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.
You still CAN. You just have to shell out for the Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists.
I understand your disappointment at the lack of a feat to do it more elegantly...
True, but CLH is not wrong that it's still a fair bit better than failing a crucial Fortitude save,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....And I think it relates to this.
I love that Paizo avoifds "must have" feats. I personally hate thinking "WHELP MAKING A ROGUE, NEED THAT TWIST AWAY". I would like to have options.
The thing is, I need those options again. Besides Iron Guts, there is little I can grant my Rogue to improve his CON saves. I'd love if there were a better selection of Rogue Talents to help it out.
Same for the Swashbuckler... Divine Protection now seems like a great feat for them, but it's going to be pretty annoying to spend 5 points into Knowledge (religion) on every swashbuckling action hero I create just for the privilege of not wasting Charmed Life attempts before a roll.
Also new Steadfast Personality encourages me to keep a 10 on my Wisdom, but if it doesn't affect non-mind affecting WIll saves, then it's bound to open my dude up for Curses and what not.
I don't want my characters to be cookie cutter but we do need the alternatives to fix their glaring gaps.
Except Divine Protection is now said to be a once per day thing and I think was still a swift action
Does anyone have any idea when the PRD will be updated to reflect the changes in errata?Probably not until the ACG PDF is updated, which probably won't happen until the second printing is in stock, which also won't happen until the first one sells out. As far as I understand it.
That is disappointing. I wonder if d20pfsrd will update its pages to include all the changes from the errata document soon. I will have an easier time reading it there if they do, but I will still have to have open the errata document and go look up what they're referring to and then locate that on d20pfsrd.
That is disappointing. I wonder if d20pfsrd will update its pages to include all the changes from the errata document soon. I will have an easier time reading it there if they do, but I will still have to have open the errata document and go look up what they're referring to and then locate that on d20pfsrd.Does anyone have any idea when the PRD will be updated to reflect the changes in errata?Probably not until the ACG PDF is updated, which probably won't happen until the second printing is in stock, which also won't happen until the first one sells out. As far as I understand it.
Some of them have been updated already.
Some of them have been updated already.That is disappointing. I wonder if d20pfsrd will update its pages to include all the changes from the errata document soon. I will have an easier time reading it there if they do, but I will still have to have open the errata document and go look up what they're referring to and then locate that on d20pfsrd.Does anyone have any idea when the PRD will be updated to reflect the changes in errata?Probably not until the ACG PDF is updated, which probably won't happen until the second printing is in stock, which also won't happen until the first one sells out. As far as I understand it.
Well, that is at least promising.
It also burns a highly coveted feat slot which means my oracle wouldn't have taken it had it been an option.LOL.... well there we go.... point emphaticaly proved!!My straight Oracle is was getting CHA to all saves before Divine Protection ever came out, though admittedly Divine Protection was a much easier and earlier way to achieving that.
Okay, now I know you're bull s~+#ting us. You know exactly how cheap feats are to a 9th level caster.
With as awesome as Divine Protection was, I still waited till 9th level to pick it up because there were more relevant feats for my spirit guide oracle.
I wonder if people are forgetting Oradins are still a thing... sure its a 2 level dip but you also get smite...
Okay, now I know you're bull s*%!ting us. You know exactly how cheap feats are to a 9th level caster.It also burns a highly coveted feat slot which means my oracle wouldn't have taken it had it been an option.LOL.... well there we go.... point emphaticaly proved!!My straight Oracle is was getting CHA to all saves before Divine Protection ever came out, though admittedly Divine Protection was a much easier and earlier way to achieving that.
No really, my oracle wouldn't have taken it. And while yes feats are cheap to a 9th level caster, they are not so cheap that you should spend one when you don't have to. I should note we don't play with retraining, but if retraining was an option then yes, my character would have taken it immediately and retrained it later.
I wonder if people are forgetting Oradins are still a thing... sure its a 2 level dip but you also get smite...
And an alignment restriction and a code of conduct which makes a lot of people unhappy to be in the same group as your character. Paladin is balanced out by the roleplaying aspect, which is much more restrictive than with any other class.
