Swashbuckler is.... well let's not talk about swashbuckler. Swashbuckler is the class from the ACG that needs the most love.Which is kind of funny seeing as how the Swashbuckler GOT most of the love, even back in the playtest days.
Yeah, it got a lot of playtest love, A LOT of feedback and playtesting. Then the final product wasn't much different from the playtest version and a lot of feedback was seemingly ignored or refused.
Stuff like
Charmed Life is almost good, why don't we make it a permanent bonus like the Paladin?
For a class and archetype that is rooted in mobility why is the Swashbuckler at its best when it's standing still and full attacking?
ect
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So PFS is forcing Change again? Nice...
Pretty much this. They should just admit to themselves that as far as the company is concerned that PFS is pathfinder. That way they can at least get the left and right hand working together. This is design by committee at its worst and it's all happening inside of a single building.
I'm getting pretty tired of paying to Beta rules for a campaign I don't play in.
| 2 people 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.
That is a distinction without a difference.
Maybe I need to audit my swashbuckler characters, because they've been at the top of the power curve locally.
I've been playing one too; I have a swashbuckler in Skull and Shackles who is a powerhouse who hits way above her weight class (soloing characters up to three levels higher than she easily, recently at levels 5 and up, usually with a flawless victory, although once with a fairly harrowing fight when she took on a level 6 fighter 1-on-1 at level 3), despite being a very simple build with no "tricks." It helps that there haven't been too many Fortitude and Will saves in Skull and Shackles, though. Those are the class's big Achilles's heels. If you can find a way to shore them up (which I haven't decided to do with Rin), you pretty much can take out anything except maybe a "grudge build" built by the GM to be good at fighting your swashbuckler.
I played a Swashbuckler at 7th and 8th level. It's a solid damage dealer but anything that triggers an important save means you're straight up f#&#ed.
I enjoy it more than a Fighter though since I can invest Feats into not-damage-dealing since they already do pretty well at that.
Well if all you attack is somethings strengths then of course it looks like a diamond.
In terms of damage, AC, and HP the swash is comparable to a fighter and in a campaign that only worries about those attributes swashy would look great.
I forgot to mention that I'm glad to hear that the Eldritch Scion could be potentially looked at. In all the chaos of the new errata, I managed to forget that more FAQs and errata are still possible for the ACG.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I forgot to mention that I'm glad to hear that the Eldritch Scion could be potentially looked at. In all the chaos of the new errata, I managed to forget that more FAQs and errata are still possible for the ACG.
Always. We got an enormous chunk of issues you guys mentioned looked at in this big errata file for the second printing, but heck, we still keep finding things to FAQ for the CRB, which is in its 6th (?) printing. We're always open to looking at more, and this is not the end, just a start!
| 3 people 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.That is a distinction without a difference.
Agreed. The end result is still PFS saying "we don't like this" and the devs changing it.
I haven't gone over the whole document yet, just looked up things affecting my existing characters.
One change makes me rather unhappy. Spirit's Gift was obviously overpowered and I was expecting a nerf, but making it a standard action to activate really messes up the action economy for my Hunter. Having painstakingly picked my spells to avoid getting stuck in a self-buffing rut at the start of combat, I get an extra standard action thrown on top that makes me want to retrain the feat immediately.
Would it have been so bad to make it a swift action so as not to drastically mess up characters's routines?
where can I find the errata?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
where can I find the errata?
It's on <the product page for the Advanced Class Guide>.
<Here> is the direct link.
Always. We got an enormous chunk of issues you guys mentioned looked at in this big errata file for the second printing, but heck, we still keep finding things to FAQ for the CRB, which is in its 6th (?) printing. We're always open to looking at more, and this is not the end, just a start!
I know Christmas is still a long way off but if there is a chance to make the Ecclesitheurge into a proper caster cleric (instead of stuck in limbo!), I would be very happy. You can count it as a joint Xmas and birthday prezzie for the next 5 years!! :0
Failing that promising to have a crack at a D6 divine in the future... ;))
Recently this chap had a good go...
