| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't accept the premise.
You don't have a choice. You've got to errata the item,
Your acceptance isn't required for the premise to be accurate.
By accurate, I acknowledge that yes, Paizo could simply not errata. They could also stop publishing RPG books and start manufacturing cigarette-flavored pudding. They could do any of a number of nonsensical things.
But when you have printed game rules that are broken, the sensible, responsible, appropriate thing to do is produce errata, instead of leaving the broken rules.
I am not saying that every errata, or any specific errata, is or was done perfectly. I am speaking to "what do you do when you printed broken rules?" The answer remains: you fix them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am speaking to "what do you do when you printed broken rules?" The answer remains: you fix them.
Sweet, where's my new edition of the CRB that fixes all of the systemic flaws that are created there?
I'm looking at the CRB First to Sixth Printing errata doc right now. It's 9 pages long. Here's an example of what's in that doc:
Page 392—In the uncanny dodge class feature of the
shadowdancer, replace the word “assassin” in the third
sentence of the first paragraph with “shadowdancer”.
Or how about this MASSIVE price increase?
Page 505—In the cape of the mountebank, in the Price
entry, change “10,080 gp” to “10,800 gp”.
The only changes that are anywhere close to the magnitude of the UE changes are the fixes to the Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally spells, where there were inappropriate CR monsters in the chart (Riding Dog vs Dog, for example). Everything else is a fix to something deemed broken in the truest sense: non-functional or nonsensical.
When we look at the item changes in UE, most of them are pricing- or value-related. The Jingasa was perfectly functional. The Staff of the Master was perfectly functional. It's not that we were misunderstanding the rules. They were not broken, but it could be argued that they were imbalanced. These could have been caught by an editor before first printing without playtest data to be flagged for review. That said, these items functioned as written with little room for interpretation otherwise.
Despite 5 errata documents over 6 printings of the Core Rulebook, it remains horribly error-filled and excludes numerous rules that still get debated to this day. Remember the Acrobatics thread that hit ~1k posts in 24 hours? Not part of the current Core errata - that's a FAQ because the last printing of the CRB was in 2013. There are still debates about rules for positive and negative energy because they're not defined. Burrow is not defined. These are basic mechanics that inform later books and we don't have any official rules on them after 7 years.
So yes, by all means, if the printed rules are broken, fix them. Just fix the ones that are ACTUALLY broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread.....
Remember when I said it was getting toxic?
I have learned from this that PFS is all but confirmed to be the devil.
I'm really not concerned or upset about any of the errata, like, at all.
I use the Revised Action Economy so the QRS was useless in my games anyway. The Jingasa opens up a ring slot now, for anyone not using a ring higher than +1.
People are making a much bigger deal out of this than it really is. Brawling going up to +3 is a bit of a shame, but I'm indifferent to it.
I have learned from this that PFS is all but confirmed to be the devil.
I don't think you can blame PFS for anything bad here. I've seen jokes about how every martial has a jingasa , but no "nerf the jingasa!" lynch mobs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can blame PFS for anything bad here. I've seen jokes about how every martial has a jingasa , but no "nerf the jingasa!" lynch mobs.
I have learned from this that PFS is all but confirmed to be the devil.
I'm fairly certain that anything the collective had complained about was derived directly from PFS feedback. Crane everything, Paragon Surge, everything.
It's also the reason the new classes are designed around point buy being considered the norm, which we all should know my stance on that by now.
I find it hilarious that ABP is the only alternate system cited, there are more rules in place in that same book.
I'm one of the guys who literally just bought the book before this errata, and I'm really not that mad. Errata happens, choose to use it or don't. It's really that simple. If your complaints come from PFS, then don't play in PFS.
This is a table top rpg, there's nothing stopping you from playing it how you want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players should have a level field without all having to take the same equipment.
So what's your proposal for balancing out the various levels of system mastery a group of people might have(new player vs veteran) and getting rid of the Big 6 that the game itself is built around you having?
I'm fairly certain that anything the collective had complained about was derived directly from PFS feedback. Crane everything, Paragon Surge, everything.
Those yes. The Gloves yes (a home DM would just start throwing in 15 foot walls)
The Jingasa no. Featherstep boots? I didn't know anyone but me liked them.
It's also the reason the new classes are designed around point buy being considered the norm, which we all should know my stance on that by now.
*headscratch*
What makes you think they're designed around point buy?
How is point buy different than stat rolling, as far as designing classes goes? You should theoretically wind up with similar stats.
I find it hilarious that ABP is the only alternate system cited, there are more rules in place in that same book.
I need a vowel on ABP
This is a table top rpg, there's nothing stopping you from playing it how you want to.
