| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's what's happening in our group:
The GM has declared (not for the first time) that he will be ignoring the errata. ALL errata. If it is not in his hard copies, it does not apply to his games.
Sounds fine, right? Exactly what many people are suggesting.
Well, it's not as clean cut as all that. You see, the GM in question has all the books. Most of the rest of us don't own hard copies. We don't really get to use the GM's books, after all they are his books; that's why they still look brand new.
We have to use the PRD, PFSRD, Archives of Nethys, official PDFs, and similar online sources. I have some of my own hard copies (many more than the GM in fact), but many are different printings than the GM's books.
The errata has actually muddied things rather than clarified them as a result, since no one in our group now knows what rule we are supposed to be using anymore.
I'm guessing it's not just us. I'm guessing this problem--or similar ones--are pandemic to Pathfinder play groups all over.
So no, we can't just ignore it. That causes a host of problems all its own. To pretend that the solution is really that simple is wholly disingenuous.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Liz,
Thank you!
As you may have seen from my previous posts I do not have positive feelings about the recent sets of errata, however statements like your second sentence onward truly impress me.
I appreciate the attitude that we are all customers.
It is as in fact an interaction with the Paizo support staff member Erik Keith that was so positive it made me a Paizo customer for years. It is good to see that positive helpful attitude continues.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure d20pfsrd has done errata in the past by using strike through on the old text.
If that site doing that is important, maybe they could officially support that method of displaying the information.
If you (or anyone) needs a diff of the PDF, I can product that in text form easily (left side old | right side new)
So no, we can't just ignore it. That causes a host of problems all its own. To pretend that the solution is really that simple is wholly disingenuous.
Well, since you now understand what a problem disingenuousness in communication can be...
(re: self-admitted history of disingenuousness in ignoring direct paizo rulings to further "rules debate", of course actual promulgation to Errata is not ignorable but that just means an opportunity for "rules/errata complaint" rather than "rules debate"... thus feeds the entitlement beast.)Yes, it really is that simple:
The Wayback Machine at archive.org takes snapshots of PRD, d20pfsrd, and Archives of Nethys, thus pre-errata versions are available.
Or... just buy Paizo's books/PDFs, I don't think they would advocate against that solution,
since after all it is paying for these electronic forums upon which we post 1s and 0s.
But overall, I am glad that people who can't discern the difference between "Errata they don't like" and "Errata Cycle Issues" are not involved in Errata promulgation, nor Errata Cycle control. Player entitlement indeed can be strong, but game designers must keep the dark forces at bay. Broken rules not only impede the game whenever they are used directly, but they also impede future rules developments that may intersect with their functionality... developments that could work well the errata'd version but are contradicted by existence of the un-errata'd rule/item (or indirect implications of it).
Haha. That's is a pretty good idea.
One question.
Is it difficult to make some fixes with pencil in your printed book?
We've moved past baiting, if you have a point, make it.
My point is: people complain and some ppl decided to ignore errata cause "if it's not in my hard copies blah blah blah..."
So my question is: why is this so difficult to change some things in hard copies with pencil?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is: people complain and some ppl decided to ignore errata cause "if it's not in my hard copies blah blah blah..."
So my question is: why is this so difficult to change some things in hard copies with pencil?
Because people don't like to deface their property?
Because there's not enough space for how huge some of these changes are?
Because you can't do that with the PDFs anyway?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because some people have no other option but organized play?
I have a first printing, so I'm good. No pencil needed. :-)
Although, I'm a little surprised some people wouldn't use pencil on an already "worthless book"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a first printing, so I'm good. No pencil needed. :-)
Although, I'm a little surprised some people wouldn't use pencil on an already "worthless book"
I have seven different Java books. Technically speaking, only the most recent is still useful, but I'm not going to go out of my way to burn the other 6 either.
Then again, I own no hardcover PF books anyway. I need to keep my storage spaces free to make space for 6 redundant programming books.
I have seven different Java books. Technically speaking, only the most recent is still useful, but I'm not going to go out of my way to burn the other 6 either.
Then again, I own no hardcover PF books anyway. I need to keep my storage spaces free to make space for 6 redundant programming books.
This made me laugh louder then I care to admit.
I am also looking at all the old NEC (National Electrical Code) books and handbooks on my shelf and sigh too.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Because people don't like to deface their property?
Because there's not enough space for how huge some of these changes are?
Because you can't do that with the PDFs anyway?
I've left printed sheets inside books.
I've also seen people tape small printed errata sections to the pages.
PDF editing software allows actual text editing, I've used that tons.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is buying paizo products only to be told nothing you wanted it for is usable anymore.