Ps Good job on nerfing Divine Prot!
it's not neccissarily that it was too strong, but that it was so much stronger than other feats. the other save feats gave a +2 to one save, and this one was like a +4 or more to all three
no, more like they just didn't bother to look at anything we didn't mention was broken or that PFS didn't say was illegal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's not neccissarily that it was too strong, but that it was so much stronger than other feats. the other save feats gave a +2 to one save, and this one was like a +4 or more to all three
To me, that suggests that the +2 to a single save feats are weak. Why can't they be better?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was a bit much.
My 20th level Oracle is rocking a whopping +14 to all saves.
Even the +5 you could get by 5th level is a lot, but if it capped there it wouldn't be so bad.
Or if it only applied to one save. Hell, even one save changed daily.
Where can we read the errata?
Product Errata Changelog is at:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/resources
If you purchased the product from Paizo as PDF, you will soon be able to download the Errrata'd version.
(not yet, only when new print run is released AFAIK)
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the problem with Divine Protection is that it's just Moar Numbers. It doesn't make the game any more interesting, it just adds another way to try not to fail a save.
It was Moar Numbers for an Oracle, which is the absolute last class that needed a means to add charisma to saves. Make the prereq for Divine Protection Charmed Life and all you get is some grumbling as to why the Swash has to pay a feat tax for something that should be innate.
Perhaps we should all forget the Advanced Class Guide exists?
uh... i would hardly assume that, they very likely did errata stuff people didn't mention,
i believe that is in fact the case and they have stated so, but they didn't happen to catch those particular issues...
i mean, other products have multiple errata runs over multiple print runs...
it is about as ridiculous to expect paizo to resolve ALL errata issues with one errata edition,
as it is to expect them to create a perfect product that never needs errata, in the first place.
if paizo is just now discovering new errata, either thru their own analysis, or user feedback,
then they can put that into the NEXT errata/print run for this product, as is standard practice.
Perhaps we should all forget the Advanced Class Guide exists?
That seems a tad silly. It's quite a good book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps we should all forget the Advanced Class Guide exists?That seems a tad silly. It's quite a good book.
It's a terrible book.
It's got some really good stuff in it though.
Perhaps we should all forget the Advanced Class Guide exists?That seems a tad silly. It's quite a good book.It's a terrible book.
It's got some really good stuff in it though.
I can't agree with your first point, but I can certainly agree with your second.
After the ACG came out, I used it as the centerpiece of a campaign. Classes were limited to the 10 in the book, and the other material was encouraged. It worked great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played a Swashbuckler at 7th and 8th level. It's a solid damage dealer but anything that triggers an important save means you're straight up f&%@ed.Once you hit 11 you can at least shore up Fort with the Twist Away combo.
Not anymore! Well, Twist Away still works, but not with Ring of Ferocious Action or whatever.
Not anymore! Well, Twist Away still works, but not with Ring of Ferocious Action or whatever.I played a Swashbuckler at 7th and 8th level. It's a solid damage dealer but anything that triggers an important save means you're straight up f&%@ed.Once you hit 11 you can at least shore up Fort with the Twist Away combo.
True, but CLH is not wrong that it's still a fair bit better than failing a crucial Fortitude save,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So PFS is forcing Change again? Nice...Pretty much this.
And yet people wanting to introduce massive and significant changes to how the basic game works advocate testing it in organised play. Where have we seen this story before?
This is pretty much a WotC style carpet bombing errata (they at least used this style of errata for 4th edition. Dunno about 3rd edition). This just makes me inclined to avoid ACG in it's entirety. I've seen this story before and have little incentive to try to mess around with it. There are 27 base/alternate/core classes without it now that OA is out (although I've never seen anyone allow the antipaladin).
Here's a question though: Did anything overpowered manage to escape the nerf-bomb? Or did they actually capture everything? In true WotC style I expect they overreacted on the vast majority of the book and yet let some of the worst combinations slip through unscathed. But that's hopefully me just being overly cynical ;)
On the upside, Unchained was significantly better than ACG and by all accounts so is Occult Adventures. Here's hoping ACG continues to be the exception and we don't continue to get the same old rubbish.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fine with this "nerf" because the powers it replaced came at 3rd level.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!"
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this was the reason. And that makes sense to me. I'm finding that there are a number of changes that I agree with intellectually but which are really negatively impacting me on an emotional level. I think that part of that is that it took so long to get the errata that I've become comfortable with the erroneous rules.
