Why all the nerfs Paizo?

[Scythia]

alexd1976 wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

"Rule 0" is moot, as I paid the book for having the rules ready instead of making up an entire system for myself.

Rule 0 could also be interpreted as this:

In cases of rules disputes between players and GMs, GMs always have one vote more than the total of the players votes.

This kind of thinking leads to one problem: No DM is so experienced or skilled that they can run a game with no players.

[alexd1976]

Scythia wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

"Rule 0" is moot, as I paid the book for having the rules ready instead of making up an entire system for myself.

Rule 0 could also be interpreted as this:

In cases of rules disputes between players and GMs, GMs always have one vote more than the total of the players votes.

This kind of thinking leads to one problem: No DM is so experienced or skilled that they can run a game with no players.

Conversely, if players make the rules, there is no GM, and the game (if it survives) loses direction.

If you don't like how someone runs the game, run your own, it isn't rocket science.

I'm just trying to support the idea that the GM is the one in charge, not the players.

It isn't intended to create confrontation, as a GM my goal is to make sure my players have fun and WANT me to run games, but sometimes we disagree on rules... so rather than letting things bog down in hours of debate, I make a ruling and we carry on.

AFTER the game, I open the topic up to conversation, if all the players agree things should be changed, it carries weight. I only enforce rule 0 if it would break the game otherwise.

Never had a player walk out on me, not once. I have, however, left games before because of heavy handed GMs. Have also left because of weak GMs who let players make all the rules.

[Insain Dragoon]

@Alex

Would you say that the system itself has flaws that require houserules if a player intends to use those flaws?

I'm not talking about stuff that's unintentional loophole broken, like simulacrum abuse.

I'm talking about stuff like planar binding abuse, bypassing the limits of spellcasting by forcing a short adventuring day, casters being better at tripping an ogre with a single spell than a fighter whos trained his whole life to put someone on their butt, some classes completely eclipsing others in terms of usefulness and role, ect.

I have no problems with house rules or anything of the like and use them quite frequently, but I want to get it across to some people in this thread that even if in your game a problem doesn't exist that the problem didn't go away.

Also on topic I think it's really sad that the ACG errata had so few buffs for the stuff that was so weak it was broken. That paizo's definition of errata has become so nerf heavy is really saddening.

[HWalsh]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Based on Walsh and Tormsskull it seems that if one player was significantly outshining another due to the difference in power between the class they would continually target that player. Stuff like "Oh you want to SCRY? Nah man. Oh you want to hide the Rope from rope trick 100 ft in the air above a forest? Nah, you can't. Man the way you trip everything that comes near you, even in the surprise round? Totally not feeling that anymore. That way you used a bunch of magic items, feats, skill points, and charisma to buff your diplomacy? Means nothing, I'm looking for a high dice roll. Your cleric had raise dead prepared and was ready to use it in case of emergency? Plot says this guy needs to die, so nah man. Oh you just so happened to have the silver bullet spell for this encounter prepared today? Nah, I don't like it.

Quote:

. Casters

...

Nice try but it isn't quite that cut and dry.

It is more like, even as the GMG describes, "Hey man. This combination that you have going is really nice and I get it but its really making it hard for the other players to keep up. Is there a way you can tone it down a bit?"

That is a totally legitimate way to deal with player skill disparity.

As to a lot of it, you don't stop it all the time, but you stop it some of the time.

Example:
"Man the way you trip everything that comes near you, even in the surprise round? Totally not feeling that anymore."

After a while you run into a group of human mercs:

Two of them move toward you, something looks odd about their movement. Make a perception check.

(Providing they fail): You attempt your trip and... It doesn't work... You hit them, but, they simply didn't fall. Make another perception check, with a +5 bonus.

(When they succeed): They aren't running, though they looked kind of like they were, they were hovering a few centimeters off of the ground. Flight. You see a few empty potion flasks on their belts and you figure out what is going on.

Mercenary Leader: "Your skills are well known. We were prepared for you."

Anyone who relies on a "one trick" is going to get a reputation and people are going to figure out how to stop that one trick. You specialize in disarm? Sooner or later someone's going to realize that and they are going to wear a locking gauntlet.

And it isn't about continually targeting a player so much as targeting a threat on the field. If there IS a caster disparity then you suffer what was called back in Palladium's Rifts game, "Shoot the shiny one!"

