Contributor
|
I really don't like that they nerfed it just because it was an obvious choice feat for one class. Inquisitors, Druids, Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype, and Warpriests could still get some use out of it if they chose to.The requirements of the old Divine Protection was the biggest issue with the feat; they ensured that only the Oracle could make effective use out of the feat, but for an Oracle it is trivially easy to get. Meaning that Oracles just had all good saves by level 5, no questions asked. On a class that was already the most SAD chassis in the game BEFORE the ACG.100% this.
(As AF said in another thread) I would have liked to see it reduced to one save... or just find some way to keep oracles from taking it.
|
|
It might have been fun if the feat was just changed to be CHA for WIS casters and WIS(?) for CHA casters and CHA for noncasters or something.I really don't like that they nerfed it just because it was an obvious choice feat for one class. Inquisitors, Druids, Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype, and Warpriests could still get some use out of it if they chose to.The requirements of the old Divine Protection was the biggest issue with the feat; they ensured that only the Oracle could make effective use out of the feat, but for an Oracle it is trivially easy to get. Meaning that Oracles just had all good saves by level 5, no questions asked. On a class that was already the most SAD chassis in the game BEFORE the ACG.100% this.
The problem with that route is the Cha base because it's the Paladin's Divine Grace so it would build off that, changing it to like you suggest would basically allow the Pally to double-dip for even better saves.
|
|
(As AF said in another thread) I would have liked to see it reduced to one save... or just find some way to keep oracles from taking it.I really don't like that they nerfed it just because it was an obvious choice feat for one class. Inquisitors, Druids, Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype, and Warpriests could still get some use out of it if they chose to.The requirements of the old Divine Protection was the biggest issue with the feat; they ensured that only the Oracle could make effective use out of the feat, but for an Oracle it is trivially easy to get. Meaning that Oracles just had all good saves by level 5, no questions asked. On a class that was already the most SAD chassis in the game BEFORE the ACG.100% this.
The former I'd be okay with, the latter not so much, and I don't even play Oracles (let alone full casters).
The "Well a couple of classes can take this but this particular class can get it really easily so let's nerf it so now no one will take it" mentality just grates on me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, people actually thought Divine Protection was balanced?
Huh.
|
Contributor
|
(As AF said in another thread) I would have liked to see it reduced to one save... or just find some way to keep oracles from taking it.I really don't like that they nerfed it just because it was an obvious choice feat for one class. Inquisitors, Druids, Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype, and Warpriests could still get some use out of it if they chose to.The requirements of the old Divine Protection was the biggest issue with the feat; they ensured that only the Oracle could make effective use out of the feat, but for an Oracle it is trivially easy to get. Meaning that Oracles just had all good saves by level 5, no questions asked. On a class that was already the most SAD chassis in the game BEFORE the ACG.100% this.The former I'd be okay with, the latter not so much, and I don't even play Oracles (let alone full casters).
The "Well a couple of classes can take this but this particular class can get it really easily so let's nerf it so now no one will take it" mentality just grates on me.
I'm not that excited about it either - it feels clunky.
I just thought it would be better than what we got.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who doesn't own the book, I do find the errata situation hilarious.
After the book was released, we had people proclaiming the book was horrible, needed errata right now, and was proof that Paizo was going to pot and they would never ever purchase a product from the company again.
Some people continued with that attitude through much of next year, demanding early release of errata.
And then, we got early release of errata, and people are angry, proclaiming this renders the book horrible, Paizo is going to pot, and they are never going to purchase a product from the company again.
Now I know that doesn't describe everyone, and I know the ACG had probably the worst editing issues of any hardcover, but I can't help but be "amused" by "just can't win" nature of the situation.
It's hard to win when you take the ball, shoot a few goals, and then decide that's enough and start playing Dodgeball instead.