Ultimate Equipment contains literally thousands of items. The errata touches maybe a few dozen of them. And of the ones that it *does* touch, a significant percentage of the changes are adding information to cover use cases that weren't clear before; correcting cases of conflicting data between tables and other places; minor price changes to bring things in line with other items; and fixing other errors that virtually every reasonable person is going to see as reasonable. But for the sake of arguing your point, let's go ahead and assume that every change that doesn't fit into one of those categories is a completely subjective design change that decreases the usability of the item—we're now talking about a fraction of one percent of those thousands of items.
Careful throwing out that bathwater—I think there's still a baby in there.
EXACTLY! I couldn't have said it better myself.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
Couldn't agree more. This religious-like fervor when it comes to balance at all costs is absolutely starting to ruin the product I've been loving for years...
Because you can't do that with the PDFs anyway?
Emm, now you are basically saying that you use stolen PDFs? Cause all PDFs that were bought from Paizo.com can be downloaded again already updated to errata.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is buying paizo products only to be told nothing you wanted it for is usable anymore.Ultimate Equipment contains literally thousands of items. The errata touches maybe a few dozen of them. And of the ones that it *does* touch, a significant percentage of the changes are adding information to cover use cases that weren't clear before; correcting cases of conflicting data between tables and other places; minor price changes to bring things in line with other items; and fixing other errors that virtually every reasonable person is going to see as reasonable. But for the sake of arguing your point, let's go ahead and assume that every change that doesn't fit into one of those categories is a completely subjective design change that decreases the usability of the item—we're now talking about a fraction of one percent of those thousands of items.
Careful throwing out that bathwater—I think there's still a baby in there.
Yet somehow you managed to take the most popular and enjoyed items in the book and threw them out with the bathwater too.
I just think it's strange that the first response to finding out an item is popular is "guess we better destroy it" as opposed to "why are people spending gold on this item as opposed to saving for another +1 to their big six?"
It would have made way more sense to use errata to buff all these items people just pretend don't exist and sprinkle some nerfs on the ones that really needed them. Yeah Jingasa was a bit too good, but just removing the luck bonus to AC would have been enough to keep it relevant. Instead you made it have absolutely no place as a player option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't agree more. This religious-like fervor when it comes to balance at all costs is absolutely starting to ruin the product I've been loving for years...Balancing less than 1% of the items, all items severely flawed, isn't what I'd call religious-like fervor.
It's also not a balance issue. As someone who does think balance is important, this errata is a failure as the items that we have now are still problematic, they're just problematic in the other direction.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) PFS, by and large, informs what does or not get changed, and not everyone plays PFS. Moreover, PFS doesn't even operate under the same rules framework and assumptions as the core game; it doesn't even reflect what playing through an AP is typically like.
I'm addressing not just you, but a number of posters who seem to be under the impression that PFS somehow drives errata. That's not the case. Errata is driven by a number of things, but among the biggest are messageboard discussions. Sure, a lot of those discussions start in the PFS forums—after all, they're generally highly active players with a very deep knowledge of the game's most intricate details, so they tend to raise a lot of really good questions... and when there's a real problem, it's likely to be a major problem in PFS. So they often end up being the canary in our coal mine. But their questions don't automatically have more or less weight than questions asked in the Rules Question forum, or elsewhere on the boards.
And when the design team is crafting rulebook errata, they do so with the full audience of the original book in mind, not just PFS; after all, PFS has to reevaluate the errata'd items suitability for their campaign just as any GM would.
If the game was designed around PFS, than PFS would not have it's own section of campaign-specific home rules.
If the game was designed around PFS, than PFS would not have it's own section of campaign-specific home rules.
To further support this, it didn't look like the PFS organizers were happy with this errata either since the items Paizo smashed are getting full refunds for the players at PFS.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Equipment contains literally thousands of items. The errata touches maybe a few dozen of them. And of the ones that it *does* touch, a significant percentage of the changes are adding information to cover use cases that weren't clear before; correcting cases of conflicting data between tables and other places; minor price changes to bring things in line with other items; and fixing other errors that virtually every reasonable person is going to see as reasonable. But for the sake of arguing your point, let's go ahead and assume that every change that doesn't fit into one of those categories is a completely subjective design change that decreases the usability of the item—we're now talking about a fraction of one percent of those thousands of items.
Careful throwing out that bathwater—I think there's still a baby in there.
Its highlighting the problem that you have a few babies in an Olympic sized swimming pool. Tossing a few out has a pretty significant impact on your baby to water ratio.
