I don't think anybody realistically expects products to be SO perfect on initial printing that they never need ANY Errata,
but it is more the scale of the issue, with ACG being the most extreme example...
But previous rules hardcovers had huge amount of Errata issues, even over many Errata cycles (e.g. Core Rules).
Ex: Core Rules referenced rules for Avalanches and Cave-Ins but didn't actually give you the mechanics until the 4th or 5th print run AFAIK.
Most of that time, they had profuse reports of Errata problems, yet didn't prioritise putting out comprehensive Errata.
The Core Rules are certainly the product that should receive EXTRA Errata attention because everything else tends to depend on it.
As people say, the very latest products do seem to have a much higher level of editing, even if there is likely some Errata here or there.
It is disappointing that Paizo took this long to get to that point, though...
And I hope they have learned their lesson, and when they DO make a Pathfinder 2nd Edition/ Revised Edition/ whatever,
that they put extra resources and time in for Editing, so that the Core rules are as solid as possible.
|
So the Swashbuckler's curse of only being a decent dip class continues? P/R was really cool (especially post CRANE WING), sad to know it's needlessly limited now. Jeez man, these erratas are straight poison for the most part. I'm praying to anyone listening that Occult Adventures isn't this garbled.
The swashbuckler is a decent class with a couple of issues, at least once it gets to level 3 ish. Most are, admittedly, absolutely terrible at level 1 and 2. The only really significant issue is its saves and that problem isn't as bad as it could be.
Its not an uber powerful class but its quite decent
Well, I think I might have to take another look at it, since I'm hearing from a few people that it's a capable and enjoyable class. Personally I only played it at 1st level, and it was the worst class I'd ever played. Worse than core rogue.
Thanks, not sure what happened there.For those asking, the Strangler issue was mentioned in Deadmanwalking's postYour link kept producing a weird error. Something about making too many requests for the same page. So here is a new one.
I'm not either. I've never seen that particular error before. I've been having a lot of technical issues with the Paizo site lately, and I've been wondering if it is related to attempts to stop all of this weird spam. But your link seems to be working just fine now. :)
i really don't get the hate around swashbucklers, they may not be the perfect class, and they do have a few problems (mainly their ridiculous lack of fort save for a frontline fighter) but they are trully an enjoyable and quite active class
I think a lot of it stems from the fact that all the problems with the swashbuckler were pointed out during the ACG playtest, and all that feedback was completely ignored.
I'd prefer if Unchained became one of the web blogs. Where classes and archetypes are revisited and given tune ups.
Xethik's post links to "http://paizo.com/threads/paizo.com/threads/rzs2rcio&page=3?Advanced-Cl ass-Guide-Potential-Errors#143" which is the problem. There's an extra "http://paizo.com/threads" in there that's messing up the works.
Ah, yes. I think I missed the http, which made the forum assume I wanted an internal link. Classic problem.
|
|
Well, I think I might have to take another look at it, since I'm hearing from a few people that it's a capable and enjoyable class. Personally I only played it at 1st level, and it was the worst class I'd ever played. Worse than core rogue.So the Swashbuckler's curse of only being a decent dip class continues? P/R was really cool (especially post CRANE WING), sad to know it's needlessly limited now. Jeez man, these erratas are straight poison for the most part. I'm praying to anyone listening that Occult Adventures isn't this garbled.
The swashbuckler is a decent class with a couple of issues, at least once it gets to level 3 ish. Most are, admittedly, absolutely terrible at level 1 and 2. The only really significant issue is its saves and that problem isn't as bad as it could be.
Its not an uber powerful class but its quite decent
i have played 3 different swashbucklers so far, i immensly enjoy the parry system because it gives you the illusion of control even out of your turn.
just the fact that you are rolling dices trying to defend yourself instead of relying on a passive ac and the dm's roll (regardless of how powerful/powerless this ability actually is) is quite enjoyable.
one thing though, you need a bit of system mastery for a decent swash because you are trying to jungle a ton of things you can potentially do but only get to do 1 or 2 a round.
he does requires a few levels to start working, till you get dex to damage (either from agile or feats), and because your damage is level dependant it does takes a bit to take off.
lvl5 should be the sweet spot with the early imp critical and such. and at lvl 7, targetted strike is actually quite good if you don't want to "simply do damage" and it gives you a lot of unresisted actions to take against a target
i really don't get the hate around swashbucklers, they may not be the perfect class, and they do have a few problems (mainly...