They nerfed some stuff that needed nerfing, but left off many things that still needed clarification in favor of nerfing s**$ nobody in their right mind thought needed nerfing. Removing the Fast Healing from Vermin Hunter, dropping full BaB Flurry, and nerfing Merciless Butchery of all f!*$ing things.
|
|
(As AF said in another thread) I would have liked to see it reduced to one save... or just find some way to keep oracles from taking it.I really don't like that they nerfed it just because it was an obvious choice feat for one class. Inquisitors, Druids, Rangers with the Divine Tracker archetype, and Warpriests could still get some use out of it if they chose to.The requirements of the old Divine Protection was the biggest issue with the feat; they ensured that only the Oracle could make effective use out of the feat, but for an Oracle it is trivially easy to get. Meaning that Oracles just had all good saves by level 5, no questions asked. On a class that was already the most SAD chassis in the game BEFORE the ACG.100% this.The former I'd be okay with, the latter not so much, and I don't even play Oracles (let alone full casters).
The "Well a couple of classes can take this but this particular class can get it really easily so let's nerf it so now no one will take it" mentality just grates on me.
I'm not that excited about it either - it feels clunky.
I just thought it would be better than what we got.
I guess Oracles getting it really easy just doesn't bother me that much since it's Saving Throws, which increase survivability, they don't make you deal more damage or otherwise make you outshine the other classes by making you live/be unaffected by stuff longer.
The divine fist BAB nerf was already there. You were never told to count your war-priest levels as monk levels before. People just made an assumption that they should but it wasn't true. It was really pretty obviously in error when you consider how much more powerful full flurry is than sacred weapon.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The old Divine Protection was unnecessary.
The new Divine Protection, having it's requirements reduced to just 5 ranks in Knowledge (Religion), opens up the feat thematically for non-casters to be people of tangible faith, which I like personally. Say, for example, a devout Rogue who worships Desna.
But I agree with posters here that "+CHA 1/day before-the-fact" is far too underwhelming to justify a feat slot. Three suggestions:
1) As a standard action (prayer) once per day, bonus to all saves equal to CHA bonus for 1 minute.
2) As a standard action (prayer) once per combat, bonus to one save equal to CHA after-the-fact (free action), up to 1 minute.
3) As an immediate action (prayer) a number of times per day equal to CHA mod (minimum 0), +1 bonus to one save before-the-fact, +1 per 5 ranks in Religion.
Like making anything but a Str martial... in order to make a Dex martial you have a rediculous chain of hoops you have to go through...
at least they're more likely to have a decent acrobatic's check...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The divine fist BAB nerf was already there. You were never told to count your war-priest levels as monk levels before. People just made an assumption that they should but it wasn't true. It was really pretty obviously in error when you consider how much more powerful full flurry is than sacred weapon.
A somewhat disingenuous explanation of the problem, I think. The full text was:
At 1st level, a sacred fist can make a flurry of blows attack as a full-attack action. This ability works like the monk ability of the same name.
In Flurry of Blows, we find this text:
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level.
Now, this can be read a few different ways.
A: A Sacred Fist treats his monk level (presumably 0) as his BAB. All flurry attacks are made with a BAB of +0.
B: A Sacred Fist treats his Sacred Fist level as his BAB, which is consistent with how many other archetypes work and would lead to a class feature that's not utterly and completely broken.
C: Despite explicitly stating it works like the monk ability of the same name, it doesn't actually do that. Just ignore some of the rules text.
The errata was added because as written the class feature A: didn't work or B: provided BAB=SF level, based on how you interpreted the text. Absolutely nothing in the text even remotely suggested that the Sacred Fist was meant to use medium BAB progression on flurry of blows. Arguing that it was "already there" is nonsensical and bordering on being actively and intentionally dishonest.
It was ruling A. You will find that other archetypes, including the errata version, need to explicitly tell you to treat your level as that class level for the ability.
Note that in ruling A, you still attack as your own BAB, so it's not really +0.
I think the new version of Divine Protection would actually be pretty decent if you could choose to apply the bonus as an immediate action after you fail a save. I guess I'd rather see it as a choice of when to use a 1/day mechanical bonus to get out of a bad situation than a wild gambler's guess of when that bonus might come in handy.
