Why I think the current FAQ / Errata cycle is bad for the health of the game and how to fix it.


Product Discussion

351 to 400 of 555 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:


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.

There are not a dozen useful hats and thats the problem. There's 5 or 6 tops, and none of them are in the same niche as the jingasa.

The hat of disguise for infiltration

The mask of stony demeaner for intimidate builds

The helm of the mammoth lord for non polymorphing natural weapon attackers

The circlet of persuasion

Don't buy a hat and put the money elsewhere

For the front liners who were the primary target audience for the hat, whats the other option? What would you seriously consider dropping that money on as an alternative? The buffering cap?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
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.

And that view might be appropriate, were we only talking about this lone instance...

Shadow Lodge

Sundakan wrote:
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.

I did in another thread.

Objectively, if every person that had a Jingasa goes to no hat, there is not a net decrease in diversity. There is an equal transfer of diversity from "hat" to "no hat". If even one of those people decides, "the hat of disguise is awesome", you have produced a net increase in the diversity of head wear.

Again, this argument makes zero sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

EVEN If there were 12 other good options for the nerfed item it is still a bad design to nerf the item to the ground, because having 13 good options is better than having 12 good and the 13th to be garbage. So the very lazy policy of nuking the items down and not caring is just bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:


Objectively, if every person that had a Jingasa goes to no hat, there is not a net decrease in diversity. There is an equal transfer of diversity from "hat" to "no hat".

no because when you had 5k available there wa the choice between the Jingasa and, perhaps, putting another +1 into your main weapon. Now it is not.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
9mm wrote:
Of course it doesn't, you think the other hats are worth the gold. They aren't. oh look, it makes sense now.

Just because we disagree on what is useful does not mean the hats aren't useful. This argument makes the assumption that unless it's cheap, and amazingly powerful, it's not useful.

Buffering caps more-or-less duplicate part of the effect on the cheap.

Disguise self can be quite useful.

I've been in plenty of situations that I wish I had a boat, and such I feel Besmara's Tricorne is a great item for its price.

Holy masks of the living gods, helms of comprehend language, maiden's helms, masks of conflicting energy, circlet of persuasion, grappler's masks, explorer's pith helmet all have their use. If I start setting the price point higher the list gets broader.

One overpowered head item was nerfed, and there are options if you're willing to look for them.

But then again, as I've seen elsewhere you'll simply say, "you're wrong these aren't useful", and I'll counter with "no, you're wrong, they're all useful" and we'll be at an impasse, and the Jingasa still won't be coming back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
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.

I did in another thread.

Objectively, if every person that had a Jingasa goes to no hat, there is not a net decrease in diversity. There is an equal transfer of diversity from "hat" to "no hat". If even one of those people decides, "the hat of disguise is awesome", you have produced a net increase in the diversity of head wear.

Again, this argument makes zero sense.

So obviously the best option is nerf everything as opposed to buffing the bad items?

Paizo had the opportunity to nerf Jingaza in a perfectly reasonable way (like removing the luck bonus to AC) while buffing other items and thus create an increase in diversity.

Instead they essentially removed Jingasa from the game whilst leaving other options equally as s%+@ty as they were previously.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:

I did in another thread.

Objectively, if every person that had a Jingasa goes to no hat, there is not a net decrease in diversity. There is an equal transfer of diversity from "hat" to "no hat". If even one of those people decides, "the hat of disguise is awesome", you have produced a net increase in the diversity of head wear.

Again, this argument makes zero sense.

Why wouldn't you link that post then?

As stated above, another issue is that this errata didn't lower the hat to a level that anyone who was using it before would even consider 'okay', it removed it as an option for most players. It would have been just as effective to delete the item in the minds of most people, and that's not good game design. If you're going to tone down something, you should aim to put it at a point where it's weaker, but still viable.

This took most of these items and turned them from too good into empty page space for most of us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:

This argument makes the assumption that unless it's cheap, and amazingly powerful, it's not useful.

