| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, do people actually use the starting ages? I always ignored them. Granted, my campaigns have an in-universe minimum PC age of 17 1/2 to 21, depending on exactly where the campaign is taking place, but I've never seen normal campaigns use the starting ages.A quick read through of the ARG errata seems very reasonable to me.
I particularly love the adjustment to the Aasimar, Dhampir and Tiefling starting ages.
i hate starting ages. I have been forced to use it by dms who thought that was crucial to their world. I can't stand the idea that elves are somehow so mentally disadvantaged that it takes them 100 years to learn the skills of an adolescent. I know it's meaningless fluff, but I care about my PC history and I feel obligated to write "I spent the next ten years learning to tie my shoes. Once I felt I had mastered that, I focused on eating without smearing food all over my face for the next decade. In truth this turned out harder than I could have imagined and I was well into my sixties before my wetnap needs diminished."
It works if you imagine every elf as an Adam Sandler character.
I would watch this movie! :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I see people on both sides (seems mostly the negative here), but what does it say about people that are just kinda indifferent to the whole matter? I don't know. I just can't be roused by tabletop stuff, I guess.
Maybe I'm just mellowing out in general.
I believe those with active characters in PFS are the most affected by errata and nerfs.
I ignore them for my home games unless it becomes a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that just part of the schtick of organised play? Even the professional sporting codes have the issue of rule changes (sometimes midseason) requiring an adjustment to tactics/gamestyle. I think one should expect things to change in such a setting - hopefully there's a suitable mechanism to allow people to redesign characters which have been deeply affected (?)
Isn't that just part of the schtick of organised play? Even the professional sporting codes have the issue of rule changes (sometimes midseason) requiring an adjustment to tactics/gamestyle. I think one should expect things to change in such a setting - hopefully there's a suitable mechanism to allow people to redesign characters which have been deeply affected (?)
For the most part that mechanism is spend $10 to own a pdf of Ultimate Campaign solely for the purpose of opening the option to be able to spend character resources to retrain. Granted the season 7 guide has outlined some decent errata specific exceptions to this and John Compton seems open to further discussion on the topic but it's easy to see why PFS players can react so strongly to rules changes.
Depends on the campaign setting. I tied all the playable races to the same general lifespan.That's practically Middle-Age for Orc and Goblin PCsWait, do people actually use the starting ages? I always ignored them. Granted, my campaigns have an in-universe minimum PC age of 17 1/2 to 21, depending on exactly where the campaign is taking place, but I've never seen normal campaigns use the starting ages.A quick read through of the ARG errata seems very reasonable to me.
I particularly love the adjustment to the Aasimar, Dhampir and Tiefling starting ages.
I do like to use starting ages, but fully allow any character to start older if they want to.
So I see people on both sides (seems mostly the negative here), but what does it say about people that are just kinda indifferent to the whole matter? I don't know. I just can't be roused by tabletop stuff, I guess.
Maybe I'm just mellowing out in general.
Stop mellowing. I am assured it's a sign of age. I am also assured that flouting typically claimed signs of aging somehow magically prevents this process.
Neither of those claims are validated.
To be honest - remembering the SLA FAQ come and go has driven a primary point in: People get used to stuff, go off, play games, and still have fun. It's just that occasionally, these old scars open up, and - Seriously, WTF guys? Crane wing was perfectly fine! The only place it had a regular issue was PFS! This shows an undue influ-
*Ahem* Sorry, forgot my lithium.
I think this is quite perceptive. I quite enjoy watching you rules-knowledgeable people debate the finer points but it has very little to do with how things work at our table. It's hard to evaluate just how large the cohort is who enjoy CharOP as you put it. Probably even harder to calculate how many people like Pathfinder/Paizo but couldnt care less about the caster/martial divide nor whether things are nerfed or otherwise.
Well, a rough approximation could be made with some data:
1. Paizo's sales.2. The number of frequent faces on related boards (very hard to get a good number on, would need data on overlap rates).
3. Rate of posters/lurkers on boards. Though I think Paizo would have the posts vs views data.
Any case, from 1 and 2, given that I wouldn't say these boards anyway have a vast vast community, and that Paizo has a significant market share (yes, in a niche hobby but less niche than the boards, so to put it). Would lend me to assume CharOP holds a low quotient.
Untangling the hyperbole from the genuine complaints is difficult sometimes (people have been declaring 'the end is nigh if paizo continue like this...' for a few years now without it actually slowing the growth of the game - I suspect when the star does fade it's going to be just as much fashion as anything to do with the actual rules).
