic in only let it apply to slashing and piercing weapons since bludgeoning weapons deal damage true sheer force. Also, restricting it to only one weapon is unnecessary, IMHO.
The problem with Slashing grace is that if, the Devs are worried about game balance why let people use the Bastard sword and dwarven Waraxe with this feat, but not the shortsword or a rapier? If, the Devs don’t want people to use TWF with this feat, why not just say so?Finally, and if they don’t want people to dump strength why not add a strength prereq or add a line that strength penalty applies normally to damage.
|
Terribly sorry, but I have little idea what you're talking about. All of the references, and all I use (and don't try to keep a distance from) is the stuff on the PRD, plus the ACG.
So tell, me: I'm making a Lvl 1 Swashbuckler for PFS, as it's cool and good at low level. What feats do I need do get Dex to damage? Weapon Focus (Rapier) and Weapon Finesse (or Swashbuckler Finesse) for "Fencing Grace?" And what about "Slashing Grace," anyway? Does the updated, non-playtest version now require Weapon Focus and add Dex to damage?
Sorry again.
Terribly sorry, but I have little idea what you're talking about. All of the references, and all I use (and don't try to keep a distance from) is the stuff on the PRD, plus the ACG.
So tell, me: I'm making a Lvl 1 Swashbuckler for PFS, as it's cool and good at low level. What feats do I need do get Dex to damage? Weapon Focus (Rapier) and Weapon Finesse (or Swashbuckler Finesse) for "Fencing Grace?" And what about "Slashing Grace," anyway? Does the updated, non-playtest version now require Weapon Focus and add Dex to damage?Sorry again.
Here you go. Don't worry, the SRD and Archives of Nethys don't bite.
The source of the complaints is that as-written, the feat does not include the rapier or Light weapons.
Charmed Life x Divine Protection. If that doesn't show the obvious double standard in design policy for creating tools for casters and tools for martials, I don't know what does...
I don't think that's necessarily the issue. I believe most of the issue originates from the freelance authors. Most of the typos and errors came from archetypes, feats, and spells, which I assume the freelancers largely contributed to. You can see this in other books. The Myrmidarch (which still hasn't been errata'd) was obviously written by someone who had no idea how the magus's action economy worked. You can also see the gross lack of communication.
The musket master struck me as a sign of lack of communication between designers. The designer of the firearm rules went through an incredible amount of trouble to categorize firearms between one- and two-handed. He established each type as having their own niche and trade-offs: you can full-attack with pistols, but muskets have double the range and do significantly more damage. The designer understood that muskets weren't viable as written, but probably relied on the gunslinger and musket master's designers to help remedy that while keeping the niche. Then another designer created the musket master that completely threw all of that out the window. I believe this, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense for a designer to go through all that work creating trade-offs between pistols and muskets only to create an archetype not only eliminates the differences between them, but also is simply better than the vanilla gunslinger in every way.
I don't think that's necessarily the issue. I believe most of the issue originates from the freelance authors. Most of the typos and errors came from archetypes, feats, and spells, which I assume the freelancers largely contributed to. You can see this in other books. The Myrmidarch (which still hasn't been errata'd) was obviously written by someone who had no idea how the magus's action economy worked. You can also see the gross lack of communication.
That doesn't matter. Paizo is the publishing the book and the one responsible for the quality of their product.
If something poorly designed made it to the book, that because Paizo either thought it was well designed, didn't care or approved it without even reading.
I don't know which one is worse.
I don't think that's necessarily the issue. I believe most of the issue originates from the freelance authors. Most of the typos and errors came from archetypes, feats, and spells, which I assume the freelancers largely contributed to. You can see this in other books. The Myrmidarch (which still hasn't been errata'd) was obviously written by someone who had no idea how the magus's action economy worked. You can also see the gross lack of communication.That doesn't matter. Paizo is the publishing the book and the one responsible for the quality of their product.
If something poorly designed made it to the book, that because Paizo either thought it was well designed, didn't care or approved it without even reading.
I don't know which one is worse.
That's true, but my point is that multiple disconnected people contributed to the book's content. It's less that the design team has "double standards" and more that the multiple authors have different standards and not on the same page about certain things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how we refer to "The Developers" as a single amorphous entity with a single opinion that is always against our favor.
Not like they are actual people who may disagree with you, no, they are an entity whose sole existence is to drive you away.
I like how we refer to "The Developers" as a single amorphous entity with a single opinion that is always against our favor.
Not like they are actual people who may disagree with you, no, they are an entity whose sole existence is to drive you away.
Considering the rules for the game have to reach a single consensus which is agreed upon by said people who consist of "The Developers," it's not really incorrect to claim that they are one person, one voice. Heck, they have a single account on this forum that supports such a claim for when they make rulings in threads that are FAQ'd, so it's not as far-fetched or politically incorrect as you say it is, to say they are one and the same.