Which was the logic that a Glitterboy was the most dangerous thing on the map and opponents would often focus fire it. Which often resulted in the Glitterboy taking far more damage so that its higher MDC still seemed to cause it to drop about as fast as everyone else.

Most important thing for you to remember is this:

The Rules do not rule the game. This is not an MMORPG. You aren't supposed to find a FOTM build. This is a private server hosted by the GM and he can patch and tweak whatever he wants. He should tell you when he does it, he should give you a chance to debate him, he should even give you the chance to swap a feat or ability you took for a specific purpose.

[Tormsskull]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Based on Walsh and Tormsskull it seems that if one player was significantly outshining another due to the difference in power between the class they would continually target that player. Stuff like "Oh you want to SCRY? Nah man. Oh you want to hide the Rope from rope trick 100 ft in the air above a forest? Nah, you can't. Man the way you trip everything that comes near you, even in the surprise round? Totally not feeling that anymore. That way you used a bunch of magic items, feats, skill points, and charisma to buff your diplomacy? Means nothing, I'm looking for a high dice roll. Your cleric had raise dead prepared and was ready to use it in case of emergency? Plot says this guy needs to die, so nah man. Oh you just so happened to have the silver bullet spell for this encounter prepared today? Nah, I don't like it.

Actually, none of those would apply to me. If you want to use scry, use scry. If you want to use rope trick, use rope trick. The game world will respond accordingly.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Is the answer to take those options and throw them away? Sure, that's fine and is a houserule.

To modify them? That's a houserule, which is great.

This comes across as a "GM hands-off attitude." Meaning, write down every house rule you have, write down everything where the RAW may not be enforced exactly as written, write down every deviation, etc. Then allow me to play within those restrictions. If I find an incredibly powerful combination of feats/abilities/spells/whatever that you haven't captured in everything you wrote down, then I have earned the right to be able to use those abilities.

As I said previously, that might be fun for some groups, but that's not fun for me. It limits the role of the GM to that of a referee, it limits creativity, it limits the "anything can happen" angle. That's not the kind of game I would enjoy GMing or playing in.

Hopefully all players and the GM sit down at the table to have fun and in good faith. If one PC is significantly more powerful than the others, it is up to the GM to balance the situation out to some degree.

If one of my players wanted to try to limit what I can do as the GM, that tells me that they don't trust me. If that's the case, I would suggest that we're not going to have a successful campaign and we should each find a different group that better meets our expectations.

[Insain Dragoon]

As they put it in Shadowrun "Geek the mage"

In general targeting the caster is usually the smartest option you have because he is the most threatening target on the field. Assuming the caster is any good though, they've already done what they needed and are either sitting the combat out because their goal was to trivialize the dungeon aspect of the fight or they already have defenses up to counter whatever you were going to throw at them.

Examples: The wizards goal was to stack the encounter in your favor by modifying the terrain, getting you into an advantageous position before combat, turning the party into gods through buffs, giving the party adequate defenses to minimize risk, or something along those lines. In the case of defenses, the caster already has long lasting defensive buffs like stoneskin, blur, mirror image, fickle winds, contingency, invisibility, Fly-by-attack and a piece of terrain to hide behind, and his allies blocking paths to reach him.

Or this is rocket tag levels and they either
A. Won initiative and therefore the fight
B. Lost initiative and have to pray they somehow survive the other rocket launchers.

[alexd1976]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

@Alex

Would you say that the system itself has flaws that require houserules if a player intends to use those flaws?

I'm not talking about stuff that's unintentional loophole broken, like simulacrum abuse.

I'm talking about stuff like planar binding abuse, bypassing the limits of spellcasting by forcing a short adventuring day, casters being better at tripping an ogre with a single spell than a fighter whos trained his whole life to put someone on their butt, some classes completely eclipsing others in terms of usefulness and role, ect.

I have no problems with house rules or anything of the like and use them quite frequently, but I want to get it across to some people in this thread that even if in your game a problem doesn't exist that the problem didn't go away.

Also on topic I think it's really sad that the ACG errata had so few buffs for the stuff that was so weak it was broken. That paizo's definition of errata has become so nerf heavy is really saddening.

Yes, I do think the mechanics have flaws. They CAN be overcome by good GMing and houserules, but I do wish more tweaking and fixing would occur. So if you are saying the game has flaws, I am agreeing with you.