I don't think that games in RPGs, if considered, have massive churn rate aside during new editions (which are really new games designed to displace old ones so special case). PF will probably die out when Paizo does develop a Pathfinder 2.0 (fingers crossed that unchained being awesome lends to that (and that specifically) being a strong pull from building on d&d 3.5).
I do like to use starting ages, but fully allow any character to start older if they want to.Depends on the campaign setting. I tied all the playable races to the same general lifespan.That's practically Middle-Age for Orc and Goblin PCsWait, do people actually use the starting ages? I always ignored them. Granted, my campaigns have an in-universe minimum PC age of 17 1/2 to 21, depending on exactly where the campaign is taking place, but I've never seen normal campaigns use the starting ages.A quick read through of the ARG errata seems very reasonable to me.
I particularly love the adjustment to the Aasimar, Dhampir and Tiefling starting ages.
Older isn't an issue, younger is. I started running government campaigns pretty much exclusively, and ages of enlistment are typically tagged at 18 without parental approval or 16 with. The military isn't having recruitment problems, so they aren't giving people who look underage a pass. Troops are generally in the military for around 18 months before they ever deploy into combat, so 17 1/2 is typically the minimum legal age for a military PC. Government monster hunters typically are at least 21.
Don't use the errata.Unless you know what the rules said pre-errata, this idea isn't always feasible. If different group members own different printings of a book, or don't own it at all and use the srd, the errata document doesn't always give enough information to 'reverse engineer' the errata and figure out what the 1st printing rules were.
I've considered tracking all errata and putting 'anti-errata house rules' in my house rules document...but that means I have to keep track of all the errata when I didn't want to use it to begin with just so I can tell players what not to use. And that's assuming I have access to the first printing of every book to begin with, which I don't. The extra hurdles involved in 'not using errata' are what ultimately convinced me to stop running pathfinder.
Now, one idea I've suggested in the past was that Paizo could sell PDF versions of earlier printings. That way, any GM who doesn't want to deal with the continually changing rulebooks can just say "first printings only". Any player who doesn't own the first printing can just put down 10 bucks for a PDF of the first printing core rulebook/whatever book they are looking for. Paizo gets more money selling PDFs that they already have, and people who don't want to use errata can avoid doing so much more easily.
But unless and until Paizo implements my idea, not using errata requires tracking down old printings of hardcovers which become increasingly difficult to find the more time passes. Particularly for books which have gone through several heavy revisions like the Core Rulebook.
This is why you always get a 1st edition when you can! ;)
More seriously, I agree with your suggestion that the pre-errata material should be available somewhere. If Paizo isn't interested in the PDF idea, perhaps the approved websites can host the material? It isn't like they aren't keeping the latest around anyway.
I think this is quite perceptive. I quite enjoy watching you rules-knowledgeable people debate the finer points but it has very little to do with how things work at our table. It's hard to evaluate just how large the cohort is who enjoy CharOP as you put it. Probably even harder to calculate how many people like Pathfinder/Paizo but couldnt care less about the caster/martial divide nor whether things are nerfed or otherwise.Well, a rough approximation could be made with some data:
1. Paizo's sales.
2. The number of frequent faces on related boards (very hard to get a good number on, would need data on overlap rates).
3. Rate of posters/lurkers on boards. Though I think Paizo would have the posts vs views data.Any case, from 1 and 2, given that I wouldn't say these boards anyway have a vast vast community, and that Paizo has a significant market share (yes, in a niche hobby but less niche than the boards, so to put it). Would lend me to assume CharOP holds a low quotient.
Maybe. My personal view would be that the online presence (lurkers and regular posters combined) is a tiny fraction of the gaming base so I'd tend to agree that those who find these kinds of things outrageous or necessary are probably in the minority.
However, as a counterargument, I think that PF by nature is more likely to attract those who like the CharOP side of things. So perhaps even the silent majority feel that something should really be done.
Untangling the hyperbole from the genuine complaints is difficult sometimes (people have been declaring 'the end is nigh if paizo continue like this...' for a few years now without it actually slowing the growth of the game - I suspect when the star does fade it's going to be just as much fashion as anything to do with the actual rules).I don't think that games in RPGs, if considered, have massive churn rate aside during new editions (which are really new games designed to displace old ones so special case). PF will probably die out when Paizo does develop a Pathfinder 2.0 (fingers crossed that unchained being awesome lends to that (and that specifically) being a strong pull from building on d&d 3.5).