I'm personally a little sad over the change to the Mutation Warrior's Mutagen ability. I guess I might have a tough time arguing against the change from a game balance perspective, but now one of my PCs who took a couple levels of Fighter mostly for the bonus feats will need to decide between taking a 3rd level of Fighter (which would delay some other abilities he wants) or suddenly and permanently losing the Mutagen ability he's been using pretty conspicuously for the past several levels ("Yeah, I suddenly just forgot how to brew that stuff...")
The Spell Warrior errata makes me wonder whether or not a Barbarian (or other character with Rage) would have to choose between accepting Enhance Weapons for the round or using his or her own rage for the round. If not maybe it would be possible to use your own Rage Powers plus those of the Skald. That would actually make the Skald cohort my Viking has a lot more helpful though the DM might feel funny about me changing archetypes after 3-4 levels.
You will find that other archetypes, including the errata version, need to explicitly tell you to treat your level as that class level for the ability.
That may be, but Paizo are notoriously inconsistent with including the appropriate language - if you apply it strictly then you wind up breaking a large number of options. For example investigators can take the Mutagen discovery with an investigator talent, but it doesn't state anywhere that they use their investigator level in place of their alchemist level - so an investigator who takes the Mutagen discovery would have a mutagen with an effective duration of 0 minutes. Another example is the hex magus, who has a witch level for the hex gained by Hex Magus, but no witch level for any hexes he picks up with Hex Arcana. IE he can use an arcana to learn a hex, but since his witch level would be 0 the majority of hexes are nonfunctional.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got that sort of disappointed feeling when I looked at some of the changes [...] the inability to reduce Bolt Ace's ability to hit touch AC at level 11 [...] made me kinda sad
Er... Bolt Ace worked before and got broken by this errata. It's unplayable at high levels now that you can't use Signature Deed for Sharp Shoot.Well, at least Bolt Ace works now...
But yeah, this was kinda not what I was hoping for.
At least checking at level 11, this assertion doesn't hold up. Check the numbers.
55.3 dpr — Bolt Ace (no Sharp Shooter)
61.6 dpr — Basically Optimized Fighter Archer
97.2 dpr — Bolt Ace (Sharp Shooter for 0 grit)
Looks like a pretty good balance decision to me, if this is at all representative of how that would go through the higher levels as well. (I mean, median AC of a CR 13 enemy is 28, v. touch AC of 10. That's kind of a lot! I have an awful hard time believing that the Bolt Ace needs +18 to hit to count as "playable.")
Would have to check at higher levels as well to be certain, but *I'm* not the one making the claim. I'll leave it for anyone invested in it to provide evidentiary support. :-)
|
Personally, I always felt the feat should have provided the same bonus to everybody that it provided to paladins, +1 to all saves. That's still a pretty good feat, but nowhere near game breaking. As is, this is roughly equivalent to a once per day roll twice and take the better result, if you have a cha mod of 4-5. Less than that, and it's worse than that, and that's a pretty weak effect for a feat to begin with. Even if everybody got the same effect that the swashbuckler got, being able to apply the effect afterwards, it would still be only okay.
And why does the swashbuckler get a special benefit from this? Are they the gods favored creatures for some reason? This doesn't make any sense to me, outside of the pretty blatant attempt to make players choose to play the swashbuckler instead of their much better alternatives.
|
|
Ummmm, the last archer I played with consistently did 120-150 damage a round at level 11, 97.2 seems about right to me.
Depends on your build and equipment. I use fairly conservative assumptions on my reference numbers (my melee fighter clocks in around 65 dpr for lvl 11). But the point is that, as long as the assumptions are standardized between the bolt ace and the archer under consideration, the comparison's valid. So to compare to your report of 120-150 dpr, we'd need a bolt ace build under matching assumptions to get a fair comparison (rather than one built under my fairly conservative assumptions).
As long as the *relative* numbers are about the same, my point will stand. And I do have trouble thinking that the bolt ace will be the equivalent of +18 to-hit behind, such that she absolutely needs Signature Deed (Sharp Shooter) to keep up. :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Mutation Warrior nerf was simply unnecessary.
"Whoops we accidentally gave the Fighter something nice, better fix that s%%$ right quick".
It's like this errata was specifically designed to piss people off. "Look, we fixed these things you wanted! Now we broke all these other things because you wouldn't shut up about the ones you did want fixed! Suck on that!"