No it doesn't, ANd even if it were you're still miss the point that destroying the item was not the right choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:


I've been in plenty of situations that I wish I had a boat, and such I feel Besmara's Tricorne is a great item for its price.

If Besmara is your patron, once per day you can speak a command word to transform the hat into a small ship’s boat such as a cutter,

If not, for 99% of characters, its a very expensive masterwork swim floatie.

Quote:
Holy masks of the living gods, helms of comprehend language, maiden's helms, masks of conflicting energy, circlet of persuasion, grappler's masks, explorer's pith helmet all have their use. If I start setting the price point higher the list gets broader.

All except the circlet are vastly overpriced for their benefit and most meat shields do their persuading with a metal object.

Quote:
there are options if you're willing to look for them.

There are not. Please do not use an assertion of laziness of lack of imagination on our part to cover up a lack of sense or evidence for your position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:


Objectively, if every person that had a Jingasa goes to no hat, there is not a net decrease in diversity.

That is very far from objective.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
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.

I think this is kind of just quibbling over semantics. There may not be a policy decision stating "PFS gets preferential treatment", however it is simply a fact that PFS influences change more than any other demographic. The entire feedback system is designed in such a way to make it so.

The forums are predisposed to PFS players- you basically have to frequent the Paizo forums to participate in PFS on a regular basis. On top of that, the very nature of PFS is such that if even a small combat issue of a certain type exists, it's going to be amplified tenfold. Is this mechanic really good against single enemy encounters? Get ready for the nerf bat, because PFS GMs can't deal with it any way other than directly requesting the mechanic be neutered.

Saying "Yes, a lot of these items started as issues in the PFS forums, but..." is essentially a chicken/egg argument- we can't know whether one would exist without the presence of the other, just that we're all here now and some very popular items have been turned into rotten omelettes.

Most, if not all, of the major errata nerfs that lead to threads like this have PFS cited, often by the design team themselves, as the source, with Crane Wing apparently immortalized as the eternal symbol of this issue (I'm sure it's going to be forgotten in a year or two). A big part of this is tied to the simple assumption "when there's a real problem, it's likely to be a major problem in PFS" which often seems to be executed more as "if it's a problem in PFS, it's probably a real problem". Is that actually a fair truism though? PFS is designed from the ground up to embody a narrow type of play with a large number of mechanics pre-excluded and encounters tailored to accomodate, essentially, poorly coordinated, inexperienced, and/or unfamiliar groups. There's none of the customization or fluid adventure moderation that one might see at a home table, because there simply can't be.

More than any of that though, it ties back beyond PFS to the effects of errata based on the premise of "balancing" the game. The game is, already at its core, arguably unbalanced. Just look at Martial/Caster disparity thread X37B-2, and you'll see that about half the people think the classes are imbalanced along caster v. non-caster party lines. Then the ones who do think it's an issue are divided in another dozen groups about what will or will not fix it. "Balance" in many instances means whatever a current table think it means.

Going to come back to "errata for the sake of balance in a minute, but tying into the above, this also points to the power PFS has over the feedback chains that lead to errata. I could just as accurately have said "Balance" in many instances means whatever a current table think it means, except in PFS, where the games are intentionally held to the same standards of "balance". PFS is the only acknowledged standardized venue of play, so again, the system itself enforces PFS' influence over the evolution of the game.