Whether you have magic mart where you'd have to pay for these items or have to decide whether to sell the items for half magic items come with a real cost or a just as real opportunity cost. The vast amount of magic items are so ridiculously overpriced compared to what they do that you just say "nope.. sell it.. buy something boring but practical in the big six..nope, not gonna buy it, nope..." leaves very few reasonable options left, which is why people are annoyed that those options were removed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the game was designed around PFS, than PFS would not have it's own section of campaign-specific home rules.To further support this, it didn't look like the PFS organizers were happy with this errata either since the items Paizo smashed are getting full refunds for the players at PFS.
That's actually fairly standard practice written in to the PFS campaign procedures.
As to the errata not being PFS driven... another indicator of that is the fact that there is a push to get the Quick Runner's Shirt added to the list of allowed items for PFS now that it has been fixed. Showing both that it wasn't adjusted due to complaints about its impact on PFS play (they'd banned it entirely) AND that claims it is now so bad that no one would ever want to use it are quite false.
Quick Runner Shirt got off easy it still has a use.
Many of the others are worth less than blank page space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how PFS doesn't drive errata, but PFS is the reason Crane Wing got nerfed in the first place when it was not the problem(Monk of Many Styles was).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem isn't so much as balance, but when one choice becomes so good, that it effectively closes out all other choices, because it's now a "must have" The original Crane Wing is a textbook example of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But only because you could get it way earlier than intended, thanks to original Monk of Many Styles.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Problem isn't so much as balance, but when one choice becomes so good, that it effectively closes out all other choices, because it's now a "must have" The original Crane Wing is a textbook example of this.
+1
Which is something many of us will come to realize over time, the changes are all ultimately a good thing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem isn't so much as balance, but when one choice becomes so good, that it effectively closes out all other choices, because it's now a "must have" The original Crane Wing is a textbook example of this.
but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.
Boots: someone might legitimately take boots of spider climbing, striding and springing or boots of haste. Featherstep was a small but not insignifigant minority. Now? 1/4 viable options are gone.
Head: It was Jingasa on the front liners, Circlet of persuasion on the charisma types, maybe a helm of the mammoth lord on the rare natural attacker not polymorphing. The removal of the jingasa does not mean that more items come in, it means more adventurers going bare headed
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem isn't so much as balance, but when one choice becomes so good, that it effectively closes out all other choices, because it's now a "must have" The original Crane Wing is a textbook example of this.+1
Which is something many of us will come to realize over time, the changes are all ultimately a good thing.
That is 100% false.
Items getting removed from the game (as many of these essentially were) is not ultimately a good thing. At most they needed to be nerfed, not outright destroyed.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
changes are all ultimately a good thing.That is 100% false.
Items getting removed from the game (as many of these essentially were) is not ultimately a good thing. At most they needed to be nerfed, not outright destroyed.
I get that you think so. That doesn't change that I believe it's a good thing most of the time.
Would I like to build more powered characters? Yes
Will I continue to build powered characters? Yes
Newer characters will still push the envelope, but will be less broken. Which is a good thing. I still get the pleasure from reaching the limit/threshold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
changes are all ultimately a good thing.That is 100% false.
Items getting removed from the game (as many of these essentially were) is not ultimately a good thing. At most they needed to be nerfed, not outright destroyed.
I get that you think so. That doesn't change that I believe it's a good thing most of the time.
Would I like to build more powered characters? Yes
Will I continue to build powered characters? Yes
Newer characters will still push the envelope, but will be less broken. Which is a good thing. I still get the pleasure from reaching the limit/threshold.
Why do you think this is about creating powerful characters? You really shouldn't obsess over making overpowered characters. There's so much more that this system has to offe outside that unhealthy obsession.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think this is about creating powerful characters? You really shouldn't obsess over making overpowered characters. There's so much more that this system has to offe outside that unhealthy obsession.
Outside the scope of losing powerful or broken items, I can't comprehend why you care if an item is nerfed/changed/altered.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think this is about creating powerful characters? You really shouldn't obsess over making overpowered characters. There's so much more that this system has to offe outside that unhealthy obsession.Outside the scope of losing powerful or broken items, I can't comprehend why you care if an item is nerfed/changed/altered.
Because items so bad they aren't worth the paper they're printed on are lame?
You don't need to only like overpowered items to not like crappy ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think this is about creating powerful characters? You really shouldn't obsess over making overpowered characters. There's so much more that this system has to offe outside that unhealthy obsession.Outside the scope of losing powerful or broken items, I can't comprehend why you care if an item is nerfed/changed/altered.Because items so bad they aren't worth the paper they're printed on are lame?