The Mutation Warrior nerf was simply unnecessary.
"Whoops we accidentally gave the Fighter something nice, better fix that s+## right quick".It's like this errata was specifically designed to piss people off. "Look, we fixed these things you wanted! Now we broke all these other things because you wouldn't shut up about the ones you did want fixed! Suck on that!"
what'd they do to mutation warrior, i didn't even think it was that great, i constantly thought i could do better as something else.
Didn't they just delay the mutagen to level 3? That's a pretty mild nerf, it affects people dipping Fighter more than anyone who wanted to stick with the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't they just delay the mutagen to level 3? That's a pretty mild nerf, it affects people dipping Fighter more than anyone who wanted to stick with the class.
A mild nerf to something that didn't need nerfing is still entirely unnecessary and stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel they changed basically everything that wasn't PFS legal (and other stuff), and since the mutation warrior wasn't legal it got a change to hopefully make it legal.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So PFS is forcing Change again? Nice...
if you treat your WP bab as your monk levels when you flurry then the WP has a bab of 0 in a flurry
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still want an answer as to why they went to war on Opportune Parry and Riposte. It was perfectly sensible for both Daring Champion and Kata Master to get. If anything, Daring Champion should have lost Precise Strike, not Parry. Static damage + even MORE static damage is a way bigger problem than Parry ever even possibly could have been.
That's what is so aggravating to me. They clearer developed a swift hatred for an ability that's fun, but not that overpowering. Taking signature deed from it was really all they ever needed to do to keep it from becoming too strong. And If their worry was for the sake of the Swashbuckler, then as was said, they went WAY too far. And that's just one example of how bad I consider this errata to be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they wanted Swashbuckler to have some sort of unique trick that no one else had, but incorrectly chose Patty/riposte over Precise Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They actually did fix the wide variety of problems with things that simply didn't work as written.Really? I'm not seeing it. You can just go over to the thread where people were posting Errata issues, and see that many of them were not addressed...
I was going though the ACG Potential errors thread and comparing the posts to the errata, including the nice lists that deadmanwalking put together. Around 90% of what was posted was fixed, and of what was left, I'd say that nearly all of it was stuff that either wasn't an error, or where the poster thought the wording was vague, or was minor typos and layout stuff that's presumably able to fixed without being put in the errata document.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it's not so much as PFS making them change this time and more of a developers want it to be a legal option for it and decided to change stuff.
Precise Strike is absolutely necessary for the Daring Champion to function as a sword-and-board class. Otherwise it just does not keep up in damage, even when challenging. Parry is an upsetting loss, but at least the archetype is still usable... And STILL better than the Swashbuckler, because orders are still way better than the deeds exclusive to the Swashbuckler.
|
if you treat your WP bab as your monk levels when you flurry then the WP has a bab of 0 in a flurry
I'm pretty sure the issue was based more on the fact that originally the WP had the same pseudo full BaB which was removed just before the book went out, and no one probably caught the need to remove it from the Sacred Fist. But, it was something that was a pretty reasonable guess wouldn't make it past the errata. The pre-errata Sacred Fist with a little bit of creative interpretation (and a dose of that above noted Paizo inconsistency) made the Sacred Fist simultaneously a better Monk than the Monk while also being a far better Warpriest than the Warpriest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Mutation Warrior nerf was simply unnecessary.
"Whoops we accidentally gave the Fighter something nice, better fix that s*#* right quick".It's like this errata was specifically designed to piss people off. "Look, we fixed these things you wanted! Now we broke all these other things because you wouldn't shut up about the ones you did want fixed! Suck on that!"
Fine with this "nerf" because the powers it replaced came at 3rd level.
Also: "Pffff pre level 5 game play"
I'll just pretend the Flurry of Blows Sacred Fist references is the the Unchained Monk's......
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going though the ACG Potential errors thread and comparing the posts to the errata, including the nice lists that deadmanwalking put together. Around 90% of what was posted was fixed, and of what was left, I'd say that nearly all of it was stuff that either wasn't an error, or where the poster thought the wording was vague, or was minor typos and layout stuff that's presumably able to fixed without being put in the errata document.They actually did fix the wide variety of problems with things that simply didn't work as written.Really? I'm not seeing it. You can just go over to the thread where people were posting Errata issues, and see that many of them were not addressed...