Back to errata for the sake of balance- since every table's balance is different, this very premise can be upsetting to members of the community, particularly when they don't view the option as problematic. Some errata is obvious (an ability that is obviously mathematically superior to comparative options, or in which a major error in the text or structure of the ability leads to unintended results), and some is subjective (my ability to fly, target multiple defenses, predict the future, and create alternate realities is strictly better than your ability to deal massive amounts of damage). Ironically, I think the PDT actually makes a point of trying to target the low-hanging fruit and focus on the options that are mathematically superior and/or obviously broken, which has led to what I assume is their second (or perhaps first) largest community sources headache, the perception that their design philosophy is "martials can't have nice things". Since the low hanging fruit will almost always be damage or defensively oriented items "(X deals more damage than Y, or A gives you more value for the price than B" are much easier to prove and address than "flying is better than +4 AC because many enemies won't be able to get to me at all"), the errata are going to naturally be geared towards favoring adjustments to "martial" abilities. Caster issues are typically narrative, "Joe keeps circumventing my dungeons" or "Harry keeps using spells to bypass the clue-seeking portion of my mysteries", which generally can't be fixed by a simple incremental rules adjustment. It's part of the game. Martial issues tend to be "X can one-hit things so effectively challenging him kills everyone else" or "Y has such high AC that nothing can hit him without auto-hitting everyone else". Martial issues are easy, you tweak the math up or down until the problem statement ceases to be true.

Ultimately you end up with two major factors behind how errata is decided almost guaranteeing an incensed reaction for someone. Spellcaster issues are often viewed to be subjective, or dismissed for some other reason, while martial issues are "simple math" and thus presumably "less subjective" so they get addressed more often. This means that there's almost always going to be a perception of design bias, true or not, compounded by the fact that many people view some of the "overpowered" options, especially those with unusual features like the jingasa, as closing an existing gap, so when they're nerfed, particularly if that nerf is a near rewrite instead of a marginal reining in, it's viewed as the opposite of balancing, it's viewed as widening an existing imbalance. (Sorry for the run on sentence.) Your second issue is that PFS is set up from the ground up to have a superior influence on design feedback, and as previously laid out, PFS snips many of the narrative issues out via houserules and narrow adventure design. So, PFS is in many ways pre-exempted from an array of issues (meaning these issues are less likely to demand attention from that engine), while being predisposed to other types of problems that might be more easily mitigated in a home group.

What this ends up meaning is that the current way the design team handles errata will, inevitably, lead to threads like this, where people feel PFS issues are negatively impacting their home games, and some feel the design team is trying to keep martials from "having nice things". If the design team instead focused their errata solely on misprints and typos, at least they'd appear to remain neutral amidst a community of divided opinions. If they gave some notice for their intended errata, at least the community would feel that they'd been given a chance to voice their objections before a decision that's locked in stone (or, you know, paper and ink) is made official.


Quote:
the forums are predisposed to PFS players- you basically have to frequent the Paizo forums to participate in PFS on a regular basis.

Not really. Most of the players here don't. All you really need is one person with their ears to the ground and they'll tell the rest.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
9mm wrote:
Of course it doesn't, you think the other hats are worth the gold. They aren't. oh look, it makes sense now.

The problem with that is it isn't true for everyone.

I've replace my Jingasa on every character and most of them had fall back items they wished they could buy but they would be committing a sin to not buy a Jingasa. For example, my Kitsune Fox melee build replaced Jingasa with a Circlet of Persuasion because he was Diplomacy focused and couldn't ever buy a circlet.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
the forums are predisposed to PFS players- you basically have to frequent the Paizo forums to participate in PFS on a regular basis.

Not really. Most of the players here don't. All you really need is one person with their ears to the ground and they'll tell the rest.

My experience has been very much the opposite, where I didn't really know anyone else who frequented the forums until I started participating in PFS. And since you have to come to Paizo's site to get the PFS rules document and verify existing errata and FAQs on any materials you want to use, PFS very much encourages people to frequent the site.

I don't think it's any great stretch to say that you have a markedly higher percentage of forum-goers amidst PFS communities than those that lack a strong PFS presence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
9mm wrote:
Of course it doesn't, you think the other hats are worth the gold. They aren't. oh look, it makes sense now.

The problem with that is it isn't true for everyone.