You don't need to only like overpowered items to not like crappy ones.
But it's not crappy, it just doesn't stack with a ring.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is buying paizo products only to be told nothing you wanted it for is usable anymore.Ultimate Equipment contains literally thousands of items. The errata touches maybe a few dozen of them. And of the ones that it *does* touch, a significant percentage of the changes are adding information to cover use cases that weren't clear before; correcting cases of conflicting data between tables and other places; minor price changes to bring things in line with other items; and fixing other errors that virtually every reasonable person is going to see as reasonable. But for the sake of arguing your point, let's go ahead and assume that every change that doesn't fit into one of those categories is a completely subjective design change that decreases the usability of the item—we're now talking about a fraction of one percent of those thousands of items.
Careful throwing out that bathwater—I think there's still a baby in there.
The problem is that most of the magical items in UE were trash or extremely niche to begin with.
So changing the faction of a percent that were actually worthwhile is a big change.
Because you can't do that with the PDFs anyway?Emm, now you are basically saying that you use stolen PDFs? Cause all PDFs that were bought from Paizo.com can be downloaded again already updated to errata.
...What kind of logical leap is required for me to say "I can't pencil in the margins of a PDF" and you to go "So your PDFs are stolen then"?
But it's not crappy, it just doesn't stack with a ring.Why do you think this is about creating powerful characters? You really shouldn't obsess over making overpowered characters. There's so much more that this system has to offe outside that unhealthy obsession.Outside the scope of losing powerful or broken items, I can't comprehend why you care if an item is nerfed/changed/altered.Because items so bad they aren't worth the paper they're printed on are lame?
You don't need to only like overpowered items to not like crappy ones.
...What?
You're spending 5000 gp for an item that does the exact same thing as an item that costs 2000 gp (plus a ONE TIME ONLY ability).
That is the DEFINITION of crappy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.
I want clarification on this argument. How does removing a hat nearly every character had, and opening up the option for at least a dozen useful hats with different functions at or below the same price-point decrease diversity.
This argument keeps coming up and it so much doesn't make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.I want clarification on this argument. How does removing a hat nearly every character had, and opening up the option for at least a dozen useful hats with different functions at or below the same price-point decrease diversity.
This argument keeps coming up and it so much doesn't make sense.
Name these "dozen useful hats", because after the Cap of the Free Thinker and Jingasa were nerfed I can't think of a single one worth wasting the cash on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.I want clarification on this argument. How does removing a hat nearly every character had, and opening up the option for at least a dozen useful hats with different functions at or below the same price-point decrease diversity.
This argument keeps coming up and it so much doesn't make sense.
Because as BigNoseWolf BigNorseWolf said earlier, there's not much good stuff in that slot, so most people will just leave the slot empty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.I want clarification on this argument. How does removing a hat nearly every character had, and opening up the option for at least a dozen useful hats with different functions at or below the same price-point decrease diversity.
This argument keeps coming up and it so much doesn't make sense.
Let me explain here:
The other head slot items have the problem of being overcosted for their benefit or not being nearly as widely applicable to a character as the jingasa. The jingasa was so popular because it was a 5k pop for a simple benefit that most everyone could enjoy and had synergy with an already popular talent, thus making it very popular itself.
The competing head slot items that you're talking about are either overcosted or more restricted in their benefit, and since the head slot isn't really a popular slot of which to begin, most people are going to just pass it by in order to focus on the big 6, meaning the only head slot items that will matter are class specific ones (not really a huge problem) or whatever misc items drop from an AP or home game, as PFS will still make you pay to gain an item when it drops in a scenario.
What this does do is gives the option of future items not having such a high bar to meet when being designed for the head slot, but at the moment, all it does is remove the head slot as something most people will use for their characters unless they pick up a buffering cap or other janky replacement.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.I want clarification on this argument. How does removing a hat nearly every character had, and opening up the option for at least a dozen useful hats with different functions at or below the same price-point decrease diversity.
This argument keeps coming up and it so much doesn't make sense.
Of course it doesn't, you think the other hats are worth the gold. They aren't. oh look, it makes sense now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.I want clarification on this argument. How does removing a hat nearly every character had, and opening up the option for at least a dozen useful hats with different functions at or below the same price-point decrease diversity.
This argument keeps coming up and it so much doesn't make sense.
Opportunity cost. Most used items have a reason to be most used: they're usually universally apply-able to any situation.
If you remove/nerf/overprice the most used item, people will just ignore, and look at the SAME other items there were. They're still crap, and not worth their gold.
Solution? Do not buy any item, and just keep buffing big 6