ZanThrax, thank you for that! I was trying to find a way to say something similar, but you put it really well (and you're totally right, minor typos and layout stuff will be fixed without being in the errata document; they would just make it harder to read).
Now, people have mentioned a few things that weren't in the errata that they were hoping to see, but that didn't show up in the other thread at all. I wish you guys had posted them in there for us to consider; I assure you that we did out best to make sure that each and every post in that >1000 post thread received significant respect and consideration (with that many posts, probably missed a small number anyway, but very small, I think).
Daring Champion have Precise Strike and Challenge?
Warpriest having only 2 skill points per level (Yes I know it was intentional, but it's a mistake)
Charmed Life taking a swift action. It should be a free action or even permanent.
I've seen the Dev team change classes/feats to make them weaker, why not also make the weak things stronger?
I was going though the ACG Potential errors thread and comparing the posts to the errata, including the nice lists that deadmanwalking put together. Around 90% of what was posted was fixed, and of what was left, I'd say that nearly all of it was stuff that either wasn't an error, or where the poster thought the wording was vague, or was minor typos and layout stuff that's presumably able to fixed without being put in the errata document.They actually did fix the wide variety of problems with things that simply didn't work as written.Really? I'm not seeing it. You can just go over to the thread where people were posting Errata issues, and see that many of them were not addressed...ZanThrax, thank you for that! I was trying to find a way to say something similar, but you put it really well (and you're totally right, minor typos and layout stuff will be fixed without being in the errata document; they would just make it harder to read).
Now, people have mentioned a few things that weren't in the errata that they were hoping to see, but that didn't show up in the other thread at all. I wish you guys had posted them in there for us to consider; I assure you that we did out best to make sure that each and every post in that >1000 post thread received significant respect and consideration (with that many posts, probably missed a small number anyway, but very small, I think).
*RIOTS*
Daring Champion have Precise Strike and Challenge?
Warpriest having only 2 skill points per level (Yes I know it was intentional, but it's a mistake)
Charmed Life taking a swift action. It should be a free action or even permanent.
I've seen the Dev team change classes/feats to make them weaker, why not also make the weak things stronger?
The dev team definitely buffed some weak options in this (Feral Hunter, for example, but also some Shaman options). It may not have been exactly what you were hoping for, but the PDT is definitely making things stronger.
That being said, I'm still sad to see a lot of the nerfs and no fixes for the Eldritch Scion. To be fair, I probably didn't post anything about that Magus archetype in the ACG potential errors.
As a class Hunter and Shaman are pretty well off though. One being one of the highest damage "martials" in the game and the other being a full caster.
Swashbuckler is.... well let's not talk about swashbuckler. Swashbuckler is the class from the ACG that needs the most love.
Warpriest is great in combat, but has a lot of problems related to its 2 skill points.
it was so hard to look through that 1000+ posts to see if someone had mentioned the error you've found. If they had a summary list somewhere we could have just checked to see if the issue was on that list. (btw with a year of editing, you'd think some of those other issues should have been noticed, looked at, and solved. but at least we have so many fixes to so many things)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Daring Champion have Precise Strike and Challenge?
Warpriest having only 2 skill points per level (Yes I know it was intentional, but it's a mistake)
Charmed Life taking a swift action. It should be a free action or even permanent.
I've seen the Dev team change classes/feats to make them weaker, why not also make the weak things stronger?
The dev team definitely buffed some weak options in this (Feral Hunter, for example, but also some Shaman options). It may not have been exactly what you were hoping for, but the PDT is definitely making things stronger.
That being said, I'm still sad to see a lot of the nerfs and no fixes for the Eldritch Scion. To be fair, I probably didn't post anything about that Magus archetype in the ACG potential errors.
After four calls for Eldritch Scion stuff showed up in a few hours last night, I rechecked the entire potential errors thread again to see what they meant, and yeah, I couldn't find it. I'd recommend making a FAQ thread for it so we can take a look at it too!