I have no idea, of course. In my experience (which is probably too long-term to still be relevant to the 21st century trends) fads and popularity of specific games comes and goes - perhaps it's due to edition-churn, I wouldnt really be able to say - I have nothing but anecdotal impressions and a tiny sample size in a small, Australian city.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why ;_;
The feeling I'm getting is that Core and APG are the true way to play PF, and all other books are mistakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal view would be that the online presence (lurkers and regular posters combined) is a tiny fraction of the gaming base
That is an excellent point, that's helpful to keep in mind for a variety of topics that are discussed on these message boards.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, do people actually use the starting ages? I always ignored them. Granted, my campaigns have an in-universe minimum PC age of 17 1/2 to 21, depending on exactly where the campaign is taking place, but I've never seen normal campaigns use the starting ages.A quick read through of the ARG errata seems very reasonable to me.
I particularly love the adjustment to the Aasimar, Dhampir and Tiefling starting ages.
I've never been in a campaign that did not at least acknowledge them. I always use them as a guideline for my characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal view would be that the online presence (lurkers and regular posters combined) is a tiny fraction of the gaming baseThat is an excellent point, that's helpful to keep in mind for a variety of topics that are discussed on these message boards.
It's interesting, but it's not the most important point.
Whether or not the size of the community is small, what's most important is whether it is a representative sample of the community at large.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
HOLY S&~* they killed the scarred witch doctor. It casts off Intelligence now. Wow, that one is massive.
Hmm... What was that 'casting' class that looks better now that it's the only one that uses Con? Oh yeah. The kinenticist. Paizo nerfs options so new classes look "better" guys, this isn't new.
HOLY S&~* they killed the scarred witch doctor. It casts off Intelligence now. Wow, that one is massive.Hmm... What was that 'casting' class that looks better now that it's the only one that uses Con? Oh yeah. The kinenticist. Paizo nerfs options so new classes look "better" guys, this isn't new.
It's almost like how they stomped slashing grace to make the unchained rogue's dex fighting look "better"...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal view would be that the online presence (lurkers and regular posters combined) is a tiny fraction of the gaming baseThat is an excellent point, that's helpful to keep in mind for a variety of topics that are discussed on these message boards.It's interesting, but it's not the most important point.
Whether or not the size of the community is small, what's most important is whether it is a representative sample of the community at large.
That a good point too.
My personal guess, is that the forums here are not a representative sample. Folks here are more 'hardcore' than the average player or GM (at least the ones I know or have met). I don't mean it pejoratively, but I don't think the average gamer is as hyper-aware of game details, and don't spot perceived problems with the game like posters here, nor do they react as intensely.
However, I can see why topics like this one are very relevant to any Pathfinder Society players. It directly effect their game.
But in general, I think most players are more laidback about the rules than what you see here.
It's almost like how they stomped slashing grace to make the unchained rogue's dex fighting look "better"...HOLY S&~* they killed the scarred witch doctor. It casts off Intelligence now. Wow, that one is massive.Hmm... What was that 'casting' class that looks better now that it's the only one that uses Con? Oh yeah. The kinenticist. Paizo nerfs options so new classes look "better" guys, this isn't new.
And Paragon Surge and Improved Eldritch Heritage(Arcane) to make a wizard archetype look "better"...
Because underpowered things rarely cause issues at tables.
Because underpowered things rarely cause issues at tables.
If you believe a lot of posters here, neither do overpowered things, so that can't be it.
I don't think Paizo changed the Scarred Witch Doctor for the Kineticist.
1: That would be incredibly dishonest.
2: The Kineticist is the most anticipated class in Occult already, and has been since the playtest (post count from the class threads).
Because underpowered things rarely cause issues at tables.
They sure can if people actually *take* those options.
The CRB rogue is a prime example of this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Paizo changed the Scarred Witch Doctor for the Kineticist.
1: That would be incredibly dishonest.
2: The Kineticist is the most anticipated class in Occult already, and has been since the playtest (post count from the class threads).
Although I can imagine the anguish of all the PFS players with scarred witch doctors. It's as if they weren't even there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because underpowered things rarely cause issues at tables.
Having viable characters nerfed to underpowered can cause a LOT of table issues. Having characters not up to par can also. Underpowered trap options don't help anyone and take up space and ink that could have been used on something useful.
I don't think Paizo changed the Scarred Witch Doctor for the Kineticist.
1: That would be incredibly dishonest.
2: The Kineticist is the most anticipated class in Occult already, and has been since the playtest (post count from the class threads).
