Lots of justification would be nice, actually. Imagine, if you will, that instead of piles of threads like this one, we got actual answers to our questions?
Right now we aren't.
Some justification would be nice, but I imagine that they're working through Gencon stuff and Occult adventure feedback first. The errata only came down recently, and there's no need to rush it.
Some blog posts when future errata went up to explain the changes would be really cool, though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's just not true.Yes, there are threads about what 20th level characters can do, and I consider those to be useless noise (because there is in my actual play experience almost nothing left of the game past level 15 or so, just increasing amounts of duct tape).
But there is plenty of useful theorycrafting even at very low levels. For example, pointing out that for any reasonable attack bonus vs. AC numbers, Powerful/Deadly sneak reduces expected damage, or that Death or Glory is an unbelievably terrible feat.
Not all theory crafting is bad, but a lot of it is.
I ran into one on a Paladin.
Level 5 Paladin:
Strength 17
Charisma 18Originally I wanted Shield Focus and wanted to go sword and board. I found out I lacked the dex to do this efficiently. So I crunched the numbers.
If I went:
Power Attack, a Two Handed Weapon, and got 18 strength I could go Shield of Swings and assuming the same enhancement bonus it allows me, even at 1/2 damage to retain (nearly) the same damage as my sword and board but actually gain more defense (and a higher CMD) than had I kept the shield and shield focus.But a lot of the theory craft I see, especially regarding casters, feels unrealistic and very hyperbolic.
Casters are honestly just that powerful. So powerful that it might seem unrealistic and hyperbolic, but it rarely is. Take a look at Arkalion sometime to see some of the things a level 20 caster is capable of.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.
The Crane Wing stuff into oblivion because it's easier than actually trying to do proper game design. They nerf balanced tools that were causing no problem to make new classes seem better, not because the nerf made sense. Remember how they nerfed animal companions' armor proficiency to make the Cavalier look better? Or when they nerfed the Paragon Surge exploit because it stole the thunder of Arcanists (that one actually needed nerfing, but I really freaking doubt that's why they did it, considering how long that loophole went untouched). Now, I don't doubt they nerfed SWD to make Kineticists look better. That's paizo "errata" policy 101.
I'm tired of it... I no longer trust the design team. I had hopes things would get better with the addition of Mark to the team, but I was obviously wrong.
This is how Paizo "balances" the game:
1- Write a bunch of class features with no care if it's balanced. Be sure to ignore all feedback that goes against your initial impressions.
2- If a new option sucks, instead of actually improving it, nerf everything else that is remotely similar.
3- If a new caster option is too good. Let it be... Until some other similar caster option comes around, in which case, go back to step 2.
4- If a martial option is anything better than mediocre, curb stomp it into the f*!!ing ground, spit on it and set its body on fire! Then kill its family. And its dog.
5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.
6- Profit.
There's some comical exaggeration there, of course... But only a little.
Yes, I'm bitter. Why do you ask?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are honestly just that powerful. So powerful that it might seem unrealistic and hyperbolic, but it rarely is. Take a look at Arkalion sometime to see some of the things a level 20 caster is capable of.
That's just not true.Yes, there are threads about what 20th level characters can do, and I consider those to be useless noise (because there is in my actual play experience almost nothing left of the game past level 15 or so, just increasing amounts of duct tape).
But there is plenty of useful theorycrafting even at very low levels. For example, pointing out that for any reasonable attack bonus vs. AC numbers, Powerful/Deadly sneak reduces expected damage, or that Death or Glory is an unbelievably terrible feat.
Not all theory crafting is bad, but a lot of it is.
I ran into one on a Paladin.
Level 5 Paladin:
Strength 17
Charisma 18Originally I wanted Shield Focus and wanted to go sword and board. I found out I lacked the dex to do this efficiently. So I crunched the numbers.
If I went:
Power Attack, a Two Handed Weapon, and got 18 strength I could go Shield of Swings and assuming the same enhancement bonus it allows me, even at 1/2 damage to retain (nearly) the same damage as my sword and board but actually gain more defense (and a higher CMD) than had I kept the shield and shield focus.But a lot of the theory craft I see, especially regarding casters, feels unrealistic and very hyperbolic.
Yeah, in tactical terms casters played at a high level of skill forego mere numbers. You're talking about things like damage and AC.