I've replace my Jingasa on every character and most of them had fall back items they wished they could buy but they would be committing a sin to not buy a Jingasa. For example, my Kitsune Fox melee build replaced Jingasa with a Circlet of Persuasion because he was Diplomacy focused and couldn't ever buy a circlet.

If you were that Diplomacy focused the Circlet should have been better from the start.

A +1 AC was hardly crippling to not have, it's that for any character that didn't need something else, it was an easy pick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
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.

Because PFS does drive errata, Vic, and that's because PFS, even for all of its quirks and houserules, is still viewed as a highly valuable playtest asset for the Paizo developers. In fact, it's not unreasonable or ridiculous to view PFS as a leading drive in playtesting errata and the such, because it's practically the largest playerbase that Paizo officially endorses, and is also one where Paizo can have table functions and stuff on record to where they carefully examine a player's actions in relation to X item or Y rule, and when something trips their unwritten rules that they have amongst themselves, they proceed to evaulate and determine if an errata/FAQ is needed.

I won't disagree that messageboard discussions don't drive errata, because on occasion they do (I've had it happen first-hand). However, there is a key phrase, and that is on occasion. Saying that it's more valued than PFS, or anything PFS-related, is silly, especially considering the sort of upside(s) that the Paizo developers have for comparing PFS playtest data in comparison to other data, even from the messageboards.

Even if we take into consideration that PFS has its own houserules, that it re-evaluates all of the pre-existing errata (and then chooses to either allow, disallow, or whatever in relation to an option or rule), they are houserules that Paizo has documents of, whereas if we went to Home Game #217532, that has Z and Q houserules instead of PFS' officially endorsed X and Y houserules, it doesn't change the factor that PFS is a player base that the Paizo developers use in relations to playtesting.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
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.

LOL It'd have to be improved to get up to crappy. Right now it's an over priced talisman taped to a +1 cooking pot. It's worth more as cash than wearing...

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sundakan wrote:
A +1 AC was hardly crippling to not have, it's that for any character that didn't need something else, it was an easy pick.

I'm glad you know my priorities better than I do.

I've played that character once since the errata, and my AC is now 28 vs 29. It makes a difference. Especially when the scenario had a +14 to hit BBEG. I took directly 5% more damage from one item. I also don't have anything else I can buy to raise AC other than upgrading my ring or my dex item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you're saying taking damage 5% more often is crippling to you?

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
MisterSlanky wrote:


Objectively, if every person that had a Jingasa goes to no hat, there is not a net decrease in diversity.

That is very far from objective.

You're really struggling to understand the logic behind this aren't you?

If 90% of a population own an item, and 10% do not (as you claim in your own argument, because would anybody buy anything but the Jingasa), moving most of that population (reversing the distribution) from 90% do to 10% do not to 1% do and 99% do not is not a "reduction in diversity", that's a net zero change in diversity. If the number instead changes to 1% do, and 1% have option B, and 1% have option C, and 1% have option D, and the remaining 96% remain at do not, you've had a net increase in the diversity of the item in the population.

You personally may hate every item at that price point, but if even 1% of 1% of the people disagree with you and take something else, diversity of items will go up. So yes, it is completely intellectually dishonest to continue the argument that the Jingasa nerf somehow makes the distribution of head slot items in the game "less diverse". If you are going to claim that there was no reason to take any hat but the Jingasa, you have to accept that removing it from the game increases diversity.

Argue that you hate the nerf because you think they should have changed the price instead of the attributes. Argue the nerf because you think crits ruin the game. Argue you hate the nerf because you love jingasas as a style, but at least be honest about it. But us arguing here isn't going to change things around this time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know the only two hat slot items I've used besides the Jingasa? Hat of Disguise and Buffering Cap. So yes, the diversity of hats, in regards to my characters, has decreased. I've looked at other hats and they just aren't worth the time.

Less options = less diversity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:


You're really struggling to understand the logic behind this aren't you?