I haven't read the ACG errata in depth, but it does seem disappointing.

What was done to Spirit's Gift changed it from a must-have to a never-take (for me, at least).

[HWalsh]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

@Alex

I'm going to chime in here too.

Quote:

Would you say that the system itself has flaws that require houserules if a player intends to use those flaws?

All systems have flaws. It is unavoidable. If someone could come up with a system that had no flaws then that would be the last game ever made.

Quote:

I'm not talking about stuff that's unintentional loophole broken, like simulacrum abuse.

Okay.

Quote:

I'm talking about stuff like planar binding abuse, bypassing the limits of spellcasting by forcing a short adventuring day, casters being better at tripping an ogre with a single spell than a fighter whos trained his whole life to put someone on their butt, some classes completely eclipsing others in terms of usefulness and role, ect.

This is a multipart question:

Planar Binding abuse: Planar Binding is problematic... Kind of... Remember the creature must be convinced to help you and will attempt to escape. This isn't always a simple diplomacy check. This abuse is easily kept in check by the GM remembering that.

Forcing a short adventuring day: This can be dealt with by a GM simply making sure the PCs don't have time to stop early. This is only a problem if the PCs aren't actually doing anything of any urgency.

Caster trip: The caster is totally able to do that... Of course if he's doing that in the same group as the fighter who can do it almost as well then he's kind of hurting himself. That is a spell that he could use elsewhere. That is just inefficient.

Usefulness: This is in the eye of the GM. It isn't always about combat role. This is the most delicate part. Sometimes the GM just needs to pull the player to the side and talk to them. Most players will be very accommodating in switching focus if they are overshadowing someone else. The only time this becomes a problem really is when the two characters think they have the same role. Also just because one person is better doesn't mean the other person is useless.

Quote:

I have no problems with house rules or anything of the like and use them quite frequently, but I want to get it across to some people in this thread that even if in your game a problem doesn't exist that the problem didn't go away.

And what we are trying to get across is that is isn't a problem if it doesn't happen in every game. Since each game is unique what is a problem in one isn't in another. Fixing the "disparity" for your game can ruin someone else's game. That is WHY the GM exists.

[Insain Dragoon]

If you can't acknowledge that some classes are superior to others in every conceivable way from in combat power and role to out of combat power and role, then we can't have this conversation.

[LazarX]

Snowblind wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Yes, yes, a level 1 Commoner can outshine a 20th level Mythic 10 Wizard with "the right GM".

That doesn't mean jack about anything that matters any more than anything you says does.

Nice childish insult there Ryn. I can see that the disparity hurts you badly and that you feel strongly. I don't want the GM to be marginalized.

How about the rest of us, who don't want to see the GM burdened with having to constantly compensate for flaws in the mechanical system.

I seriously have to ask you - how bad does the system have to be before it stops being the GM's fault or the players' fault that the table has issues? Because if your answer is "never" or some roughly equivalent answer, then practically nobody is ever going to see eye to eye with you.

Give up this game and play checkers then. The art of rebalancing is something that GM's have had to do since the release of Chainmail.

The problem however escalated to it's current form with WOTC's release of 3.0 as a player builder game. More options for players meant more options to tweak the system.

The problem with builder systems is that they grow. And with that growth comes unforseen interactions of mechanics from Book C with others from Book H.

But despite that, the plain fact of the matter is that most of the problems presented on these boards don't exist in any significant number outside them.

The mechanics of Pathfinder are a toolbox. Not every tool in a toolbox is meant to be used all at once, all the time. Mythic is a good example of this. It's a mechanic that should be used sparingly when it comes to players unless the GM is experienced enough to get a sense on how mechanics impact the power dynamics of his personal campaign. And mythic is by it's nature a YMWV set of rules.

We've seen some very combative posts about the caster vs. martial disparity. In other threads I've seen players get to ridiculous levels of power due to manipulation of rules, and very loose interpretations of spells. Including some particular spells whose interpretation seems to have been left open-ended for GMs to fine tune as they see fit. (Simulacrum is one that particurlarly comes to mind.) Those GM's who allow players to set up wish granting machines or other methods to break the game economy, have only themselves to blame.