Caster's bypass these and hit you straight in the positioning and actions. Full attacks are meaningless if you can't reach your target. All the armor in the world is pointless if the target is a flatfooted touch AC. How can you swing a sword at something coming at you from several miles away inhabiting the body of a terrible monster?
That's just the easy stuff.
I once made a level 17 shaman who barely spent a dime on his personal demiplane.
He made it literally from his own flesh and blood.
That he was Aztec themed was coincidental.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.
The Crane Wing stuff into oblivion because it's easier than actually trying to do proper game design. They nerf balanced tools that were causing no problem to make new classes seem better, not because the nerf made sense. Remember how they nerfed animal companions' armor proficiency to make the Cavalier look better? Or when they nerfed the Paragon Surge exploit because it stole the thunder of Arcanists (that one actually needed nerfing, but I really freaking doubt that's why they did it, considering how long that loophole went untouched). Now, I don't doubt they nerfed SWD to make Kineticists look better. That's paizo "errata" policy 101.
I'm tired of it... I no longer trust the design team. I had hopes things would get better with the addition of Mark to the team, but I was obviously wrong.
This is how Paizo "balances" the game:
1- Write a bunch of class features with no care if it's balanced. Be sure to ignore all feedback that goes against your initial impressions.
2- If a new option sucks, instead of actually improving it, nerf everything else that is remotely similar.
3- If a new caster option is too good. Let it be... Until some other similar caster option comes around, in which case, go back to step 2.
4- If a martial option is anything better than mediocre, curb stomp it into the f*!#ing ground, spit on it and set its body on fire! Then kill its family. And its dog.
5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.
6- Profit.There's some comical exaggeration there, of course... But only a little.
Yes, I'm bitter. Why do you ask?
And people wonder why Mark's the only dev team member that even bothers talking to the message boards. =P
Edit: Outside of a playtest, anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, though... with the exception of having a high hit point total and decent Fort save... how was the 'broken' 22 casting stat any different from an Aasimar or Tiefling with alternate racial stats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.
The Crane Wing stuff into oblivion because it's easier than actually trying to do proper game design. They nerf balanced tools that were causing no problem to make new classes seem better, not because the nerf made sense. Remember how they nerfed animal companions' armor proficiency to make the Cavalier look better? Or when they nerfed the Paragon Surge exploit because it stole the thunder of Arcanists (that one actually needed nerfing, but I really freaking doubt that's why they did it, considering how long that loophole went untouched). Now, I don't doubt they nerfed SWD to make Kineticists look better. That's paizo "errata" policy 101.
I'm tired of it... I no longer trust the design team. I had hopes things would get better with the addition of Mark to the team, but I was obviously wrong.
I don't think it is what happened in all cases, but there is another possibility here...
Perhaps in some cases, they saw something and decided that while they did not like that implementation, it was a mechanic that people wanted. So, while they fixed the part they felt was broken, they provided another way to do effectively the same thing, but in a way that they felt was more balanced and appropriate.
But I agree that this sort of thing has happened enough times that it is difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Really, though... with the exception of having a high hit point total and decent Fort save... how was the 'broken' 22 casting stat any different from an Aasimar or Tiefling with alternate racial stats?
Aasimars/Tieflings can't get 22 to a stat, though.
Unless if you mean that table of optional things that replace the SLA, and that you are supposed to roll a d100 for. In that case, by RAW, you have a 1.02% chance to actually get the row corresponding to the casting stat that you want (and a much higher chance to get something useless, like tolerance to alcohol). That's also if your GM allows the table in the first place.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the CharOp people who get screwed by errata. Sure a build or two of theirs get's screwed, but...
I'm at FIFTEEN and counting!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1- Write a bunch of class features with no care if it's balanced. Be sure to ignore all feedback that goes against your initial impressions.
2- If a new option sucks, instead of actually improving it, nerf everything else that is remotely similar.
3- If a new caster option is too good. Let it be... Until some other similar caster option comes around, in which case, go back to step 2.
4- If a martial option is anything better than mediocre, curb stomp it into the f%~+ing ground, spit on it and set its body on fire! Then kill its family. And its dog.
5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.
6- Profit.There's some comical exaggeration there, of course... But only a little.