It was the same with the SLA FAQ's. The first ruling made no sense to me whatsoever, and for a while I just ignored it. But gradually I got used to other people using it, and eventually I started to really enjoy some of the options that it opened up. That was the moment when they changed the rules back to the way that I had originally thought they should be.
I'm feeling the same type of emotional whiplash as I did then.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question though: Did anything overpowered manage to escape the nerf-bomb? Or did they actually capture everything? In true WotC style I expect they overreacted on the vast majority of the book and yet let some of the worst combinations slip through unscathed. But that's hopefully me just being overly cynical ;)
From the looks of it, they buffed the shaman, the most versatile class in the game.
Think about that for a moment.
But remember, martial caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fine with this "nerf" because the powers it replaced came at 3rd level.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!"
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this was the reason. And that makes sense to me. I'm finding that there are a number of changes that I agree with intellectually but which are really negatively impacting me on an emotional level. I think that part of that is that it took so long to get the errata that I've become comfortable with the erroneous rules.
It was the same with the SLA FAQ's. The first ruling made no sense to me whatsoever, and for a while I just ignored it. But gradually I got used to other people using it, and eventually I started to really enjoy some of the options that it opened up. That was the moment when they changed the rules back to the way that I had originally thought they should be.
I'm feeling the same type of emotional whiplash as I did then.
This is definitely a thing that happens every time things change, and it's understandable; if anything, that you have realized this shows that you have a pretty sharp level of introspection.
Rhedyn is correct that it was just completely a typo/error in the original version. If the original had traded out armor training for mutagen at 3rd level, matching the level of the new ability with the old, and the new version randomly gave out mutagen at 1st level, people would have been even more wondering "What the heck did they do that for? An archetype that gains an ability before the level when it loses the trade-out ability is against the explicit rules of archetypes." But when anything changes, even changing to fix it, it can easily provoke an emotional reaction if it was something on a personal character. It's part of the way the game is that we put a bit of ourselves into our characters, and so we get way more emotionally invested in those characters and elements that we chose for those characters than in many other sorts of games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the looks of it, they buffed the shaman, the most versatile class in the game.
Think about that for a moment.
Yeah. WotC style errata at it's finest.
NOTE: This isn't a condemnation of Paizo or even the developers of this book. Paizo (and the developers?) have come out and said that the ACG was a misstep and if they could do it again they would delay it's release to make sure the material was of a higher quality. They have also demonstrated a comitment to better quality by bringing on both more developers and more editors and I can personally attest that Pathfinder Unchained is one of the best books Paizo have produced since the Advanced Player's Guide (and even that book had it's fair share of problems) and by all accounts Occult Adventures is a significant step up in quality from ACG as well. The errata which I've been quite harsh on has been rushed out to try to get ACG into a usable shape. Unfortunately it's clear that while it might be an improvement over the base ACG* there is still very much room for better improvement. I'm hopeful that we will get more errata for this book, although I equally hope that it will be delayed signficantly and will take a much more considered approach.
* I don't actually know if it is or not. As I said I'll be skipping this book for the foreseeable future. Fortunately most of the classes the book represents can be recreated with the variant multiclassing rules from Pathfinder Unchained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is definitely a thing that happens every time things change, and it's understandable; if anything, that you have realized this shows that you have a pretty sharp level of introspection.Fine with this "nerf" because the powers it replaced came at 3rd level.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!"
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this was the reason. And that makes sense to me. I'm finding that there are a number of changes that I agree with intellectually but which are really negatively impacting me on an emotional level. I think that part of that is that it took so long to get the errata that I've become comfortable with the erroneous rules.
It was the same with the SLA FAQ's. The first ruling made no sense to me whatsoever, and for a while I just ignored it. But gradually I got used to other people using it, and eventually I started to really enjoy some of the options that it opened up. That was the moment when they changed the rules back to the way that I had originally thought they should be.
I'm feeling the same type of emotional whiplash as I did then.
Well, those Wisdom bonuses for Aging are really starting to add up. :)
From the looks of it, they buffed the shaman, the most versatile class in the game.
But they nerfed the most powerful options for it. Spirit Talker now only lasts 1 hr and you lose all benefits after that, and that was the #1 way people preferred to take Arcane Enlightenment since it didn't require dedicating any Spirits to Lore. Likewise if you used Spirit Talker for other Hexes (and it also prevents Spirit Talker abuse by Witches).