Honestly though, oradins work better if you're dipping one level of oracle rather than 2 of paladin.
One level of lore Oracle is a (IMO way too powerful) common dip and would give you access to CHA to AC and Reflex saves, instead of DEX and also be a way to take the old Divine Protection.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trying to be funny.. instead of wholly ignorant.
I'll cop to any amount of ignorance, but I'd be happy for you to inform me if you can do so without hyperbole.
FWIW, here are my Fun Police ACG characters:
Empiricist Investigator, level 8
Warpriest, level 8
Brown-fur transmuter Arcanist, level 7
Hunter, level 5
I also have a non-fun-police Spell Warrior Skald, level 5.
On behalf of my Hunter, I am glad the times/day of Skirmisher tricks has been codified, but annoyed that their use hasn't been clarified with respect to who acts for certain tricks.
On behalf of my Investigator, I am disappointed that she wasn't granted the ability to use wands in a manner similar to her Alchemist cousins.
On behalf of my Arcanist, I am saddened that he'll be limited in his ability to consume spells and items for reservoir points. I am, however, patting myself on the back for keeping a positive Charisma modifier in anticipation of future published material related to the Arcanist. The class clearly places an emphasis on Charisma so dumping it seemed risky to me.
I never for a second thought that my Warpriest's level would count as BAB for anything other than qualifying for bonus feats, so that clarification came as no surprise to me. I don't care about capstone abilities, so I honestly don't even know what Aspect of War did or what the changes are. The duration added to Lucky Blessing is entirely unsurprising. Now I'll have to give it to people before we open a door instead of at the beginning of the day. Oh well.
I'm glad my Skald's Enhance Weapons song now officially functions as it was clearly intended. That was the reason I chose to play him outside of the fun police, so we could just agree it worked like a normal raging song.
Outside of those, I'm glad the Bolt Ace has been fixed since I'm interested in making one. I'm sure I'll miss the loss of unlimited attacks vs. touch AC, but I'm pretty sure it will do just fine without it.
I'm not terribly interested in the Swashbuckler, but those I've played with have performed quite well. I'd very much like to see a future archetype offer them a better option for TWF.
On behalf of a friend with a Shaman, I'm glad they got SNA and hex clarifications. As a reader of these fora, I'm not at all surprised some power limiters were put in place.
|
One level of lore Oracle is a (IMO way too powerful) common dip and would give you access to CHA to AC and Reflex saves, instead of DEX and also be a way to take the old Divine Protection.
Certainly, but continuing to level in paladin makes the old version just a +1 instead, and you're only adding to two saves as you already have reflex.
Dipping one level of oracle did not qualify most builds for the old Divine Protection and would have done very little for most of the builds that it did because they would not have much need for charisma.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if people are forgetting Oradins are still a thing... sure its a 2 level dip but you also get smite...And an alignment restriction and a code of conduct which makes a lot of people unhappy to be in the same group as your character. Paladin is balanced out by the roleplaying aspect, which is much more restrictive than with any other class.
Roleplaying restrictions never make for a good balance against mechanical abilities. Divine Grace is part of the Paladin's unique set of tools that make both her and her party members unusually difficult to kill; Divine Grace and the various Auras are what she gets for anti-magic, the same way that the Barbarian gets Superstition and Spell Sunder. The Swashbuckler needed something like this, but the Oracle absolutely did not.
Honestly, if Divine Protection's prerequisite was "no levels in a class that grants spellcasting" rather than what it was then it would have been completely fine.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's to hoping that paizo takes note of the new feedback on their possibly rushed errata, which was prompted by guilt/feedback from their rushed book, and slowly and carefully craft improvements that make real differences and are not arbitrary or without necessity.
At this point I don't think they ever will. They should be making effective errata with their eyes closed imo. With the exception of Mark. Their is a adamant refusal to find some sort of middle ground when it comes to designing new material. Same with errata. Either something is too good. Or nerfed so much as to not worth taking imo. It's almost impossible to get something is both good yet not too game breaking at the same time. Their also doing nothing to dispel the notion that martials can't nice things either imo.