Yes, I'm bitter. Why do you ask?
Not even that.
It feels to me like there's a handful of in-house campaigns going on at paizo, and the only issues that matter are the issues that pop up at those home games. And whoever is running those games is creeping further and further into AD&D, GM wears the Viking Helm, magic missile/longsword/CLW/dagger backstab ONLY, dementia
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if the design team would stop making the same mistakes. They would be given more praise instead of criticism IMO. If they want to repeat the same errors with errata over and over. Why would they be given praise. If they want less criticism they can improve how they do errata. If not why should I or anyone else give them a free pass on criticism. One does not reward a diabetic with praise if he keeps eating food with lots of sugar. Why are rpg developers different.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want, give me a concrete 'odd' change (or a few) and I will try to figure out where it comes from. I can't promise I get it done, but it would be a nice exercise.Merciless Butchery. Used to allow a swift action coup de grace, now standard action.
If you don't multiclass then it would pretty much be a Slayer only feat and would come online at level 15. If you multiclassed Slayer with a full Sneak Attack progression class, the earliest you could take it is level 11. With either option there is no way to easily get enemies cowering, helpless, or stunned, at least without investing so heavily that you might as well have just made a normal character and killed them the old fashioned way. Why bother to nerf it? How does removing the possibility of a highly specialized build to maybe do a cool thing at high levels, the levels where the game is often comparable to rocket tag anyway, improve the game? Note we are deep into the levels where save or die and save or you might as well be dead are practically everywhere.
I do actually have two guesses, though both are thin.
1. A GM designing NPCs with this feat would really cause some grief. That said, we don't play with those GMs.
2. Being able to kill someone pretty much instantly, even in the midle of combat, makes it much harder for other party members to stop you and say, "Okay, let's take this guy alive." It's a tool for dickish slayers who want to kill their enemies without the paladin interfering. That said, we don't play with those players.
Looks like we are going to need another index KC.
This strikes me as more of a short-term surge. We'll see if it lasts.
Anyways, I'm not a fan of the "Let's personally attack Paizo's dev team" movement. I figured Chris's post would more-or-less put that to rest. But no, let's just keep calling them liars and cheats and thieves and stinking pugwampi scum. Bringing your personal venting and conspiracy theories to these threads is sure to accomplish something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.
That seems overly antagonistic. I'm sure there's a way you can voice your displeasure with various decisions without resorting to name calling.
This is how Paizo "balances" the game:
5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.
If I could get an official Paizo endorsement of that, I'd send the official some kind of gift package for the sheer hilarity of it.
Seriously, even if it is by PM and they swear me to secrecy. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop being MMO, Tormsskull. Much rollplay. Ermergerd.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone's calling for a free pass on criticism, but a lot of what passes for "criticism" on the boards veers right off into tin-foil hat territory.
Hell, there are folks in this thread that are pretty much accusing the dev team of being con artists that are scamming the player base. That's way, way too far, to put it mildly.
Frankly, it is actually impossible for the dev team for please all of Paizo's customers.
For example, for every person on these boards that endlessly complains about casters, there's easily another that thinks casters are pretty rad, and is happy with how they work.
No matter what the dev team does, many, many people will be vocally and bitterly unhappy about it. And I often get the impression that some are actively searching for things to be bitterly unhappy about.
I often get the feeling most of the posting community (at least in the Advice/Rules/RPG Discussion neck of the boards) comprises of people with axes to grind.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll have you know that a gentleman is threatening my execution if Pathfinder isn't a perfect RPG by Monday. Well actually, he said it was over some crippling debt, but I know what he really means.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.That seems overly antagonistic. I'm sure there's a way you can voice your displeasure with various decisions without resorting to name calling.
Name calling would be if I called them "jackasses" or something. If you look up the definition of "dishonest" and "incompetent", you'll see they mean exactly what I meant to say. It's not an offense, it's a description. If they take offense to that, then they should either do a better job with the errata and be more truthful about it. Or they can just stop caring and just listen to the compliments.
Paizo is really good at creating cool and flavorful options... But they are really freaking bad at game balance. Being really bad at something is the definition of "incompetence".
This is how Paizo "balances" the game:
5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.
If I could get an official Paizo endorsement of that, I'd send the official some kind of gift package for the sheer hilarity of it.