If you are right, then there have been an amazing number of coincidences JUST like it. A class comes out with an easy in class way to get dex to damage and errata comes out nerfing an dex to damage feat that allows different weapons to be used. Con to 'cast' character coming out and the other con to cast character vanishes. There have been other 'coincidences' past those too.
They also seem to be 'editing' things that are cut from PFS, maybe in an effort to get them reevaluated.
Crane Wing for Parry/Riposte comes to mind.
Spell Sage wizard and Paragon Surge/Improved Eldritch Heritage(Arcane).
My personal view would be that the online presence (lurkers and regular posters combined) is a tiny fraction of the gaming baseThat is an excellent point, that's helpful to keep in mind for a variety of topics that are discussed on these message boards.It's interesting, but it's not the most important point.
Whether or not the size of the community is small, what's most important is whether it is a representative sample of the community at large.
That a good point too.
My personal guess, is that the forums here are not a representative sample. Folks here are more 'hardcore' than the average player or GM (at least the ones I know or have met). I don't mean it pejoratively, but I don't think the average gamer is as hyper-aware of game details, and don't spot perceived problems with the game like posters here, nor do they react as intensely.
I think that's a reasonable hypothesis. People who are responding here would probably have a stronger opinion than most because their opinion is strong enough that they feel a need to say something about it positively or negatively.
It's just that the "we're only a small segment of the player base" retort is one of those lines that has always bothered me. It's up there with "martial characters don't have problems with GMs fix the problems" for me.
My personal view would be that the online presence (lurkers and regular posters combined) is a tiny fraction of the gaming baseThat is an excellent point, that's helpful to keep in mind for a variety of topics that are discussed on these message boards.It's interesting, but it's not the most important point.
Whether or not the size of the community is small, what's most important is whether it is a representative sample of the community at large.
Whether it's representative is even harder to determine.
It's just that the "we're only a small segment of the player base" retort is one of those lines that has always bothered me.
Note that I wasn't 'retorting', I was commenting on a difficulty with Physically Unfeasible's methodology for estimating the relative sizes of the "CharOP cohort" and the "Couldnt care less cohort".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only explanation I got is that everyone at Paizo all fell down, hit their collective heads and forgot they weren't Blizzard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most health? Probably not, since they still needed Int to get more spells per day.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't just think it's the amount of nerfs (which is a staggering amount), but the severity of them. Paizo has no concept of subtlety with rebalancing, and sometimes it just looks sarcastic the level of brutality some options are visited with (CRANE WING/DIVINE PROTECTION), like that they have to salt the earth so that no other feat will ever try and be that good.
Scarred Witchdoctor lost 80% of its reason for existing, anything that wanted to be 'like' a swashbuckler was destroyed, and Bolt Ace now reads "This class ends at 5th level", although I appreciate the obvious inclusion of prof with all crossbows, which seems more like something that shouldn't have been overlooked the first time.
The ACG is literally in pieces, 9 pages of errata makes the first printing look like a joke, and it really shakes my confidence in the editing of future books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really enjoyed the ACG when it came out (LOVE the Slayer and really want to play a Hunter amongst others), but I was waiting for the second printing due to the errors (both Ecclesitheurge and Bolt Ace were super interesting, but I held off until they were 'complete').
Now the ACG errata is out, I can't wait to buy a copy of the ACG and get into all these idea's I want to play.
With the generally positive reception to Unchained (I am using almost half the book in regular gaming) OA at the moment, coupled with the open process and admission to the ACG's original errors, my confidence in future books is increasing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came into this thread and posted in it thinking that someone had just made a typo in the thread title and meant to talk about the Advanced Class Guide.
But wow, RIP scarred witch doctor. A nerfed caster. It's one of the interesting ones that got nerfed, but hey it's a start.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
we should riot
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
we should riot
Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me know how that works for you.
Well, if by riot he means "no longer provide Paizo with my money but continue to be a drain on their web resource," then it's working pretty well for me.
we should just not report the spam threads
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The change to the scarred witch doctor is really strange to me. Was there somehow some terrifying cabal of overpowered scarred witch doctors that were using their mighty MAD powers to destroy the stability of PFS?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just here to say thank you for the changes - *salute*
The change to the scarred witch doctor is really strange to me. Was there somehow some terrifying cabal of overpowered scarred witch doctors that were using their mighty MAD powers to destroy the stability of PFS?
I'm sure there would be if it were legal. I know my homegame GM pulls her hair out over my 147 hp Sorcerer (L.13).