It's not 2009 anymore. Only so many times I'm willing to give free passes on the same mistakes from devs. I'm not giving up on PF. Far from it. I am giving up on the devs to gives us new material that is worth using in my games. While were at it simply admit once and for all that PFS has a big hand in what gets incorporated into errata. At this point Paizo is not fooling anyone. It's very frustrating because it seems like they almost never listen. Which is why I don't waste my time with playtests or compiling errata. What's the point really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trying to be funny.. instead of wholly ignorant.I'll cop to any amount of ignorance, but I'd be happy for you to inform me if you can do so without hyperbole.
To be fair - tarring a swath of concerns with an insulting brush does invite hyperbolic response.
I mean, the post amused me, but I can see it being taken in poor taste.
And an alignment restriction and a code of conduct which makes a lot of people unhappy to be in the same group as your character. Paladin is balanced out by the roleplaying aspect, which is much more restrictive than with any other class.
I really must wholly disagree here. Partially because I'd say JJ is right when he complains about the grand-fathering in of Paladins. When you balance something on roleplaying against mechanical balance, you really are hitting something that strikes as awful design.
If for no other reason, then because the philosophy in which alignment restrictions are acceptable for balance, then it is legitimised by game rules to say that characters are balanced by the prospect of "f$## you specifically" encounters. You can challenge players mechanically without it being so obvious. You can't challenge the code of conduct without being specific, and targeted.More yet, the point of any mechanical challenge is it means the player has to let someone else shine/deal with a problem; the Paladin code of conduct being a metric of challenging a player is to say "Play this specific way". Any attempt to appeal to it inevitably carries some of the dirt of railroading.
All in all, your argument relies on something bad, and you should feel bad.
Edit: Eh, the more I think about the changes, the less invested I am anyway. The book had some options many people thought was too strong. Some weak. The fact that options are now "in the ground useless" to many eyes just means they'll be ignored.
Or, to try an explain my premise: An over-powered option will effect gameplay by being desirable, or meaning GMs intervene to ban things. An under-powered option gets ignored, and gameplay is totally uneffected because everyone ignores it.
Was Pathfinder fun pre-ACG? Yes. Does the ACG still contain non-zero changes to options when playing? Yes.
We're still better than before its release. Content from the book is still enjoyable. To wit: People still enjoy core rulebook feats, even if combat expertise remains terrible design.
True, but CLH is not wrong that it's still a fair bit better than failing a crucial Fortitude save,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.
Right. Twist Away is still a fantastic (and interesting) feat if you want a defensive feat, there's just no "combo" anymore.
Part of me likes having a system so vast and varied that feat + magic item combos like Twist Away and that ring. Such is the way towards broken combos that can be seen in 3.5, but it's one of the things I love about the system.
Sad to see it go, but both that feat and that item are usable without that interaction, which is a sign of something well-designed. I probably will avoid Twist Away as I don't like the idea of being staggered, but some people who want to shore up defenses more should keep and eye on it.
Yeah, I'd rather play a class that won't fail that Fort save in the first place, rather than having to invest Feats to potentially maybe achieve the same level of not-failure, but with drawbacks.
Some people have mentioned the idea of allowing the rules to contain options for different power levels. I don't think that's an inherently bad idea, but I'd rather see the different power levels separated into different books or optional subsystems. Mythic Adventures seems like a good example of this. The original Divine Protection might not have drawn so much heat if it were Mythic Divine Protection. Maybe there could be a second Mythic book with new and updated options some day or a book with some other type of higher tier powers like "Pathfinder Superheroes" or "Martial Madness" (aka Wuxia Wackiness)
Using PFS as sort of a playtesting tool sounds like a pretty decent idea to me since you've presumably got large numbers of DMs and players trying out the material in a somewhat controlled setting. It is a shame that much of the testing would end up happening after the printed product is released, but I guess that's kind of how it goes. Video games might have a bit of an advantage in this department since the product can be updated more easily whereas having a printed book with outdated rules and a sheaf of errata and FAQ can probably be a little clumsy. I personally use electronic versions of the rules when possible anyhow though, and they generally seem to get updated pretty quickly.
*cough*Spell Perfection*cough*.