Seriously, even if it is by PM and they swear me to secrecy. :)
"martial/caster disparity is a rumor pushed by people with an agenda"
...or something like that...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I actually would really have liked a goblin racial trait that gives the +2 effective Charisma for bard levels. I seriously think Paizo got too hung up on "Goblins like fire!" and forgot to support the other aspects of goblin-dumbdom. Where's my errata, Paizo?!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, for every person on these boards that endlessly complains about casters, there's easily another that thinks casters are pretty rad, and is happy with how they work.
For the record, this is me!
*hides as several people throw the disparity at me*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I actually would really have liked a goblin racial trait that gives the +2 effective Charisma for bard levels. I seriously think Paizo got too hung up on "Goblins like fire!" and forgot to support the other aspects of goblin-dumbdom. Where's my errata, Paizo?!
A kobold...pleading for goblins...something is afoot...
Take a look at Arkalion sometime to see some of the things a level 20 caster is capable of.
I wanna' SEEEE!!! Could you provide a link please?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.
The Crane Wing stuff into oblivion because it's easier than actually trying to do proper game design. They nerf balanced tools that were causing no problem to make new classes seem better, not because the nerf made sense. Remember how they nerfed animal companions' armor proficiency to make the Cavalier look better? Or when they nerfed the Paragon Surge exploit because it stole the thunder of Arcanists (that one actually needed nerfing, but I really freaking doubt that's why they did it, considering how long that loophole went untouched). Now, I don't doubt they nerfed SWD to make Kineticists look better. That's paizo "errata" policy 101.
I'm tired of it... I no longer trust the design team. I had hopes things would get better with the addition of Mark to the team, but I was obviously wrong.
This is how Paizo "balances" the game:
1- Write a bunch of class features with no care if it's balanced. Be sure to ignore all feedback that goes against your initial impressions.
2- If a new option sucks, instead of actually improving it, nerf everything else that is remotely similar.
3- If a new caster option is too good. Let it be... Until some other similar caster option comes around, in which case, go back to step 2.
4- If a martial option is anything better than mediocre, curb stomp it into the f%$&ing ground, spit on it and set its body on fire! Then kill its family. And its dog.
5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.
6- Profit.There's some comical exaggeration there, of course... But only a little.
Yes, I'm bitter. Why do you ask?
While I disagree with your hyperbolic, almost paranoid, position, I will agree that the current state of things isn't a very good look.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, for every person on these boards that endlessly complains about casters, there's easily another that thinks casters are pretty rad, and is happy with how they work.For the record, this is me!
*hides as several people throw the disparity at me*
I'm trying to throw it, but it's over my encumbrance limit. Paizo, gib Titan Mauler plz.
One of the devs made a hand-tipping comment during the vigilante play test. That the general game has been allowed to get overly powerful through a series of 'unfortunate' oversights and that they were working to purposefully keep the power level of the game in check going forward.
Perfectly valid observation that I and (I believe) most of the entire community agree it's 100% true.
Still, that ship has sailed, and honestly I think most of the people who wanted a "cleaner" and "low power" version of pathfinder have already left for 5ed or other greener valley.
Most of those that are still here are either thosee who are actracted by the Character Building aspect of the game that pathfinder offers, or are those with very low care for the system that just found PFS and stuck with it.
The second have very low care for those continous rules change, and they rather prefer to not have to track all of those (and probably they don't during home games). The first half instead can only be irritated by having his concepts continously invalitated.
I have expressed my opinions, I leave you all to carry on with your discussions.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I disagree with your hyperbolic, almost paranoid, position, I will agree that the current state of things isn't a very good look.
Fair enough...
You know what? I agree. My rant was hyperbolic. But it wasn't always so... It's just years and years of frustration taking their toll... Because I love the game, but I see the designers making the same awful design decisions over and over again when it comes to game balance.
It's pretty clear that Paizo prefers to nerf balanced options than actually improve the new ones that are not very good. It's pretty clear that they don't really care about game balance at all, and at best, care about the illusion of balance. It doesn't matter it the game is well-designed... It only matters that the new players who don't know Pathfinder and want to buy the book think it is.