Yeah, I'll admit that it was a hastily built character just to be able to play, and to try out the class. But even with a Dex of 18 at low level he only had a 40% chance of parrying an attack that would have actually hit the character in the first place. And it just so happened that all his parry attempts were useless, either when I decided to parry the creature would have missed anyway, or they hit and the parry roll wasn't high enough. Seemed a little frustrating, considering the 2 panache points, which at that level were hard to recover because no keen weapon/improved critical, and it didn't do enough damage to knock things unconscious. I had to start asking people to leave me the weak enemies so I could recover panache. Wasn't my idea of fun. Though it does seem to pick up at higher levels.
|
That's not quite what I said. We also looked at plenty of other data and performed editing passes (including an external editor), but searching the forums for every thread that showed up is just not possible to do. My forum presence (and percentage of threads that I read) is, I think we'll all agree, extremely high, and even I can't keep up with everything. So if you are going to make a post on the forum and you want it to be considered for the errata of a particular book, I strongly recommend using the consolidated threads.Because they only fixed (some of) the stuff in the bigass "Potential Problems with the Advanced Class Guide" thread and didn't look much of anywhere else, according to Mark.I don't understand how Paizo missed the Strangler brawler archetype completely.
There have been so many threads and posts about it just not functioning, yet the only thing that was changed was the Brawler's Kit.
Really?It loses Improved Unarmed Strike, which is a prerequisite for Improved Grapple.
Which means that, if you're not a human, good luck functioning at 1st level.
But, oh wait! You can use Martial Flexibility to get it!
Because that solves the problem.And yet it is supposed to focus on grappling?
Yup. For example I've asked you the same question twice on two of these threads and not gotten a response. :)
I'll get around to asking on one of the consolidated threads at some point. (It's one of those where if the answer is yes, My character stays the same, if the answer is no, my character is hosed, and the status quo is yes... So I'm not really heavily incentivized at the moment :P )
Well, that kind of hurts my fencer magus. The whole point of doing him this way was to get the low and mid-level swashbuckler abilities to try and match the creature he is modeled after (The Night Fox enemy from the Dragon Quest series of games). Having your arcane pool not count as your panache pool, and that your swashbuckler level is zero for all abilities pretty much makes that arcana pointless.And removing Opportune Parry and Riposte from the Flamboyant Arcana list pretty much makes that arcana pointless too.
According to my Errata document Flamboyant Arcana still provides Opportune Parry and Riposte. Flamboyant Arcana is modified starting with the second sentence, but does not modify the first sentence, therefore Magus was the ONLY non-swash to keep access to Opportune Parry and riposte.
Edit: For those commenting, What I've read of Occult Adventures thus far suggests a vastly improved degree of quality.
I will emphatically confirm this.
Edit: For those commenting, What I've read of Occult Adventures thus far suggests a vastly improved degree of quality.
I am emphatically relieved to see these confirmations.
Kineticist looks delicious, reading through it. Simply Delicious.
I enjoy the blending of function and thematics with the Occultist, and the Pscychic is a fantastic spont caster addition to the game, in my own opinion. I also love the undercasting it gets access to.
According to my Errata document Flamboyant Arcana still provides Opportune Parry and Riposte. Flamboyant Arcana is modified starting with the second sentence, but does not modify the first sentence, therefore Magus was the ONLY non-swash to keep access to Opportune Parry and riposte.Well, that kind of hurts my fencer magus. The whole point of doing him this way was to get the low and mid-level swashbuckler abilities to try and match the creature he is modeled after (The Night Fox enemy from the Dragon Quest series of games). Having your arcane pool not count as your panache pool, and that your swashbuckler level is zero for all abilities pretty much makes that arcana pointless.And removing Opportune Parry and Riposte from the Flamboyant Arcana list pretty much makes that arcana pointless too.