I love that Paizo avoifds "must have" feats. I personally hate thinking "WHELP MAKING A ROGUE, NEED THAT TWIST AWAY". I would like to have options.
If they EVER touch Spell Perfection, I'm throwing in the towel and leaving Paizo forever. No joke.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they EVER touch Spell Perfection, I'm throwing in the towel and leaving Paizo forever. No joke.*cough*Spell Perfection*cough*.
I love that Paizo avoifds "must have" feats. I personally hate thinking "WHELP MAKING A ROGUE, NEED THAT TWIST AWAY". I would like to have options.
Would be the first time they really revisit a caster option.. I would think you would be conflicted that they weren't just boning martials
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Divine protection gave a huge bonus to saves for oracles for the investment of one feat. It was absolutley ridiculously out of proportion in terms of defensive benefit to cost ratio compared to any other feat in the game. It was overpowered, full stop. This is generally accepted as truth on these boards.It gave a Cha based bonus to the handful of classes that could qualify for it, just because one class could get it easier than the others doesn't make the feat broke.
It's not a question of taking it easily. You knew that already though. It's a question of an approximate +7 to all saves for oracles at around the level 8 mark that only gets better from there, for one feat. If you don't see how that's too powerful, no amount of explanation will help.
It's only overpowered for one class? Fine, it's still overpowered. If barbarians had a feat that gave them +1000 to hit, but only have everyone else +1, that feat would still be overpowered. That's game design 101.
And the devs can give that ability to anyone else they want, if they deem fit. Obviously, they did at first, and have since reconsidered. If it's not broken on the paladin, it's not broken on anyone else. The class is nowhere near as hard to play as you make it out to be.A gazillion Paladin threads say differently. Find me another class which is equally as controversial.
I'll double your request: Gunslinger and Summoner.
Magus doesn't quite make the cut anymore.
|
|
1. Divine protection gave a huge bonus to saves for oracles for the investment of one feat. It was absolutley ridiculously out of proportion in terms of defensive benefit to cost ratio compared to any other feat in the game. It was overpowered, full stop. This is generally accepted as truth on these boards.It gave a Cha based bonus to the handful of classes that could qualify for it, just because one class could get it easier than the others doesn't make the feat broke.It's not a question of taking it easily. You knew that already though. It's a question of an approximate +7 to all saves for oracles at around the level 8 mark that only gets better from there, for one feat. If you don't see how that's too powerful, no amount of explanation will help.
It's only overpowered for one class? Fine, it's still overpowered. If barbarians had a feat that gave them +1000 to hit, but only have everyone else +1, that feat would still be overpowered. That's game design 101.
That analogy doesn't fit, and is completely skewed, since the feat in and of itself isn't overpowered and also didn't specifically call out the Oracle class , it's very powerful true, it's just more powerful than for other classes when taken by an Oracle since Oracles bases all of their stuff off of Charisma. Oracles aren't the only class that can take the feat. Don't penalize a feat because what one class can do with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking it over, I think one the main reasons this errata is causing so many issues is because a lot of the content is not actually an errata. If the errata just fixed all the misprints, typos, and obvious mistakes like Bolt Ace keeping guns then there wouldn't be much upset over it.
However, way too much of the Errata is actually a balance patch, not an errata. And given a lot of people disagree with what the devs think is and isn't balanced (see "martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by an evil conspiracy") any balance patch is going to be controversial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That analogy doesn't fit, and is completely skewed, since the feat in and of itself isn't overpowered and also didn't specifically call out the Oracle class
You mean except for the fact that one of the prerequisites is a class feature only oracles have
I'll double your request: Gunslinger and Summoner.
Magus doesn't quite make the cut anymore.
The Paladin threads are there for reasons of roleplaying issues, however, which are a legitimate controversy regarding the class.
Anyway, I think I'll take Triune's advice and shut up about the topic. The mechanical flaws of the old version of the feat are there for everybody to see. I've yet to see a rebuttal which doesn't boil down to "it doesn't bother me, so there is no problem". One really cannot discuss rationally with such a viewpoint.
And an alignment restriction and a code of conduct which makes a lot of people unhappy to be in the same group as your character. Paladin is balanced out by the roleplaying aspect, which is much more restrictive than with any other class.