I know speaking calmly and politely is more constructive... But it's really difficult to remain so when they ignore all concerns for years and show no sign of ever changing that attitude. My criticism isn't unique or new. Many of the problems with Pathfinder's lack of balance and the game design philosophy that sustains it have been known for over 15 years now. The devs simply don't care. They aren't stupid. If they did care, they would have already addressed those problems.
When you speak to deaf years, eventually your start shouting. And after that, you stop caring at all... And I fear the day is coming when I simply won't bother anymore, and a game I loved will just be a bitter memory. And I fear I won't be the only one...
Who knows... Maybe that's what they want. Maybe they decided they already got enough of my money.
But see, that's the whole point of putting the newer, more powerful stuff in different books.
Whenever this "I don't want to keep track of everything new, so I'm not gonna play anymore" argument comes up, I still hold to the belief that all you need to play are two books: the Core Rulebook (called Core for a reason). and the first Bestiary (for the GM, duh).
Oh, and some dice, paper, etc.
Don't like the "power creep"? Don't use Ultimate Magic. Or Ultimate Combat. Or anything beyond those two books.
It's a simple solution, that can even be bent to allow specific material.
This game doesn't cater to just that group that hates tracking everything, it caters to every one that plays.
It's a pick and choose game, and people need to realize that more often.
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?*SAD powers.
And as far as I know, Scarred Witch Doctor was banned from PFS anyway.
It was an imaginary problem nobody complained about, much like the majority of the nerfs that have come down this week.
They might have been motivated by a desire to get the Scarred Witch Doctor unbanned and perhaps even made legal for half-orc witches.
|
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?*SAD powers.
And as far as I know, Scarred Witch Doctor was banned from PFS anyway.
It was an imaginary problem nobody complained about, much like the majority of the nerfs that have come down this week.
They might have been motivated by a desire to get the Scarred Witch Doctor unbanned and perhaps even made legal for half-orc witches.
I'd play one in PFS with the current rules if it was made legal. IMO it wasn't the CON-casting that gave it it's flavor, but the Mask. As I said before, in terms of sheer power, Fierce Intelligence is a buff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK this isn't an MMO. People who play this game shouldn't need to watch for patch notes.
Also annoyed at the sheer glut of worthless unfun options.
Get your stuff together paizo. I already barely play your game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a pick and choose game, and people need to realize that more often.
Not when it comes to PFS.
Which - thankfully, it seems - I do not participate in.
But because I enjoy rpgs, and this is the system my group is using, I care about what we find in the various books. Options are great! But OP and worthless ones aren't.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I disagree with your hyperbolic, almost paranoid, position, I will agree that the current state of things isn't a very good look.Fair enough...
You know what? I agree. My rant was hyperbolic. But it wasn't always so... It's just years and years of frustration taking their toll... Because I love the game, but I see the designers making the same awful design decisions over and over again when it comes to game balance.
It's pretty clear that Paizo prefers to nerf balanced options than actually improve the new ones that are not very good. It's pretty clear that they don't really care about game balance at all, and at best, care about the illusion of balance. It doesn't matter it the game is well-designed... It only matters that the new players who don't know Pathfinder and want to buy the book think it is.
I know speaking calmly and politely is more constructive... But it's really difficult to remain so when they ignore all concerns for years and show no sign of ever changing that attitude. My criticism isn't unique or new. Many of the problems with Pathfinder lack of balance and the game design philosophy that sustains it have been known for over 15 years now. The devs simply don't care. They aren't stupid. If they did care, they would have already addressed those problems.
When you speak to deaf years, eventually your start shouting. And after that, you stop caring at all... And I fear the day is coming when I simply won't bother anymore, and a game I loved will just be a bitter memory. And I fear I won't be the only one...
Who knows... Maybe that's what they want. Maybe they decided they already got enough of my money.
Im pretty much there. My group is looking at seriously spending a few months of game nights and just rewriting the system. Some borrowing from 3PP (Tome of battle and spheres of power as big ones), some reverting to 3.5 (Including bringing back some favorite classes, PrCs, and feats), some borrowing from Kirthfinder, some of our own houserules from over the years, some from PF unchained, and some from PF unmolested (bard, inquisitor, and alchemist for sure.)
We plan to ground up tinker everything together and format it into a PDF and probably have a few nice copies printed for our own reference and then just play that game forever. We may may work up a "modern/future addendum but that will be our only "splat."