Not really. I don't labor under the illusion that just because someone is talking down to me it must mean that they're above me. This one can be refuted by seseme streets Count von Count

Monday:

Jingasa
hat of disguise
circlet of persuasion
Bare head
Mask of stony demeanor

1 2 3 4 5 ha ha ha. 5 different real hat choices

Tuesday:

hat of disguise
circlet of persuasion
Bare head
Mask of stony demeanor

1 2 3 4 different real hat choices. Ha ha ha.

You included "no hat" as a catagory in the after count but not before. You did that because it supports your argument. There was no "struggle" involved in spotting the obvious deception.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sundakan wrote:
So you're saying taking damage 5% more often is crippling to you?

I'm saying I don't have a way to increase the AC without moving to higher points on the ring, more class levels (2 more levels in Paladin), and a dex item.

So I can gain about 2 points from ring, 2 points from Paladin levels, and 1 or 2 points from Dex (depending on if I spend a lot on a 16,000 gp Dex item).

I replaced the Jingasa (giving me +2) with a dusty rose (+1). So I went from 29 to 28.

I could (with Jingasa) have had max 34 or 35 with the Jingasa and be in the "rarely ever hit range". I'm now in the 32 or 33 range, which will be in the "hit infrequently range". So it will be an issue. More than the 5% different in hitting makes it sound.

Sovereign Court

James Risner wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
A +1 AC was hardly crippling to not have, it's that for any character that didn't need something else, it was an easy pick.

I'm glad you know my priorities better than I do.

I've played that character once since the errata, and my AC is now 28 vs 29. It makes a difference. Especially when the scenario had a +14 to hit BBEG. I took directly 5% more damage from one item. I also don't have anything else I can buy to raise AC other than upgrading my ring or my dex item.

Actually - in that case you're taking 16.7% more damage. (Being hit 35% of the time vs 30% of the time.) If he has an iterative at +9, the iterative attack's damage is 100% more damage. Total of 28.6% more damage.

And that's not including the chance to negate a crit 1/day.


James Risner wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
So you're saying taking damage 5% more often is crippling to you?

I'm saying I don't have a way to increase the AC without moving to higher points on the ring, more class levels (2 more levels in Paladin), and a dex item.

So I can gain about 2 points from ring, 2 points from Paladin levels, and 1 or 2 points from Dex (depending on if I spend a lot on a 16,000 gp Dex item).

I replaced the Jingasa (giving me +2) with a dusty rose (+1). So I went from 29 to 28.

I could (with Jingasa) have had max 34 or 35 with the Jingasa and be in the "rarely ever hit range". I'm now in the 32 or 33 range, which will be in the "hit infrequently range". So it will be an issue. More than the 5% different in hitting makes it sound.

Champion Armor enchantment?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

master_marshmallow wrote:
Champion Armor enchantment?

I'm playing an Iroran Paladin, so no Smite Evil and I'd have to have it on a bracers or armor because I can't wear armor (levels in Monk for Monk AC Bonus.)

But I had forgotten he has Personal Trial which is 1/day for me. It is also an insight bonus so it doesn't stack with dusty rose.

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed an unhelpful post and the replies to it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I wonder if one gets posts removed from a tooth faerie instead of teeth, does that give CHA damage too? :D

Shadow Lodge

It certainly affects my sense of self anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
So you're saying taking damage 5% more often is crippling to you?
I replaced the Jingasa (giving me +2)

Staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahp with this.

The Jingasa did not give anyone +2. The Jingasa gave people +1 AC.

Fate's Favored increased that to +2, but that's a function of that insane trait doubling the bonus from certain magic items and racial abilities, and an effective +3 CL for certain spells.

I'm tired of people using "But Fate's Favored!" as an excuse to nerf AN ITEM (and not even the only one) that benefited from it.


trying to get this thought out without pictures. bear with me.

Normally, what an item SHOULD be would be entirely relative.

Jingasa
Good hat
Meh hats
Bad hats
Horrible hats

You should be able to judge an item on this relative scale.
But since items cost money, or are tradable for money that can be used in other slots.