Needless to say, if they wanted to drive people away, they can do a better job at it. We're actually giving them the benefit of the doubt there. But simply stating that their actions don't have consequences, or that they can't ever be wrong or incorrect signals fevered fanatics playing teacher's pet, when the other, more obvious, and logical answers are right in front of our faces: That they don't really care (enough), that the subject matter does not fit their design philosophies. And that's fine; if anything, I'd rather they simply come outright and say it, it'd put everybody else's mind at ease instead of being confused or angry, wondering as to what the heck the Devs are thinking doing X Y and Z.
Them dodging or skewing subject matter isn't the best option if they are going to allow something, because it just shows us that they're trying to cater to the masses without bending their design philosophy as compromise, and that's just not gonna work. If you keep one, you simply ruin the other, and something's gotta give, otherwise it results in the above.
Regardless, the math shows that allowing Dexterity to Damage, even with some of the suggestions the forumites came up with, isn't gamebreaking, nor does it overshadow Strength builds at all. If anything, it's actually inoptimal to do unless you're a Tank type, and even that's pointless, given the mechanics behind armor and a Dexterity build being unable to bypass that level. I mean come on, Attacks and Damage go hand in hand when it comes to playing the game, and making one work while screwing the other one over defeats the paradigm of martial gameplay entirely, and it's already hurting as it is because casters OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you are wrong, and I have been on Team DEX for a while now, I just think we need to be less volatile when we have threads like this that do get attention from the devs, but due to their tone, they get the wrong kind of attention.
When I showed that swashbuckler's during the playtest were unable to use their class abilities because the class designed itself around Charisma and the game puts requirements on Intelligence, they listened. When I said the swashbuckler needed to be able to qualify for feats as if he had Weapon Finesse, they listened. When I said that making them wait until second level to get that ability crippled the class, they listened. When I said they should be able to use their Finesse for more weapons than any other class, they listened.
Pretty much the only suggestions that the masses wanted from the play test that weren't catered to was 'fixing' Charmed Life and changing Precise Strike to be DEX to damage. Truth is Jason already said that he wanted the swashbuckler to be like a full class version of the duelist prestige class, which I'm guessing is where that design philosophy came from.
Adding level to damage actually ends up being better for swashbucklers than adding DEX, people are just mad because they wanted DEX options for characters that aren't swashbucklers, which was never the design of the Devs if you actually read their posts during the playtest.
Not including rapiers or light weapons was a goof, but not an unfixable one in the future. We may yet see a Deadly Agility feat in an actual published PFRPG book which will leave slashing grace in its niche of changing a slashing weapon to a piercing weapon for the sake of swashbucklering, and it has the added bonus of not being taxed the extra feat of also needing Deadly Agility. Had Deadly Agility already existed prior to Slashing Grace, people would actually call it good design. To me, that says there is still hope. And for those who don't limit themselves to Paizo only sources, Deadly Agility exists in Path of War by Dreamscarred Press, whom Paizo has openly endorsed for their game design implementations of old systems that they wouldn't want to comete with by creating their own products.
Perhaps they secretly wanted rogue swashbucklers to be the quintessential two weapon fighters. A gnome master tinker who makes his own saw-toothed sabers can have dex to damage in both hands after Slashing Grace. Technically anyone who spends the exotic feat can do it but gnomes don't need the extra feat.
Perhaps they secretly wanted rogue swashbucklers to be the quintessential two weapon fighters. A gnome master tinker who makes his own saw-toothed sabers can have dex to damage in both hands after Slashing Grace. Technically anyone who spends the exotic feat can do it but gnomes don't need the extra feat.
That's a really good point, gnome swashbucklers is where it's at apparently.
That's a really good point, gnome swashbucklers is where it's at apparently.
There's a sentence you don't hear very often!
Assuming no dips the Gnome TWF saber swashbuckler would come online at level 3, I think?
1. Tinker grants proficiency with sabers
1. Swashbuckler provides finesse.
1. Weapon Focus.
3. Slashing Grace
That's about the same as a human or half-elf with Ancestral Arms. Note that for levels 1 & 2 the swashbuckler can't actually use a saber with his class features, so you should include a rapier in your starting gear.
...Hm. A Warpriest of Achaekek with one level in swashbuckler for finesse has some potential. :)
|
|
That's true, but my point is that multiple disconnected people contributed to the book's content. It's less that the design team has "double standards" and more that the multiple authors have different standards and not on the same page about certain things.
Notice how certain people have the word "Lead" before their title in the credits? Guess what part of their job is? If you guessed making sure everyone else is on the same page you'd be right.