By golly, you are right! Sorry for the misinformation. I got it mixed up with the Amateur Swashbuckler feat. Thanks for the correction!
It would be great except they excluded Opportune Parry and Riposte as an option with the Flamboyant Arcana.At least Flamboyant Arcana itself isn't destroyed as an option. Since the Opportune Parry and Riptose Deed is not coming from Arcane Deed, the caveat about never counting as having at least 1 panache doesn't apply.I wonder how many other ones ever saw use on a Magus to begin with... collateral damage is no fun when it hits an open field.As of this errata, Arcane Deed is dead, and not just for Precise Strike. The vast majority of deeds no longer function for the magus.
Technically Arcane Deed: Precise Strike didn't work even before the errata because, as the errata now explicitly states, it had no Swashbuckler level. Whether that was the original intent, who knows. People using it as such came down to a vast, collective cry of "of COURSE it's supposed to work, they just made a mistake!" Which may be true, but again, who knows.
Never mind. I got Flamboyant Arcana mixed up with Amateur Swashbuckler. Flamboyant Arcana is fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will emphatically confirm this.
Edit: For those commenting, What I've read of Occult Adventures thus far suggests a vastly improved degree of quality.
I love Occult Adventures, but I'm biased, since it's my first "player's option" sort of book as a member of the design team. Of course, since it's my first, I'm actually pretty nervous too, but I'm proud of our book at the same time. I know that those who don't like parts of it will come online to tell us what (and I'm happy to hear it so we can work on improving even more for the next time), but I really really hope that people will come online and tell me parts that you guys really do like too. It completely makes my day when I hear about the cool things you guys are doing with my "design babies." :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By golly, you are right! Sorry for the misinformation. I got it mixed up with the Amateur Swashbuckler feat. Thanks for the correction!
According to my Errata document Flamboyant Arcana still provides Opportune Parry and Riposte. Flamboyant Arcana is modified starting with the second sentence, but does not modify the first sentence, therefore Magus was the ONLY non-swash to keep access to Opportune Parry and riposte.
Not a problem. It's silly to me but I'm happy about it just the same. I love Magus and I'm glad to see they at least kept such an awesome ability, even if nobody else did. Honestly, the fact Magus DIDN'T lose Opportune Parry and Riposte actually kind of puzzles me as much as their extreme hatred of letting anything else have it.
Not a problem. It's silly to me but I'm happy about it just the same. I love Magus and I'm glad to see they at least kept such an awesome ability, even if nobody else did. Honestly, the fact Magus DIDN'T lose Opportune Parry and Riposte actually kind of puzzles me as much as their extreme hatred of letting anything else have it.By golly, you are right! Sorry for the misinformation. I got it mixed up with the Amateur Swashbuckler feat. Thanks for the correction!
According to my Errata document Flamboyant Arcana still provides Opportune Parry and Riposte. Flamboyant Arcana is modified starting with the second sentence, but does not modify the first sentence, therefore Magus was the ONLY non-swash to keep access to Opportune Parry and riposte.
They kept half of it to be exact.
You can't riposte without 1 panache remaining, and magi are no longer considered to have that
...At low levels you don't parry so as not to get hit, you parry so you can secure a kill.
Parry&riposte only costs 1 panache, if with your normal hit and a parry hit you manage to kill a mook you are fine
The attack bonus is doubly more important for a swash exactly because he basically needs 2 attack rolls to p&r, so, especially in low levels, power attacks, fighting defensively and etc things that lower your att are a trap
Read the errata carefully
In the Arcane Deed magus arcana, after the
second sentence, add the following sentence: “Even if he
gains a panache pool through another means, the magus
is not considered to have at least 1 point in his panache
pool for the purpose of deeds selected with arcane deed,
and his effective swashbuckler level for determining
such a deed’s effect is 0.”
In the Flamboyant Arcana
magus arcana, replace the second sentence with “The
magus can spend only points from his arcane pool (not
panache points) to use these deeds and any other deeds
he gains from the deed arcana. He can’t use points from
his arcane pool to use deeds from other classes or those
gained by feats, nor can he regain points to his arcane
pool as a swashbuckler would regain panache points.”