Converting bestiaries and monster manuals will be a chore though!
The point is, we are so dissatisfied with the direction of the game we are willing to take potentially as much as a year of playing time out of our game to fix it because we no longer trust Paizo to get it right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK this isn't an MMO. People who play this game shouldn't need to watch for patch notes.
Also annoyed at the sheer glut of worthless unfun options.
Get your stuff together paizo. I already barely play your game.
Yeah, for me this is just as big of an issue as the the terrible balance of all these balance changes. Errata and FAQs are supposed to be for fixing mistakes and clearing up rules confusion, but at this point it's pretty clear Paizo's using them as patches to rebalance the game.
Not to mention that while all this rebalancing is going on, a whole lot of actual mistakes/unclear rules are still going unaddressed. I would really like if Paizo would spend less time nerfing things that the PFS management thinks are OP, and more time doing stuff like fixing the messy mounted combat rules or spells full of ambiguity like Simulacrum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im pretty much there. My group is looking at seriously spending a few months of game nights and just rewriting the system. Some borrowing from 3PP (Tome of battle and spheres of power as big ones), some reverting to 3.5 (Including bringing back some favorite classes, PrCs, and feats), some borrowing from Kirthfinder, some of our own houserules from over the years, some from PF unchained, and some from PF unmolested (bard, inquisitor, and alchemist for sure.)
We plan to ground up tinker everything together and format it into a PDF and probably have a few nice copies printed for our own reference and then just play that game forever. We may may work up a "modern/future addendum but that will be our only "splat."
Converting bestiaries and monster manuals will be a chore though!
The point is, we are so dissatisfied with the direction of the game we are willing to take potentially as much as a year of playing time out of our game to fix it because we no longer trust Paizo to get it right.
I feel your pain, brother... I have a pages-long googledoc of house rules and rules fixes... And those are just the ones I bothered to write down. ><'
It's really, really difficult not to be disheartened.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im pretty much there. My group is looking at seriously spending a few months of game nights and just rewriting the system. Some borrowing from 3PP (Tome of battle and spheres of power as big ones), some reverting to 3.5 (Including bringing back some favorite classes, PrCs, and feats), some borrowing from Kirthfinder, some of our own houserules from over the years, some from PF unchained, and some from PF unmolested (bard, inquisitor, and alchemist for sure.)
We plan to ground up tinker everything together and format it into a PDF and probably have a few nice copies printed for our own reference and then just play that game forever. We may may work up a "modern/future addendum but that will be our only "splat."
Converting bestiaries and monster manuals will be a chore though!
The point is, we are so dissatisfied with the direction of the game we are willing to take potentially as much as a year of playing time out of our game to fix it because we no longer trust Paizo to get it right.
I feel your pain, brother... I have a pages-long googledoc of house rules and rules fixes... And those are just the ones I bothered to write down. ><'
It's really, really difficult not to be disheartened.
Alas, my group has come to an even simpler conclusion. We were between campaigns, and debating whether to run another Pathfinder game or try something else. Considering the nerf-splosion knocked out a few character ideas people were considering for the next Pathfinder game, we're going to be playing Iron Kingdoms or World of Darkness instead.
|
| 31 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm not 100% on board with Lemmy's attitude, I agree with them. These erratas have been as heavy handed as possible. It's almost sarcastic the level of brutal editing we're getting here.
As a guide writer, I go through TONS of garbage feats to find things worth suggesting, and if you look at a lot of guides, they're suggesting the exact same things since there's not a lot of variety to what's good. We so rarely ever have new feats that are like "Hey, that's genuinely useful!", instead trudging through "Wow, if that exact situation happened that would make this feat decent incredibly often, it would still only be okay!"
I also still have faith in Mark, I really do. I want to like the kineticist, I want to enjoy the product, and I want to trust in the dev team, I really do. I like this game, but the way it's being handled is frankly unprofessional. Maybe it's just the fact that I want to trust someone who did guides, someone who again had to look at the full scope of things to understand the whole class.
I don't agree with the tone of some of these arguments made, but I agree with their points, and I don't agree with a lot of the "If you don't gently criticize, no one should listen to you" sentiment that is floating around here.