That is some sweet old school logic. Unfortunately (for you) and fortunately (for everyone else) Paizo doesn't embrace it. Although I could see it now: An archetype where fighters get cool new toys without having to give up anything. All they have to do is follow some roleplay restrictions. That's what many of the AD&D kits boiled down to. This has been a game design methodology that has for the most part fallen out of favour.
If they EVER touch Spell Perfection, I'm throwing in the towel and leaving Paizo forever. No joke.It's a powerful caster option that they don't need in any way shape or form which martials cant make much/any use of outside maybe Magi so it's probably safe. The fact that it only impacts high level play makes it even more so.
It is still a stupidly strong feat.
Which requires you to be 15th-level and have no less than three prerequisite feats. A four feat chain that only 15th-level characters can get SHOULD be strong. It's really no different in power level than a martial's Stunning Assault feat.
You know what, I'll take your advice and do the same that you do to Gorbacz. We'll both be happier.
Excellent news.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A four feat chain in which each previous feat is very useful and awesome.
It's the equivalent of if Fighters got a feat chain of
Power attack
Iron Will
Improved Critical
Critical Focus
Then the capstone being the doubling of Weapon focus and Weapon specialization bonuses.
Sure it's a chain, but it's not a tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And an alignment restriction and a code of conduct which makes a lot of people unhappy to be in the same group as your character. Paladin is balanced out by the roleplaying aspect, which is much more restrictive than with any other class.That is some sweet old school logic. Unfortunately (for you) and fortunately (for everyone else) Paizo doesn't embrace it. Although I could see it now: An archetype where fighters get cool new toys without having to give up anything. All they have to do is follow some roleplay restrictions. That's what many of the AD&D kits boiled down to. This has been a game design methodology that has for the most part fallen out of favour.
They still haven't phased out the Paladin with an "Unchained Paladin", so I'd say they are not completely abandoning the concept. I guess we'll have to wait for the next edition of Pathfinder to see if they'd do thing differently. Or maybe PF Unchained 2 something something.
And, by the way, trying to reduce this issue to "you vs. everyone else" is laughable. The mere existance of all those Paladin threads is a testament that the class has issues. They are, however, mostly in the roleplaying side of things rather than in the mechanics.
Or, better said, since the roleplaying side of things hugely favors the classes strengths (Paizo's adventure paths tend to favor evil opponents in most cases), the mechanical strengths of the class are magnified.
Anyway, this is getting way to OT for the actual topic at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That analogy doesn't fit, and is completely skewed, since the feat in and of itself isn't overpowered and also didn't specifically call out the Oracle class , it's very powerful true, it's just more powerful than for other classes when taken by an Oracle since Oracles bases all of their stuff off of Charisma. Oracles aren't the only class that can take the feat. Don't penalize a feat because what one class can do with it.1. Divine protection gave a huge bonus to saves for oracles for the investment of one feat. It was absolutley ridiculously out of proportion in terms of defensive benefit to cost ratio compared to any other feat in the game. It was overpowered, full stop. This is generally accepted as truth on these boards.It gave a Cha based bonus to the handful of classes that could qualify for it, just because one class could get it easier than the others doesn't make the feat broke.It's not a question of taking it easily. You knew that already though. It's a question of an approximate +7 to all saves for oracles at around the level 8 mark that only gets better from there, for one feat. If you don't see how that's too powerful, no amount of explanation will help.
It's only overpowered for one class? Fine, it's still overpowered. If barbarians had a feat that gave them +1000 to hit, but only have everyone else +1, that feat would still be overpowered. That's game design 101.
Like I said, if it isn't self evident, no amount of explanation will help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No really, my oracle wouldn't have taken it. And while yes feats are cheap to a 9th level caster, they are not so cheap that you should spend one when you don't have to. I should note we don't play with retraining, but if retraining was an option then yes, my character would have taken it immediately and retrained it later.
What were your saves looking like that you would scoff at a +5 to +10 on all of them? For an Oracle Divine Protection might as well have read: "Benefit: Every time you are required to make a saving throw, roll 1d20. If you don't roll a 1 then you automatically make the save."