Riptose/Parry is gotten through the Flamboyant Arcana(which only got a minor rewording), not arcane deed (which has the "not considered to have 1 point" thing), so the entire Deed works just fine.
Never mind. I got Flamboyant Arcana mixed up with Amateur Swashbuckler. Flamboyant Arcana is fine.It would be great except they excluded Opportune Parry and Riposte as an option with the Flamboyant Arcana.At least Flamboyant Arcana itself isn't destroyed as an option. Since the Opportune Parry and Riptose Deed is not coming from Arcane Deed, the caveat about never counting as having at least 1 panache doesn't apply.I wonder how many other ones ever saw use on a Magus to begin with... collateral damage is no fun when it hits an open field.As of this errata, Arcane Deed is dead, and not just for Precise Strike. The vast majority of deeds no longer function for the magus.
Technically Arcane Deed: Precise Strike didn't work even before the errata because, as the errata now explicitly states, it had no Swashbuckler level. Whether that was the original intent, who knows. People using it as such came down to a vast, collective cry of "of COURSE it's supposed to work, they just made a mistake!" Which may be true, but again, who knows.
Indeed. At the absolute least, you can use it to grab evasive at 11th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I chuckle at the thought of divine protection as broken. what does that make power attack?
if a feat that was maybe useful for one or two classes possibility, and a passive feat at that, and feat for which the classes that took had to really weight other options is overpowered what the hell is power attack.
In the over 7 years + I have been pathfinder nearly every full bab character I have ever seen (close to 95%) or played with took power attack, the the archers took power attack, the twf users took power attack and about 75% of 3/4 Bab classes I saw took power attack, monks, clerics, "brute" rogue.
so how the heck is a feat taken by over 75% of the game, and before 3rd level in most cases fine, ok but divine protection wasn't?
I'm not saying power attack should be nerfed, I am saying this divine protection nerf was arbitrary and capricious when compared to what is considered a baseline core rule book feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That every strength character with a 2-handed weapon will take Power Attack is accounted for in the math. That every Oracle will take Divine Protection is not.
Power Attack is a bad feat, but not for the same reasons as DP is.
Erm, for the record, Oracles only have one good save. Oracles and Shamans are the only divine casters to only have will.
Will is not a bad save to have, and that does not change the fact that DP was ridiculously strong for its price, but yeah.
That every strength character with a 2-handed weapon will take Power Attack is accounted for in the math. That every Oracle will take Divine Protection is not.
Power Attack is a bad feat, but not for the same reasons as DP is.
I played 3 oracles since this feat came out, none took them. I played a bunch of games with other oracles, and it was about 50/50. many times extra revelation was taken instead, or a metamagic feat, or spell casting related feat. There are tons of oracles builds that have better options than divine protection.
Just because your players made suboptimal choices doesn't change the fact that Divine Protection was busted.
I chuckle at the thought of divine protection as broken. what does that make power attack?
if a feat that was maybe useful for one or two classes possibility, and a passive feat at that, and feat for which the classes that took had to really weight other options is overpowered what the hell is power attack.
In the over 7 years + I have been pathfinder nearly every full bab character I have ever seen (close to 95%) or played with took power attack, the the archers took power attack, the twf users took power attack and about 75% of 3/4 Bab classes I saw took power attack, monks, clerics, "brute" rogue.
so how the heck is a feat taken by over 75% of the game, and before 3rd level in most cases fine, ok but divine protection wasn't?
I'm not saying power attack should be nerfed, I am saying this divine protection nerf was arbitrary and capricious when compared to what is considered a baseline core rule book feat.
the differance is that power attack shouldn't even be a feat, it should be baseline ability for all characters.
without it, martials can't do damage.
it isn't like oracles can't make their saves if they don't have that. in fact, they have the exact same chances as most classes with 2 good saving throws. with that though, they get a flat +25%-+50% chance to succeed them, bringing them to only fail on a 1. I don't think that someone believes that "failing a save only on a 1 should be a class ability"consider this:
everyone can get power attack. fighters, wizards, oracles. not everyone does though. for the casters it's useless. for dexterity users it's useless. for twf it's probably not worth it.if everyone could take a flat +5-10 to all saves, for a single feat, do you think there would be a single class that wouldn't take that feat?
this has nothing to do with anything. the fact is power attack is a standard core rule book feat. So long as it is, it's a reference point.
dexterity users take power attack. it allows you to do an awful lot of damage while only having 13 str.
oracles, inquisitor's, clerics, druids, magi, are casters and last I check a lot of them took power attack.