There generally is. While paizo gets feedback when PFS dms get annoyed by items, in home games its pretty likely that the same items are causing problems : EIther the DM has to tell their players no, work around it, or the DM allows it and another player gets annoyed at how much more effective they are.
I don't think you can blame PFS for anything bad here. I've seen jokes about how every martial has a jingasa , but no "nerf the jingasa!" lynch mobs.
I have learned from this that PFS is all but confirmed to be the devil.
That would have my bad guys laughing them off. "Look, it's the jingasa clown squad!"
I'm totally going for a Three Stooges build now. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would have my bad guys laughing them off. "Look, it's the jingasa clown squad!"
Comments like that are what get someone's body desecrated.
Just saying... :)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained is great source of rules, but it's incomplete. Revised Action Economy has tons of things that don't seem to work, like Swift Actions.
Many classes were able to Swift+Full Attack, can't do anymore in RAE.
If you give us a new set rules, they should be extensive, the whole idea behind buying a new set of rules is to avoid making them yourself.
Quickrunner's shirt was a direct nerf to Martial, while not impacting casters. Casters can move/cast and then use the item, there is no reason for martials to have it now.
Meanwhile my wizard is better than anyone at anything, carries 100 scrolls for everything, and let's be honest, not many DMs are gonna bother stealing your spellbook, and if they do, a smart wizard as several copies in several pocket planes, pathfinder pouchs and such.
Hell, you could even waste a bonus feat on Spell Mastery, get teleport and laugh. Pair it with Fast Study, and basically you can escape almost anything.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been a faithful Paizo fan for a long time - own at least a thousand dollars in their products like many of you - just going to add my 2 cents:
Paizo, I've really disliked what you did with the Advanced Class Guide and now in Ultimate Equipment. Please use errata to finish incomplete sentences, increase clarity, fix charts, etc. Please, don't use errata to balance the game. It's a poor policy that dampens my desire to buy your products.
As for the OP - playtesting before the product launches is great. I don't want a "balance patch" every X months. It's OK to have imbalances in this game.
That is all,
Dan
Honestly, and this is just an opinion, I feel like they usually nerf melee stuff.
I'm not even sure I've ever read about a spell getting nerfed or even considering making casting take a long time.
I think Paizo should pulish and push the Revised Action Economy and ABP system. This will give us liberty on item's choice and also make combat more balanced.
I know it's a fantasy game, but in this game casters are mobile while martials are not, except the pouncing barbarian.
It's like the Unchained Barbarian, people still argue whether it was an improvement or not.
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
So much drama for the modification of a handful of obscure wondrous items and an armour enchantment from a splatbook that give completely optional abilities.
I actually want to talk about this. The fact that there's errata isn't the main issue for me. The main issue is more complicated.
1. These weren't 'balance' errata, they were straight up destruction. None of these items (MAYBE brawling) are worth having anymore. They just aren't. They didn't get weakened, they were effectively deleted from the book due to how much value they lost.
That isn't what should be done to remove an issue, this is an act of laziness. This would be like saying power attack was too strong, and just removing the damage bonus. It both stops being a 'problem' which I would argue it is for most of these items and it stops being an option since there is literally no reason to take it.
2. As before, there was no notice for this. Sure, they don't have to give us notice, I accept that. But after the ACG debacle, you'd think there would be a larger willingness to keep in contact with the player base. Sure, I love how active Mark is on the boards, but a blog that had upcoming thoughts and ideas about large changes like this would go a long way to assuage sore feelings like this.
3. At this point, I feel like we're being specifically baited and switched, although I'll admit it's not as prevalent this time due to the amount of time between printings. Regardless, it still saddens me how worthless some hardcopies have become over this.
If you're just seeing it as the errata itself, you're ignoring the context for a lot of this, and I don't think that's fair to a lot of people's position on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo should just use this simple guide for Errata. Just ask two questions and if they're both answered with a yes then you don't do the errata.
Am I taking something away from martial classes with this?
Does it hurt martial classes while not touching caster classes?
Seriously, classes without spells are already crap enough without you taking away their special toys.
Honestly, and this is just an opinion, I feel like they usually nerf melee stuff.
I'm not even sure I've ever read about a spell getting nerfed or even considering making casting take a long time.I think Paizo should pulish and push the Revised Action Economy and ABP system. This will give us liberty on item's choice and also make combat more balanced.
I know it's a fantasy game, but in this game casters are mobile while martials are not, except the pouncing barbarian.
It's like the Unchained Barbarian, people still argue whether it was an improvement or not.
The thing is, the Unchained alternate rules stuff flat out calls for you to tweak them as fits your game and style.