If they EVER touch Spell Perfection, I'm throwing in the towel and leaving Paizo forever. No joke.*cough*Spell Perfection*cough*.
I love that Paizo avoifds "must have" feats. I personally hate thinking "WHELP MAKING A ROGUE, NEED THAT TWIST AWAY". I would like to have options.
Oh please, Spell Perfection is a caster option. If it gets reworked you know it's just going to be to buff it. Maybe now if you select a spell with a costly material component with Spell Perfection the fee is waived or the total modified spell level is no longer capped at 9 but instead CL + Casting Stat.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, reading the errata for everything other than Bolt Ace (and really, nerfing Sharp Shoot? Really?) has been painful, doesn't look like anything happened to the Investigator though, so small miracles.
I'll agree Divine Protection was probably too strong, but it got Crane Wing'd HARD. And Slashing Grace was just as badly destroyed, like wow, is dex to damage hated SO much as to just destroy it?
Personally I wasn't in love with unchained either (aside from Rogue, but there was nowhere to go but UP with that class), so unless the Kineticist really gets me hype (which I'm hoping for, I do plan on doing an ATLA/LOK themed guide for it), I don't have a lot of faith for future products.
They still haven't phased out the Paladin with an "Unchained Paladin", so I'd say they are not completely abandoning the concept.
Hence why I said "for the most part".
And, by the way, trying to reduce this issue to "you vs. everyone else" is laughable.
Yeah it wasn't quite what I was going for and if this forum didn't timeout the ability to edit it I'd go back and rephrase it. But as you said this is getting decidedly offtopic.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A four feat chain in which each previous feat is very useful and awesome.
It's the equivalent of if Fighters got a feat chain of
Power attack
Iron Will
Improved Critical
Critical FocusThen the capstone being the doubling of Weapon focus and Weapon specialization bonuses.
Sure it's a chain, but it's not a tax.
This.
People need to learn the difference between a feat chain and a feat tax.
It's only a tax if the pre-req is something which isn't a solid choice in it's own right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with this errata is my same problem with most of Paizo's 'fixes' which is the aforementioned scorched nerf policy and their tendency to favor volume of complaining over math.. Maybe if the Devs would post a thing or two as to what they consider to be an appropriate level of DPR or Damage mitigation and whatnot rather than this throw it all at the wall to see what sticks style it would be less jarring...
Then tack on what seems to be a lot of pandering to the PFS crowd which honestly has so many changes made to it already that the games while close in form are so different in function valid comparisons are few and far between. They want more stuff in PFS make PFS only erratas and leave the rest of us out of it.
I'm fortunate that I'm usually the rules guy and math guy for my groups and when I break out the pen and paper and show the numbers my play group tends to side with me but for the people who are less fortunate this must feel like a stick to the jumblies.
Also.. I'd like to note turning a broken good option to a brokenly bad option is in zero way an improvement.. It's time and space wasted on lateral moves.
Oh good work on the shaman nudging though.. I liked that bit.. And I'm kinda ambivalent about the arcanist changes.. How much of a problem were the getting more arcane pool things causing people seriously ? I never really saw it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with this errata is my same problem with most of Paizo's 'fixes' which is the aforementioned scorched nerf policy and their tendency to favor volume of complaining over math.. Maybe if the Devs would post a thing or two as to what they consider to be an appropriate level of DPR or Damage mitigation and whatnot rather than this throw it all at the wall to see what sticks style it would be less jarring...
I really hope they're not using the iconics as a baseline. If you've seen any character made by the devs, their optimization level is quite low, so something like doesn't super shock me, although I'll agree that they seem to pander to PFS (...a certain feat comes to mind...) and yet they're not willing to make certain things PFS ban exclusive. They're willing to ban things in PFS, I just don't understand why they so often destroy valid options instead of having a more open dialogue with the players.
I'd like something like "Hey, we heard X option is too strong, here's a poll, you can vote on which change makes the most sense" with a list of varying fixes, so then people who are claiming vocal minority and such will be able to better see what the silent majority thinks.
It's a shame when we see such 'slash and burn' errata on a product that in itself was rushed.