I've played in a LOT of campaigns in my time in a variety of systems. Whether casters ran away with the game or not, in my observation has more on the GM, than the rules. I've learned from my experiences that a strict enforcement on the rules of spells and especially magic item creation removes much of the God/Peasant comparison. I've also observed that the narrative power of a character depends much more on the player than the character class.

[StarMartyr365]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

StarMartyr365 wrote:

The thing I want the most is something like the twirlys on the main forum page that close sub-forums that you are not interested in but for people instead. If that's not possible, then perhaps a way to flag a person so that you do not see their posts or their posts are closed like sub-forums unless you click on them. I don't want popularity contest up vote/down vote or "like" button. I simply want the ability to filter the forums to make them easier to read.

SM

I'll assume you can see my posts since you don;t know this exists...

Thank you so much! I did this this when I used Firefox but I use Chrome now so it doesn't do me any good.

SM

[alexd1976]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

If you can't acknowledge that some classes are superior to others in every conceivable way from in combat power and role to out of combat power and role, then we can't have this conversation.

100% on board with the idea that some classes are better than others.

My solution hasn't been to houserule the Fighter, I've just abandoned it altogether.

Lots of options, I just wish there was a GOOD full BAB with options capable of countering casters (I know, I know, Barbarian, I want something less chaotic/ragey).

I really like the Hunter, just wish it had an archetype where it was full BAB, maybe lose spellcasting... :D

[RDM42]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

It's always fun when you're 6 sessions into a game then suddenly your GM tells you "Oh actually that thing you just tried to do? Nah it doesn't work."

"why didn't you tell me before the session?"

"rule 0"

Bad GM if the ability has already seen play... I always encourage people to have the GM review characters before playing, and have the players explain whatever hook or trick they built their character around...

Pulling out your super-nova ability that you HID from the GM may sometimes warrant rule 0, but that situation could be blamed on the player if they deliberately tried to conceal the abilities of their character...

Quote:

I think a lot of this goes back to some players not liking the concept of a Game Master that controls everything. These players are used to playing within defined rules, where if you master the rules, you can do whatever the rules allow you to.

The idea that the GM can say "no, that's not going to work, regardless of what the rules say," seems to bother these type of players. They don't want to have any kind of authority figure limiting their capabilities.

Based on Walsh and Tormsskull it seems that if one player was significantly outshining another due to the difference in power between the class they would continually target that player. Stuff like "Oh you want to SCRY? Nah man. Oh you want to hide the Rope from rope trick 100 ft in the air above a forest? Nah, you can't. Man the way you trip everything that comes near you, even in the surprise round? Totally not feeling that anymore. That way you used a bunch of magic items, feats, skill points, and charisma to buff your diplomacy? Means nothing, I'm looking for a high dice roll. Your cleric had raise dead prepared and was ready to use it in case of emergency? Plot says this guy needs to die, so nah man. Oh you just so happened to have the silver bullet spell for this encounter prepared today? Nah, I don't like it.

Quote:

. Casters

...

So the gm has to think of every single broken exploit or rules abuse a player could think of before the game starts and house rule it then and there, or forever hold their peace?

[HWalsh]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

If you can't acknowledge that some classes are superior to others in every conceivable way from in combat power and role to out of combat power and role, then we can't have this conversation.

If you have read anything I have said then you would know that I am not saying that it isn't necessarily the case.

Certainly, there are some classes who are better than others in combat. There are some classes who are better than others in specific "roles" (Which doesn't exist in Pathfinder but that is another debate.) There are some that can do a lot more out of combat as well than others.

There are also certainly some classes that are better in all of these things than another class.

But then there is the great equalizer:

"Flavor."

Flavor > Everything else (for some people)

I direct you to 2nd Edition AD&D Paladins.

What was a 2nd Ed Paladin you ask?

A really bad Fighter 9/10.

When you are rolling 3d6 and placing... It is downright painful to drop a 17 in Charisma. Especially since there was no Smite, no Immunities (that were Cha based), no nothing. Spells were based on Wisdom and combat was still Strength, Dex, and Stamina.

Unless you got the luckiest set of rolls ever, including at least 3 above 15, you always lacked. You leveled slower than a Fighter too.

The only saving grace was what would happen if you got a Holy Avenger and that was rare.

So why were they played? They were clearly inferior in pretty much every way to many other classes unless they had God-like stats. Flavor.

Because being a Paladin was cool.