Just because your players made suboptimal choices doesn't change the fact that Divine Protection was busted.
suboptimal? haha
clearly you don't play oracles often. a blaster oracle/god oracle for instance wouldn't waste a feat on divine protection.
the oracles who tended to take divine protection are mostly those who wanted to focus on melee, while very good for an oracle is the "suboptimal choice".
Isn't that a little backwards.
Melee oracles would have lower Cha since they need to focus more on physical stats, and probably stick to buffs that don't care about saves. They also need to spend feats on taxes/chains for melee specialists.
Caster oracles are SAD for Cha and get the most benefit from Divine Protection.
Just because your players made suboptimal choices doesn't change the fact that Divine Protection was busted.suboptimal? haha
clearly you don't play oracles often. a blaster oracle/god oracle for instance wouldn't waste a feat on divine protection.
the oracles who tended to take divine protection are mostly those who wanted to focus on melee, while very good for an oracle is the "suboptimal choice".
clearly you don't know what is optimal for oracles. a blaster oracle/god oracle for instance could easily afford this feat to be untouchable to saves.
So... you think blasting is optimal. That definitely says a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oracles should have a good means of boosting their saves (No, Iron Will and Great Fortitude don't count)... But the old DivProt was too good, specially since it stomped the toes of Paladins.
That said, Crane Winging the feat into uselessness is a horrible solution. Paizo should really stop trying to nerf stuff... Not because everything is balanced, but because they are g+%@+*n awful at nerfing. Far more often than not they go overboard and make an overpowered (or even slightly above mediocre) option a waste of space, which is arguably even worse, considering the fact that most feats in the game are already horrible.
...this has nothing to do with anything. the fact is power attack is a standard core rule book feat. So long as it is, it's a reference point.I chuckle at the thought of divine protection as broken. what does that make power attack?
if a feat that was maybe useful for one or two classes possibility, and a passive feat at that, and feat for which the classes that took had to really weight other options is overpowered what the hell is power attack.
In the over 7 years + I have been pathfinder nearly every full bab character I have ever seen (close to 95%) or played with took power attack, the the archers took power attack, the twf users took power attack and about 75% of 3/4 Bab classes I saw took power attack, monks, clerics, "brute" rogue.
so how the heck is a feat taken by over 75% of the game, and before 3rd level in most cases fine, ok but divine protection wasn't?
I'm not saying power attack should be nerfed, I am saying this divine protection nerf was arbitrary and capricious when compared to what is considered a baseline core rule book feat.
the differance is that power attack shouldn't even be a feat, it should be baseline ability for all characters.
without it, martials can't do damage.
it isn't like oracles can't make their saves if they don't have that. in fact, they have the exact same chances as most classes with 2 good saving throws. with that though, they get a flat +25%-+50% chance to succeed them, bringing them to only fail on a 1. I don't think that someone believes that "failing a save only on a 1 should be a class ability"consider this:
everyone can get power attack. fighters, wizards, oracles. not everyone does though. for the casters it's useless. for dexterity users it's useless. for twf it's probably not worth it.if everyone could take a flat +5-10 to all saves, for a single feat, do you think there would be a single class that wouldn't take that feat?
first of all. you need a high charisma to make the feat work, which is why even though clerics qualify for it, I have never seen one yet take, so you argument fails already.
second, saying a feat is necessary does mean it is overpowered by your definition.
again you keep repeating the same thing, that power attack shouldn't be a feat. Power attack is a feat. it's a feat in the core rule book. you cannot base your argument on well it shouldn't be feat. no, it is a feat, and it's a core rule book feat, which means it's a reference feat. So again, if as you said power attack is necessary then logic dictates that DP which is nowhere close in powerful level be acceptable. The fact the design team decided otherwise is arbitrary and capricious, there is no rational basis for saying that power attack is of an acceptable power level and DP isn't.