As a class Hunter and Shaman are pretty well off though. One being one of the highest damage "martials" in the game and the other being a full caster.
Swashbuckler is.... well let's not talk about swashbuckler. Swashbuckler is the class from the ACG that needs the most love.
Warpriest is great in combat, but has a lot of problems related to its 2 skill points.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. I think pure martials get the shaft way too often, and the lack of certain changes from playtest to ACG with the Swashbuckler has made me lack hope for fixes. But that doesn't mean the PDT isn't buffing and isn't seeing weak options like the Feral Hunter or Ecclesitheurge Cleric and buffing them.
As a class Hunter and Shaman are pretty well off though. One being one of the highest damage "martials" in the game and the other being a full caster.
Swashbuckler is.... well let's not talk about swashbuckler. Swashbuckler is the class from the ACG that needs the most love.
Warpriest is great in combat, but has a lot of problems related to its 2 skill points.
CASTER VERSUS MARTIAL DISPARITY!
*RIOTS*
After four calls for Eldritch Scion stuff showed up in a few hours last night, I rechecked the entire potential errors thread again to see what they meant, and yeah, I couldn't find it. I'd recommend making a FAQ thread for it so we can take a look at it too!Daring Champion have Precise Strike and Challenge?
Warpriest having only 2 skill points per level (Yes I know it was intentional, but it's a mistake)
Charmed Life taking a swift action. It should be a free action or even permanent.
I've seen the Dev team change classes/feats to make them weaker, why not also make the weak things stronger?
The dev team definitely buffed some weak options in this (Feral Hunter, for example, but also some Shaman options). It may not have been exactly what you were hoping for, but the PDT is definitely making things stronger.
That being said, I'm still sad to see a lot of the nerfs and no fixes for the Eldritch Scion. To be fair, I probably didn't post anything about that Magus archetype in the ACG potential errors.
scions issue is that it's action economy is completely shot and unhandy, 90% of the people i've seen play it don't require a swift action from it or even point expenditure. there's no error it just sucks as written.
edit: actually i think there is something on about bloodline spells...
After four calls for Eldritch Scion stuff showed up in a few hours last night, I rechecked the entire potential errors thread again to see what they meant, and yeah, I couldn't find it. I'd recommend making a FAQ thread for it so we can take a look at it too!Daring Champion have Precise Strike and Challenge?
Warpriest having only 2 skill points per level (Yes I know it was intentional, but it's a mistake)
Charmed Life taking a swift action. It should be a free action or even permanent.
I've seen the Dev team change classes/feats to make them weaker, why not also make the weak things stronger?
The dev team definitely buffed some weak options in this (Feral Hunter, for example, but also some Shaman options). It may not have been exactly what you were hoping for, but the PDT is definitely making things stronger.
That being said, I'm still sad to see a lot of the nerfs and no fixes for the Eldritch Scion. To be fair, I probably didn't post anything about that Magus archetype in the ACG potential errors.
I unfortunately remember a handful of threads based solely around the Eldritch Scion but not much discussion for it in that thread.
Actually, I just went through my post history and found this.
A post which provoked my post was this one, if I recall. That being said, two posts out of more than one thousand that seem to have been overlooked in DMW's list is more than acceptable.
EDIT: And neither of these address other issues with the archetype, like overall action economy.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. I think pure martials get the shaft way too often, and the lack of certain changes from playtest to ACG with the Swashbuckler has made me lack hope for fixes. But that doesn't mean the PDT isn't buffing and isn't seeing weak options like the Feral Hunter or Ecclesitheurge Cleric and buffing them.As a class Hunter and Shaman are pretty well off though. One being one of the highest damage "martials" in the game and the other being a full caster.
Swashbuckler is.... well let's not talk about swashbuckler. Swashbuckler is the class from the ACG that needs the most love.
Warpriest is great in combat, but has a lot of problems related to its 2 skill points.
The cycle of buffs and nerfs continues.....
Yeah, the PDT does buff things, but sometimes I wonder how they decide what needs a buff and what doesn't.