If you don't like a class who is weaker than another class in "every way" that you value... Then don't play that class. That is the simple solution. Some people like the challenge, others like the flavor, these classes are still played and they aren't, by any means, universally hated.

[HWalsh]

LazarX wrote:

*snip*

Huzzah! I couldn't have said it better myself!

[CWheezy]

Hi hwalsh, what if paladins were both good and flavorful. Is it possible for a class to be both at the same time?

I think it is good design to strive for both, imo, especially when you are given the opportunity to make changes to a class

[alexd1976]

@RDM42

Ideally, yes, the GM should be able to see the future.

Of course, he isn't a divination specialist, so obviously things will slip past him.

If an issue crops up in-game, and the GM introduces what he/she considers a fix, players that have their characters affected should be given the opportunity to change out what was nerfed...

Example:

If a GM hates a specific feat and re-writes it, and a character has it, the player should be allowed to remove it/alter the build.

If the GM doesn't allow this, that is a bad GM. Very bad.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Kthulhu wrote:

Kryptik wrote:

I always interpreted that part to mean you can't hide the rope within the extra dimensional space itself.

I'd expand that to meaning that you can't in any way use magic to conceal it. No making the rope invisible, etc.

Would silent image or other illusion spells block sight (or even some leaf camoflage) also not work? That'd be interesting, but also counterintuitive.

I'm less asking you Kthulhu, and more the collective here.

[Brian E. Harris]

Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

I'm only halfway through this thread, but:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

Bio pages would be nice. It'd also be cool to see bio pages for past staff, noting that they're "no longer with us" or however, but just so you can kind of get an idea of what's going on if you're looking at older material.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

A "history" style update, allowing someone to compare the previous version to the current would be awesome.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

MOST DEFINITELY. I've wanted this since the beginning. The way things stand now, I can have 6 people at my table, and each of them has a different version of the CRB. I would absolutely LOVE versioned PDFs that correspond to the print copies.

[HWalsh]

CWheezy wrote:

Hi hwalsh, what if paladins were both good and flavorful. Is it possible for a class to be both at the same time?

I think it is good design to strive for both, imo, especially when you are given the opportunity to make changes to a class

It depends to be honest.

Good is subjective.

The comparison though is... There is a huge difference between, "This class sucks!" and "This other class is better."

The only time that another class being better should matter is if people are playing both classes in the same game and going for the same focus.

If they aren't... Then who cares if Class X is better than Class Y as Class X isn't here.

Its like saying that a High School All-Star Basketball Player sucks and is useless because he's not Michael Jordan. Unless he's playing with, or against, Michael Jordan then does it really matter?

Can he still get the ball in the hoop? Sure. Cool. What is the problem?

[Insain Dragoon]

I agree, we should arbitrarily punish players for selecting suboptimal choices for flavor purposes.

Alternatively its the GMs job to take an item marketed as a complete rules text and modify it so that it's actually useable as described.

I never realized rule 0 was actually intended to fix Paizo's mistakes until we had this conversation.

[Entryhazard]

CWheezy wrote:

Hi hwalsh, what if paladins were both good and flavorful. Is it possible for a class to be both at the same time?

I think it is good design to strive for both, imo, especially when you are given the opportunity to make changes to a class

Stormwind would be mad

[RDM42]

I would say that if you are doing cheesy things like putting a rope trick 100 feet in the air, and the nerd, as such, doesn't remove the normal utility of the spell but just the exploit, then the payer should know better than to design a character around a broken exploit. Maybe tats just me.

[RDM42]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I agree, we should arbitrarily punish players for selecting suboptimal choices for flavor purposes.

Alternatively its the GMs job to take an item marketed as a complete rules text and modify it so that it's actually useable as described.

I never realized rule 0 was actually intended to fix Paizo's mistakes until we had this conversation.

Problem is that 'unusable' for one group is 'I fail to see the problem' for another.

[alexd1976]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I agree, we should arbitrarily punish players for selecting suboptimal choices for flavor purposes.

Alternatively its the GMs job to take an item marketed as a complete rules text and modify it so that it's actually useable as described.

I never realized rule 0 was actually intended to fix Paizo's mistakes until we had this conversation.

It's a failsafe that absolves them of any accountability.

[HWalsh]

RDM42 wrote:

I would say that if you are doing cheesy things like putting a rope trick 100 feet in the air, and the nerd, as such, doesn't remove the normal utility of the spell but just the exploit, then the payer should know better than to design a character around a broken exploit. Maybe tats just me.