Jingasa
Buy something else /Good hats
Meh hats
Bad hats
Horrible hats.

that "buy something else" option kicks on for WAY too many items.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With that mindset (Jingasa = Fate's Favored + jingasa) it would be like Paizo nerfing lay on hands, Channel or spells because Fey Foundling made dice healing 'too good'

It basically makes no sense as that is not a product of the healing but of the feat, which is only effective if diced healing is applied to you.. which only helps early-game and for Paladins ( And Paladin-like offshoots... like Warpriests) keep their ability to heal worth it late-game.


Sundakan wrote:
Fate's Favored increased that to +2, but that's a function of that insane trait doubling the bonus from certain magic items and racial abilities, and an effective +3 CL for certain spells.

And what I find amusing is that the PDT was FINE with giving an archetype, Sharper, luck bonuses just a month ago... So it's ok to give out an extra +1 to all saves but the extra +1 to AC required a 'nuke from orbit' nerf on the item? Yeah, I don't buy the argument that the luck bonus was any kind of issue... heck, even the trait doesn't seem overpowered as the +1 untyped bonus from defender of the society isn't too much it seems.

And the fact that James can say "I replaced the Jingasa (giving me +2) with a dusty rose (+1)." Kind of bares it out, as there was another item right there to pick up the slack. The PDT would have to 'errata' the core and UM books if they wish to limit what bonuses stack and/or how much those bonuses are worth [in gp]. Because until they do, +1 luck to AC is a 2500 gp ability and stacks with several other bonuses.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What I don't understand about some of the changes (Feather step boots and Jingasa especially) is that the function of the item could remain the same and the pricing redone to match it. i.e. extra gp for boots being continuous effect and the higher price for "luck" instead of deflection and the "avoid a crit" of the Jingasa. This would have keep them within the item creation rules without nerfing their powers (they would just cost more to be balanced).


Cylerist wrote:

What I don't understand about some of the changes (Feather step boots and Jingasa especially) is that the function of the item could remain the same and the pricing redone to match it. i.e. extra gp for boots being continuous effect and the higher price for "luck" instead of deflection and the "avoid a crit" of the Jingasa. This would have keep them within the item creation rules without nerfing their powers (they would just cost more to be balanced).

It would change what category the item is (Greater, Lesser, Minor, Major?) which would change the tables quite a bit.

EDIT: Plus you should also change every adventure path and module which has it as expected treasure.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cylerist wrote:

What I don't understand about some of the changes (Feather step boots and Jingasa especially) is that the function of the item could remain the same and the pricing redone to match it. i.e. extra gp for boots being continuous effect and the higher price for "luck" instead of deflection and the "avoid a crit" of the Jingasa. This would have keep them within the item creation rules without nerfing their powers (they would just cost more to be balanced).

Which would have then resulted in page after page of complaints that the price changed too much. The change to the item would have resulted in a hat in the tens of thousands of gold (there's a good post somewhere on the math behind it). You don't think that would have caused complaining too?

It was a broken item. A hideously broken item that outshined every other item available for a vast majority of the player base. Any change to the item, price or otherwise would have just led to just as many complaints as we have now. Paizo's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

And I'm very glad they did.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

That still sounds like a much better alternative to removing it from the game. It would have saved them a lot of space if they just replaced the Jingaza with "super cool looking hat that can be sold for 2500g" instead of the waste of page space that's there currently.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Cylerist wrote:

What I don't understand about some of the changes (Feather step boots and Jingasa especially) is that the function of the item could remain the same and the pricing redone to match it. i.e. extra gp for boots being continuous effect and the higher price for "luck" instead of deflection and the "avoid a crit" of the Jingasa. This would have keep them within the item creation rules without nerfing their powers (they would just cost more to be balanced).

It would change what category the item is (Greater, Lesser, Minor, Major?) which would change the tables quite a bit.