Check the forums, I have my own take on the RAE that my players adore. I also incorporate the background generator and mandate 3 traits and a drawback, creating a game that plays a lot like 5e, but without all the sh*tty parts of 5e. (I'm not a fan of advantage/disadvantage rather than invested numerical bonuses representing character development)
Also, spells do get nerfed, mneumonic vestments got nerfed, Paragon Surge got buried. Spells that grant temporary feats and/or abilities in general got nerfed.
The collective likes to forget these things when it has an agenda centered around complaining about martials being singled out. The collective is wrong.
|
Paizo, I've really disliked what you did with the Advanced Class Guide and now in Ultimate Equipment. Please use errata to finish incomplete sentences, increase clarity, fix charts, etc. Please, don't use errata to balance the game.
The majority of the changes in the Ultimate Equipment errata (e.g. Sleeves, Mithral, AoMF, Courageous, weapon table, et cetera) were exactly the kind you suggest... there were only a handful of 'game balance' adjustments (e.g. Jingasa, Brawling, et cetera).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Courageous was a game balance adjustment too, since it nerfed the effectiveness of Morale Bonuses for those who used Courageous Weapons. It just occurred as a FAQ before it got officially patched as Errata.
I should know, I'm the one who made that happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Courageous was a game balance adjustment too, since it nerfed the effectiveness of Morale Bonuses for those who used Courageous Weapons. It just occurred as a FAQ before it got officially patched as Errata.
I should know, I'm the one who made that happen.
LOTS of people made that happen... because it was always obvious to many that the interpretation that it applied to ALL morale bonuses was just wrong. Thus, it was a clarification. The only 'balance' issue was with the incorrect interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOTS of people made that happen... because it was always obvious to many that the interpretation that it applied to ALL morale bonuses was just wrong. Thus, it was a clarification. The only 'balance' issue was with the incorrect interpretation.Courageous was a game balance adjustment too, since it nerfed the effectiveness of Morale Bonuses for those who used Courageous Weapons. It just occurred as a FAQ before it got officially patched as Errata.
I should know, I'm the one who made that happen.
No it wasn't. If it was obvious to many, a FAQ wouldn't have been needed, and there would've been no thread or argument made otherwise.
In fact, a lot of people in that thread state that there was no other possible way to reach another interpretation based on how it was worded, myself included, which is what Mark said happened; and there were very few who said it functioned otherwise, basing their argument on some very fishy (and fairly easily contrabanded) evidence.
Seriously, a lot of people pressed FAQ, if only just to try and call the bluff on the supposed "evidence" that was presented to support the given interpretation, and we all got sucked in and were ran dry like a novice poker player.
Honestly, and this is just an opinion, I feel like they usually nerf melee stuff.
Mnemonic Vestment begs to differ, as does QuickRunner shirt. Although quite frankly, buying racks of them was an exploit that needed to be plugged.
|
|
Mnemonic Vestment begs to differ, as does QuickRunner shirt. Although quite frankly, buying racks of them was an exploit that needed to be plugged.Honestly, and this is just an opinion, I feel like they usually nerf melee stuff.
You thought of quickrunner's shirt as a non-melee buff? I always considered it pounce in a can. Not sure how buying multiple versions of an item is an exploit, but I will agree that due to the errata, it isn't how the devs intended it to work, which is just strange on their part.
|
|
No it wasn't. If it was obvious to many, a FAQ wouldn't have been needed, and there would've been no thread or argument made otherwise.
Not going to re-fight a battle that has already been won (indeed, the devs had clarified it even before you posted that FAQ request you linked). While it WAS poorly worded, obviously many people were able to divine the intent correctly... otherwise there never would have been any argument.
No it wasn't. If it was obvious to many, a FAQ wouldn't have been needed, and there would've been no thread or argument made otherwise.Not going to re-fight a battle that has already been won (indeed, the devs had clarified it even before you posted that FAQ request you linked). While it WAS poorly worded, obviously many people were able to divine the intent correctly... otherwise there never would have been any argument.
Yeah, the damage was done. Barbarians are still very strong, but still, sad days.
If by "many," you mean less than 10, then sure, I suppose it was "many people," just like how Cavemen thought "many" was 3 or more of a given thing. Not an insult, but that is how the thread progressed. Anyway...
@ N. Jolly: Spellcasters wouldn't necessarily need it since their Swift Action would be occupied with Quickened Spells, but it's still 1,000 gold, which is great for the levels that you can't cast Quickened Spells (I'd presume about 11th level would be when Quickened Spells would become commonplace).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So much drama for the modification of a handful of obscure wondrous items and an armour enchantment from a splatbook that give completely optional abilities.I actually want to talk about this. The fact that there's errata isn't the main issue for me. The main issue is more complicated.