That is actually modern gaming for you. It is a sad trend. Video games kind of created it where MMORPGs, heck even FPS games, the things kids cut their teeth on encourage and reward this behavior.

Edit to add:
Us old farts remember what would happen to us if we tried this stuff back in the day. We'd have been smacked so hard by the GM that we wouldn't have been able to roll initiative for a week.

[Insain Dragoon]

Putting a rope trick 100ft in the air is clever and sneaky, not cheesy. Punishing a player for being clever isn't fun for anyone.

[CWheezy]

Hi, it isn't like saying that at all. Also good isn't subjective. Saying it is makes game design useless, because you can just say "well that's just your opinion!!!" Regardless of what is being critiqued.

[Otherwhere]

Tormsskull wrote:

@ Otherwhere

You don't have the support of the system - why is that? I'm really trying to understand this viewpoint. Is it that the players feel that the rules trump you as the GM?

How would a game company support the thousands of different GMs? Are you looking for the rules to be near-perfect, or are you looking for a solid indication from the rules like "All of these rules are just guidelines. Every GM will have different rules and interpretations. When in doubt, check with your GM."

What specifically could be done to the rules so that they support you better?

I think you understand me better than you're claiming. But in answer to your question: yes, Players do feel that the rules should prevail. And it's not unfair, as part of the basis of Pathfinder was to put power back in the hands of the Players by outlining mechanics for so many things.

House rules are A solution. But at what point do you have to stop and ask: "What the heck? I'm not even playing Pathfinder anymore! I'm playing something 3.5/PF-based! Who came up with [insert name of Feat/Trait/class/acrhetype/class feature here]?!"

Bottom line for me: Feats. The whole central design mechanic around characters needing a Feat to do something they should be able to do. It's great that someone at Paizo sat down and worked out how X, Y or Z should work mechanically. But then to make it a Feat one has to have in order to execute it is foolish. It restricts players and GM's.

And if your reply is once again "house rule it!" then you're missing the point. If I have to keep house ruling a system, then why am I using it? I can just use "Otherwhere's RPG" and start making money from those who agree with me.

[RDM42]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Putting a rope trick 100ft in the air is clever and sneaky, not cheesy. Punishing a player for being clever isn't fun for anyone.

No ... Really, it's kinda cheesy. It's trying to remove one of the restrictions implicitly in place on the spell that makes it the level it is.

[RDM42]

Otherwhere wrote:

Tormsskull wrote:

@ Otherwhere

You don't have the support of the system - why is that? I'm really trying to understand this viewpoint. Is it that the players feel that the rules trump you as the GM?

How would a game company support the thousands of different GMs? Are you looking for the rules to be near-perfect, or are you looking for a solid indication from the rules like "All of these rules are just guidelines. Every GM will have different rules and interpretations. When in doubt, check with your GM."

What specifically could be done to the rules so that they support you better?

I think you understand me better than you're claiming. But in answer to your question: yes, Players do feel that the rules should prevail. And it's not unfair, as part of the basis of Pathfinder was to put power back in the hands of the Players by outlining mechanics for so many things.

House rules are A solution. But at what point do you have to stop and ask: "What the heck? I'm not even playing Pathfinder anymore! I'm playing something 3.5/PF-based! Who came up with [insert name of Feat/Trait/class/acrhetype/class feature here]?!"

Bottom line for me: Feats. The whole central design mechanic around characters needing a Feat to do something they should be able to do. It's great that someone at Paizo sat down and worked out how X, Y or Z should work mechanically. But then to make it a Feat one has to have in order to execute it is foolish. It restricts players and GM's.

And if your reply is once again "house rule it!" then you're missing the point. If I have to keep house ruling a system, then why am I using it? I can just use "Otherwhere's RPG" and start making money from those who agree with me.

Except that 'other where's rpg' is unlikely to have the broad player base and published support of a widely sold rpg. As a niche product it will have a niche audience.

[HWalsh]

Otherwhere wrote:

But in answer to your question: yes, Players do feel that the rules should prevail.

1. Never start a sentence with But. It is a rule of the English Language. (Sorry I couldn't resist.)

2. So rules should prevail... Unless it is rule 0... Then Rule 0, which is a rule, should be ignored?

The GM makes the rules. Period. Everything in the game exists because the GM says it does. The GM never, and I do mean never has to feel beholden to the book.