I played 3 oracles since this feat came out, none took them. I played a bunch of games with other oracles, and it was about 50/50. many times extra revelation was taken instead, or a metamagic feat, or spell casting related feat. There are tons of oracles builds that have better options than divine protection.That every strength character with a 2-handed weapon will take Power Attack is accounted for in the math. That every Oracle will take Divine Protection is not.
Power Attack is a bad feat, but not for the same reasons as DP is.
Just for shiggles, my Oracle took Divine protection at 20th level, because I had no other Feats I wanted to take (and it wasn't out when we leveled to 19th).
My saves went from Fort +16, Ref +16, Will +25, to 30/30/39.
Balanced. XD
again you keep repeating the same thing, that power attack shouldn't be a feat. Power attack is a feat. it's a feat in the core rule book. you cannot base your argument on well it shouldn't be feat. no, it is a feat, and it's a core rule book feat, which means it's a reference feat. So again, if as you said power attack is necessary then logic dictates that DP which is nowhere close in powerful level be acceptable. The fact the design team decided otherwise is arbitrary and capricious, there is no rational basis for saying that power attack is of an acceptable power level and DP isn't.
Didn't I explain like 20posts ago why this is terrible logic?
"A lot of people take it" is not equivalent to "This is too powerful".
Divine Protection has a disproportionate effect on game balance. It is a single Feat that takes Oracles from being a normal class with only a good Will save, to a class who never fails a save unless he rolls a 1.
Meanwhile, Power Attack is actually baked into the core assumptions of the game. Without Power Attack, you do not deal the proper amount of damage for your level without other special damage boosters like Precise Strike or Smite.
That is the difference between the two.
So... you think blasting is optimal. That definitely says a lot.
, a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now, blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.
if you are building the most optimal oracle, DP is a suboptimal choice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you are building the most optimal oracle, DP is a suboptimal choice.
+5, 10, 15 to all saves is never a sub-optimal choice.
The fact that you think so tells me you have no idea what optimal means.
A failed save is the single most devastating thing that can happen to your character. Lowering that chance to almost nil is a good choice.
WHEN it's a good choice may vary from build to build, but it's always a damn god choice.
, a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now, blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.
if you are building the most optimal oracle, DP is a suboptimal choice.
LOL.... Yeah because getting +10 on all your saves is just a terrible idea
a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now,
True.
(...) blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.
That's going a bit too far, though.
So... you think blasting is optimal. That definitely says a lot., a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now, blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.
if you are building the most optimal oracle, DP is a suboptimal choice.
Okay, so what feats are the "most optimal" for an oracle up through lv 11? go ahead and assume non-human race
Okay, so what feats are the "most optimal" for an oracle up through lv 11? go ahead and assume non-human raceSo... you think blasting is optimal. That definitely says a lot., a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now, blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.
if you are building the most optimal oracle, DP is a suboptimal choice.
optimal oracle.
traits - wayang spell hunter (fireball), magical linage child of havoc (adds 1 point of force damage to your damage spells).1. spell focus
3. spell specialization
5. dazing metamagic
7. preferred spell (fireball)
9. varisian tattoo
11. greater spell/ focus
I choose fireball but any 2nd or 3rd level spell will do just fine. the feats will slighty depending on the spell. but you would never waste a feat on DP.
for instance if you choose a cold spell, you also pick up the rime metamagic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now,True.
(...) blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.That's going a bit too far, though.
She probably means spell perfection dazing blast spells.
Which is really just Hard CC with bonus damage.
Old DP was stupid cheesy nonsense. New DP is a waste of print. Trap options like it and many others is why I'm trying to move away from pathfinder. The steady release of crap is burying the good elements. Old DP was something GMs would ban. New DP is something the GM laughs manically as you take it.
So you're taking Dazing Metamagic when you can, at most, use it with a 1st level spell if you chose that spell for WSH? That makes sense; after all, everyone knows that Burning Hands is the most powerful evocation in the game.