EDIT: Plus you should also change every adventure path and module which has it as expected treasure.

Quite frankly, if that is the concern they should have thought of that before screwing it up in the first place. Changing something the most expedient way instead of the good way is simple laziness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:
Cylerist wrote:

What I don't understand about some of the changes (Feather step boots and Jingasa especially) is that the function of the item could remain the same and the pricing redone to match it. i.e. extra gp for boots being continuous effect and the higher price for "luck" instead of deflection and the "avoid a crit" of the Jingasa. This would have keep them within the item creation rules without nerfing their powers (they would just cost more to be balanced).

Which would have then resulted in page after page of complaints that the price changed too much. The change to the item would have resulted in a hat in the tens of thousands of gold (there's a good post somewhere on the math behind it). You don't think that would have caused complaining too?

It was a broken item. A hideously broken item that outshined every other item available for a vast majority of the player base. Any change to the item, price or otherwise would have just led to just as many complaints as we have now. Paizo's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

And I'm very glad they did.

oh no a +1 bonus to AC that actually stacks with other typically worn items, whoop-de-frickin-doo. The crit thing was pretty good but it wasn't anywhere near game breaking. It seems like your definition of "broken" is anything slightly above average. Now it's unusable trash, no point in it even being in there.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:
Cylerist wrote:

What I don't understand about some of the changes (Feather step boots and Jingasa especially) is that the function of the item could remain the same and the pricing redone to match it. i.e. extra gp for boots being continuous effect and the higher price for "luck" instead of deflection and the "avoid a crit" of the Jingasa. This would have keep them within the item creation rules without nerfing their powers (they would just cost more to be balanced).

Which would have then resulted in page after page of complaints that the price changed too much. The change to the item would have resulted in a hat in the tens of thousands of gold (there's a good post somewhere on the math behind it). You don't think that would have caused complaining too?

It was a broken item. A hideously broken item that outshined every other item available for a vast majority of the player base. Any change to the item, price or otherwise would have just led to just as many complaints as we have now. Paizo's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

And I'm very glad they did.

Wow, you have a seriously small amount of respect for the community. I mean that's why Staff of the Master is being mentioned in these conversations, right? We can actually as a community deal with a change that seems fair and balanced. This one doesn't, this was a burial. And while I have said countless times in these threads that these items probably did need to be changed, they didn't have to be destroyed. Prices could be altered, there could have been different errata that didn't completely remove the items as options, but this isn't even close to the first time that Paizo has nuclear errata'd an option.

Really, while I think some people are taking this too far, I agree with everyone who's making their voice known about this errata because it will show Paizo that this kind of business practice isn't acceptable to them. Call it complaining if you want, it's also very real customer feedback from a fanbase that is not happy with their decisions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
Changing something the most expedient way instead of the good way is simple laziness.

Or pragmatism. They're deciding what would be more problematic - changing the function of the item or changing the weight class of the item. They presumably decided the details of its capabilities were less important to them than making it fit in the niche it currently possesses (cheap item for high level folks or a relatively low level option). You're free to disagree, but I suspect constraints or a decision are the answer rather than laziness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Berinor wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Changing something the most expedient way instead of the good way is simple laziness.
Or pragmatism. They're deciding what would be more problematic - changing the function of the item or changing the weight class of the item. They presumably decided the details of its capabilities were less important to them than making it fit in the niche it currently possesses (cheap item for high level folks or a relatively low level option). You're free to disagree, but I suspect constraints or a decision are the answer rather than laziness.

Even if that was the goal they could have tried to left something worth using after that.

And level 5 isn't that low.


N. Jolly wrote:
I mean that's why Staff of the Master is being mentioned in these conversations, right? We can actually as a community deal with a change that seems fair and balanced.

More like because it doesn't fit the agenda.

351 to 400 of 555 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Why I think the current FAQ / Errata cycle is bad for the health of the game and how to fix it. All Messageboards