[HWalsh]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Putting a rope trick 100ft in the air is clever and sneaky, not cheesy. Punishing a player for being clever isn't fun for anyone.

Sneaky is defined as:

: behaving in a secret and usually dishonest manner

: done in a secret and dishonest manner

Nobody should ever be punished for being dishonest? Of course they should.

[Insain Dragoon]

Sneaky in the context of the game world. In the same way that using stealth to get the jump on someone is.

So yes, we should reward our players for being dishonest and outsmarting the npcs.

[RDM42]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Sneaky in the context of the game world. In the same way that using stealth to get the jump on someone is.

So yes, we should reward our players for being dishonest and outsmarting the npcs.

Which is distinct and different from outsmarting the rules set.

[captain yesterday]

HWalsh wrote:

Otherwhere wrote:

But in answer to your question: yes, Players do feel that the rules should prevail.

1. Never start a sentence with But. It is a rule of the English Language. (Sorry I couldn't resist.)

2. So rules should prevail... Unless it is rule 0... Then Rule 0, which is a rule, should be ignored?

The GM makes the rules. Period. Everything in the game exists because the GM says it does. The GM never, and I do mean never has to feel beholden to the book.

It's incredibly rude to correct people's English, it's a big big world out there and a lot of people on here don't use it as their first language :-)

[Insain Dragoon]

I don't follow? What rules are being outsmarted? That's like saying that using Invisibility to make your cleric have a shot at being effective at stealth is outsmarting the rules that don't give stealth as a class skill to clerics.

[Otherwhere]

captain yesterday wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Otherwhere wrote:

But in answer to your question: yes, Players do feel that the rules should prevail.

1. Never start a sentence with But. It is a rule of the English Language. (Sorry I couldn't resist.)

2. So rules should prevail... Unless it is rule 0... Then Rule 0, which is a rule, should be ignored?

The GM makes the rules. Period. Everything in the game exists because the GM says it does. The GM never, and I do mean never has to feel beholden to the book.

It's incredibly rude to correct people's English, it's a big big world out there and a lot of people on here don't use it as their first language :-)

I used Rule 0, that's all.

And he didn't have an answer to my main point aside from "use Rule 0" which - well, where's the Dead Horse?

[Insain Dragoon]

HWalsh wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Sneaky in the context of the game world. In the same way that using stealth to get the jump on someone is.

So yes, we should reward our players for being dishonest and outsmarting the npcs.

Not really no.

You are trying to outsmart the spell's limitations and outsmart the game designer and the rule set.

Which is why... In my game... Anyone who tries this will find themselves making a percentile roll, and on 50% or lower the spell fails, and is removed from their caster list, after I warn them:

"You are aware that the spell doesn't work like that, and this may cause problems, or even make the spell fail to work. Do you still want to try it?"

I can't stop laughing.

[Entryhazard]

captain yesterday wrote:

It's incredibly rude to correct people's English, it's a big big world out there and a lot of people on here don't use it as their first language :-)

Well, it's an error that is commonly seen in many languages, not just English.

(Also, by my experience are the native speakers the most prone to certain errors, especially spelling despite this not being the case)

[RDM42]

Except invisibility is explicitly designed with just that purpose in mind and you aren't exploiting anything by using it in its most vanilla and basic form, that isn't even close to an edge case, that's a bullseye case.

[Snowblind]

HWalsh wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Putting a rope trick 100ft in the air is clever and sneaky, not cheesy. Punishing a player for being clever isn't fun for anyone.

Sneaky is defined as:

: behaving in a secret and usually dishonest manner

: done in a secret and dishonest manner

Nobody should ever be punished for being dishonest? Of course they should.

That would explain why rogues always get the short end.

[N. Jolly]

So really, the GM can change whatever they want, that's the point some people are trying to make here, so why do you care about the errata? You know, the point of this thread? The people who care about it are trying to have the staff treat itself to a higher standard when putting out new material as well as errating previously issued material, so can I ask why anyone who thinks that house ruling everything is a viable solution has a stake in this?

It's a discussion about the sloppy manner in which errata is being done as well as the overall quality of the initial books, as well as the lack of communication between the devs and the player base, not about if a GM can use rule 0 to fix a game.