1. These weren't 'balance' errata, they were straight up destruction. None of these items (MAYBE brawling) are worth having anymore. They just aren't. They didn't get weakened, they were effectively deleted from the book due to how much value they lost.
That isn't what should be done to remove an issue, this is an act of laziness. This would be like saying power attack was too strong, and just removing the damage bonus. It both stops being a 'problem' which I would argue it is for most of these items and it stops being an option since there is literally no reason to take it.
2. As before, there was no notice for this. Sure, they don't have to give us notice, I accept that. But after the ACG debacle, you'd think there would be a larger willingness to keep in contact with the player base. Sure, I love how active Mark is on the boards, but a blog that had upcoming thoughts and ideas about large changes like this would go a long way to assuage sore feelings like this.
3. At this point, I feel like we're being specifically baited and switched, although I'll admit it's not as prevalent this time due to the amount of time between printings. Regardless, it still saddens me how worthless some hardcopies have become over this.
If you're just seeing it as the errata itself, you're ignoring the context for a lot of this, and I don't think that's fair to a lot of people's position on this.
4) They didn't fix simple typos. They spend their time updating the cost of a spiked shield, BUT STILL SAYS IN THE SPIKED SHIELD TEXT THAT IT'S ARMOR SPIKES.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo, I've really disliked what you did with the Advanced Class Guide and now in Ultimate Equipment. Please use errata to finish incomplete sentences, increase clarity, fix charts, etc. Please, don't use errata to balance the game.The majority of the changes in the Ultimate Equipment errata (e.g. Sleeves, Mithral, AoMF, Courageous, weapon table, et cetera) were exactly the kind you suggest... there were only a handful of 'game balance' adjustments (e.g. Jingasa, Brawling, et cetera).
Unfortunately, the most relevant changes for my gaming group are the handful of game balance adjustments that basically removed several items from the game. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They get magic armor crafting as a class feature now... And there are a lot of magic armor options with narrative utility alone. That's one option. Sure, he can't cast fly (unless he takes the feat that lets him cast fly...) but he can craft a suit of armor that can.... And the shield that turns it into 9 hour overland flight.
I thought crafting was banned in PFS.
|
|
I thought crafting was banned in PFS.
They get magic armor crafting as a class feature now... And there are a lot of magic armor options with narrative utility alone. That's one option. Sure, he can't cast fly (unless he takes the feat that lets him cast fly...) but he can craft a suit of armor that can.... And the shield that turns it into 9 hour overland flight.
Not everyone plays PFS :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone plays PFS :3I thought crafting was banned in PFS.
They get magic armor crafting as a class feature now... And there are a lot of magic armor options with narrative utility alone. That's one option. Sure, he can't cast fly (unless he takes the feat that lets him cast fly...) but he can craft a suit of armor that can.... And the shield that turns it into 9 hour overland flight.
Yet perceived problems in PFS become everyone's problems when their fixes apply universally rather than to PFS games only. :-/
Mnemonic Vestment begs to differ, as does QuickRunner shirt. Although quite frankly, buying racks of them was an exploit that needed to be plugged.Honestly, and this is just an opinion, I feel like they usually nerf melee stuff.
Can you explain how buying more than one of an item is an exploit?
Items that are intended to be used 1/day being used more is exploitive if the item is under priced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I bet if you created a rules wiki this Borg Collective of a community would have that created in no time.Seconded, hell just grab a few handfuls of volunteers of really trustworthy posters who know the rules like the back of their hand if you're worried about random people hitting the edit button and scribbling graffiti on it.
Can't d20PFSRD or Archives of Nethys already do this (i.e., include older versions of the text on errataed material)? Why not petition one of them for the feature?
Can I make a suggestion in good faith? Can several of the people that are unsatisfied with the changes in this latest errata do the following:
- Create a new Google DOC, set it up to allow commenting by All, and reserve editing permissions to a small team (work out among yourselves who those team members are)
- Copy the original 1.0 text, mechanics, pricing, etc. for the items that your team agrees that Paizo's devs changed unsatisfactorily
- Collaborate among yourselves to address the issues that you see as overpowered, underpriced, and/or unclear. Start your own thread in the Homebrew section so everyone else can also discuss your proposed changes or alternate changes.
- Show your work/math on both how the items benefits change gameplay & pricing. Try to keep in mind all the other Pathfinder products published, and work to avoid weird corner cases that create conflicting or unclear rules. Plan ahead for players who will attempt to build for maximum uberness
I'm really curious now what changes the Pathfinder players/GMs would have made, and how those changes compare with the official Paizo errata. I think I might learn something at least.