They added back in mind-affecting to Evil Eye to match the Witch version. A bunch of abilities were limited to once/target/24hrs.Sure, they added Remove Disease, but any party would get that capability SOMEHOW, this is just letting Shamans fill the party role they were meant to. They boosted Life Link enough so that you would actually consider using it now (and it works logically like similar abilities work, not saving 5hps once they are already at negatives). They added SNA, and honestly based on the class' heritage I would have said SM was more flavor appropriate, but they clearly deferred to lower power SNA. (Honestly, I would have preferred the spell list was expanded in flavorful ways besides SNA, but thems the breaks)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rhedyn is correct that it was just completely a typo/error in the original version. If the original had traded out armor training for mutagen at 3rd level, matching the level of the new ability with the old, and the new version randomly gave out mutagen at 1st level, people would have been even more wondering "What the heck did they do that for? An archetype that gains an ability before the level when it loses the trade-out ability is against the explicit rules of archetypes."
You mean those explicit rules which are frequently broken?
Even on other Fighter archetypes?
Brawler gets Close Control at 2nd level, trading out Armor Training 1. A level before it exists.
Then Close Combatant at 3rd, trading out both Weapon Training 1 AND 2. By this logic it shouldn't be available until 9th because you don't have Weapon Training 2 until then. But 5th since we're being generous.
Let's look at some others.
The Viking gets Rage at 4th, trading out Weapon Training (a 5th level ability).
Tower Shield Specialist gets Tower Shield Evasion at level 16, replacing Weapon Training 4 (a 17th level ability).
Lore Warden gets Swift Lore at 14th, a level before Armor Training 4 which it swaps out.
And those are just the FIGHTER archetypes that break this supposed "rule" that was supposed to tell us it was an unintended oversight. I'm sure I could find a number of examples from every class.
I know you personally had no hand in any of these archetypes, but hopefully it shows how bad an explanation that is for changing something that didn't have a balance reason to be changed. To fit these "explicit rules" which are broken by you guys on a regular basis.
Rhedyn is correct that it was just completely a typo/error in the original version. If the original had traded out armor training for mutagen at 3rd level, matching the level of the new ability with the old, and the new version randomly gave out mutagen at 1st level, people would have been even more wondering "What the heck did they do that for? An archetype that gains an ability before the level when it loses the trade-out ability is against the explicit rules of archetypes."
You mean those explicit rules which are frequently broken?
Even on other Fighter archetypes?
Brawler gets Close Control at 2nd level, trading out Armor Training 1. A level before it exists.
Then Close Combatant at 3rd, trading out both Weapon Training 1 AND 2. By this logic it shouldn't be available until 9th because you don't have Weapon Training 2 until then. But 5th since we're being generous.
Let's look at some others.
The Viking gets Rage at 4th, trading out Weapon Training (a 5th level ability).
Tower Shield Specialist gets Tower Shield Evasion at level 16, replacing Weapon Training 4 (a 17th level ability).
Lore Warden gets Swift Lore at 14th, a level before Armor Training 4 which it swaps out.
And those are just the FIGHTER archetypes that break this supposed "rule" that was supposed to tell us it was an unintended oversight. I'm sure I could find a number of examples from every class.
I know you personally had no hand in any of these archetypes, but hopefully it shows how bad an explanation that is for changing something that didn't have a balance reason to be changed. To fit these "explicit rules" which are broken by you guys on a regular basis.
Shhhh! Don't call attention to this. I like getting abilities before I have to pay for them. ;)
Is there any reason why slashing grace doesn´t work with flurry of blows anymore?
It made me really happy to be able to play a fist of the south star style monk. Considering the feat investment, i don´t think this is out of the powercurve and needed to be ruled different.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Divine protection I could have lived with them making it one save, but once a day and as an immediate... Wow.
Huh so I originally thought it was changed so that you only get Cha to a single save, which made me think, "That's still strong, but hey without the divine casting/feature requirement at least a lot more people can use it. I like it." and then I noticed in a separate column the 1/day thing. Haha, oh wow, on to the garbage heap you go Divine Protection.