I can also agree that a lot of feedback just isn't listened to, like at all. I don't say the playtest are a sham, but it seems there's only certain issues the devs are willing to wiggle on, and those are the ones that they were already shaky about. Anything that they're in love with is rock solid, won't be changed despite any arguments or logic that contradicts them. As I've said before, there NEEDS to be a more open dialogue between the players and the Devs, maybe more insight into what and why they're doing what they're doing.
Personally I'm looking forward to the ACG rationalization since in a morbid sort of way, I'm expecting it to be terrible (much like the errata), and it's more for amusement at this point. What I would like is a statement that they understand WHY it was terrible, and maybe some ways they'd like to improve their dialogue with customers who aren't willing to defend the product without any sense of objective reasoning as to WHY it could possibly be flawed.
We all like this game for the most part, and these arguments aren't made to hurt anyone's feelings because it's very much not personal, it's a deep and desired hope for a better game with more options instead of the usual CRB and companion options we can for the most part trust to never be altered. I want to play a game in which the books I own aren't invalidated with nearly 10 pages of changes. And I want to be able to talk to others about this without having to tell them that an option they enjoy was errata'd and have to work into houserule territory because something was straight up destroyed.
There's a lot Paizo has done wrong in the past year or so, and it's up to them to realize it and correct this course of action.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Paizo staff and the design team are a talented group of good people.
...who seem to be incredibly good at making decisions that seem, at least to me, to be arbitrary and capricious towards the part of the player base I am in and interact with most often.
Of course, the part of the player base I interact with does not tend to go for overly powerful (or, depending on your perspective, exploitive) builds often and when we do, we're good at not ruining the fun for everyone else. Even in PFS! So the kinds of FAQs and Errata that affect us are almost universally negative, and they come without much explanation or warning. I've occasionally had conversations like:
"Didja hear, there was errata? Bob's level 8 TWF ranger just got hit with the nerfbat. Can't really rebuild that one. Oh, and Sara's arcanist doesn't function anymore, that's a shame. Dave's kobold can't fly anymore, thank god that's in a home game."
Very rarely are conversations about the errata and FAQs positive, because for the most part the changes break characters that were working well before and providing us with interesting options. Very rarely do they enable new choices by fixing options that were too weak to be useful.
Pathfinder's a fun game, and I hope I can continue playing it for a good long while. I just wish that changes like FAQs and errata were handled with a different perspective than the perspective the team seems to currently have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm not 100% on board with Lemmy's attitude, I agree with them. These erratas have been as heavy handed as possible. It's almost sarcastic the level of brutal editing we're getting here.
Wanna know the worst part? Because they only release errata before a new printing, there's next to no chance it will change soon. Because those books have to sell before we see the new, hopefully but not likely, better errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, they nerfed Vanaran climb speed, not because it was too strong, just because it broke its own definition according to the race builder in the back of the book.
This doesn't seem like a good explanation when Suli still didn't get Darkvision (which is part of the Outsider type, as listed in that same back of the book).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alas, my group has come to an even simpler conclusion. We were between campaigns, and debating whether to run another Pathfinder game or try something else. Considering the nerf-splosion knocked out a few character ideas people were considering for the next Pathfinder game, we're going to be playing Iron Kingdoms or World of Darkness instead.Im pretty much there. My group is looking at seriously spending a few months of game nights and just rewriting the system. Some borrowing from 3PP (Tome of battle and spheres of power as big ones), some reverting to 3.5 (Including bringing back some favorite classes, PrCs, and feats), some borrowing from Kirthfinder, some of our own houserules from over the years, some from PF unchained, and some from PF unmolested (bard, inquisitor, and alchemist for sure.)
We plan to ground up tinker everything together and format it into a PDF and probably have a few nice copies printed for our own reference and then just play that game forever. We may may work up a "modern/future addendum but that will be our only "splat."
Converting bestiaries and monster manuals will be a chore though!
The point is, we are so dissatisfied with the direction of the game we are willing to take potentially as much as a year of playing time out of our game to fix it because we no longer trust Paizo to get it right.
I feel your pain, brother... I have a pages-long googledoc of house rules and rules fixes... And those are just the ones I bothered to write down. ><'
It's really, really difficult not to be disheartened.
What, it's that hard to ignore the errata? Complaining is all well and good, but why would you allow an errata you don't like to hamper your home game in such dramatic fashion?