[Tormsskull]

Otherwhere wrote:

I think you understand me better than you're claiming.

Sorry, not the case. I'm not trying to win the discussion or anything, simply trying to understand. I really think this all comes down to different game preferences, not a right/wrong answer.

Otherwhere wrote:

But in answer to your question: yes, Players do feel that the rules should prevail. And it's not unfair, as part of the basis of Pathfinder was to put power back in the hands of the Players by outlining mechanics for so many things.

Thanks for clarifying. I think this goes back to different group expectations. No one I play with thinks that the rules trump the GM. That makes it a little difficult for me to understand the people who do play this way.

Otherwhere wrote:

House rules are A solution. But at what point do you have to stop and ask: "What the heck? I'm not even playing Pathfinder anymore! I'm playing something 3.5/PF-based! Who came up with [insert name of Feat/Trait/class/acrhetype/class feature here]?!"

I've heard this said before, but frankly it never really made sense to me. If I add a new monster, are we no longer playing Pathfinder? If I add a new spell, are we no longer playing Pathfinder?

I guess the answer is that each group is comfortable with a different level of deviation from the rules. That's probably where a lot of these disagreements are coming from.

Otherwhere wrote:

And if your reply is once again "house rule it!" then you're missing the point. If I have to keep house ruling a system, then why am I using it? I can just use "Otherwhere's RPG" and start making money from those who agree with me.

Nope - I'm not going to suggest that. I think the kind of game you're looking for is actually not the kind of game that TTRPGs are designed to accommodate.

I think the closest you can probably get is PFS where there is a strict interpretation of the rules, there is a governing body that determines what is allowed and what is not, etc. Then you can get the official PFS experience.

That is of no interest to me at all. I think I can honestly say that in all of campaigns I've ever been apart of, none of them adhered strictly to the rules. To me that is a feature, not a bug.

[chaoseffect]

Entryhazard wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

It's incredibly rude to correct people's English, it's a big big world out there and a lot of people on here don't use it as their first language :-)

Well, it's an error that is commonly seen in many languages, not just English.

(Also, by my experience are the native speakers the most prone to certain errors, especially spelling despite this not being the case)

Language rules you say?

But they are more like guidelines.
Yo, chillax bro-ski.

[Insain Dragoon]

1. Does not say it is on the ground. Not anywhere.

2. If so then the spell would say "you cannot cast the spell with the intention of the rope being hidden or cammoflouged." Instead it reads like the author didn't want you to pull the rope into the box.

Whenever you say "intended" all I hear is "you can't think outside the box, clever usages of your tricks is out of the question."

Do you hate prestdigitization?

[N. Jolly]

HWalsh wrote:

People are angry over the errata and are freaking out over it because of disparities that are being caused by their personal games not being used in the manner that the game was ever intended.

It is kind of like using a handgun to shoot a hole in a door so that you make a hole that can be used as a peephole. I mean, sure, you can do it. It might even work. However when the impact causes the wood to crack you can't complain that the handgun broke your door because you weren't using it the way that they intended it.

...did you READ the errata?

This isn't about 'things not being used as they were intended. People were using them exactly as they were written. Divine protection was boosting saves, slashing grace was allowing an actually viable dex to damage feat, scarred witch doctor was casting just fine with con, and vanaras were climbing slightly faster.

No one's complaining about Pummeling Style/Charge being clarified aside from the fact that the feat was written terribly in its initial form. You're simply saying the same thing all anti powergamers say over and over again, "it's your fault for the errata" when I already outlined the problem with the errata as well as the initial printing. Seriously, you're ignoring the subject that's being discussed here to talk about how rule 0 fixes everything, and it doesn't.

The main problem with the errata is that it invalidates almost an entire book, and that's a problem to anyone who picked up the book in the first print run. That's the problem that we're seeing here, as well as the timing of the release of the errata for both this and the ARG, which feels like it was thrown in our lap while the Paizo staff went off to Gencon, hoping that this blows over while the arguments happen while they're away.

Seriously, this isn't about GMs, it's about a lack of trust in Paizo to put out a product that meets the standards that we've come to expect from them.

[RDM42]

Thinking outside the box is finding esoteric uses for things the spell is meant to do, not 'exploiting an unclear bit of language to make a spell do something it's explicitly meant not to be able to do.'