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


Product Discussion

401 to 450 of 555 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

The Jingasa was ridiculously under priced for what it did. The cost should have been close to 45,000 for +2 luck AC (with trait) & negate a crit once per day.

However, I would have nerfed the item to a simple +1 luck bonus that did not work with Fate's Favored. 5k is about right for that benefit. The name after all is Jingasa of the fortunate soldier.

Grand Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't price items based on what traits do to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's funny that so many people are arguing against meaningful changes in errata and prefer changes that make the game overall worse by decreasing diversity, limit role play, and make their books worth less overall.


Alceste008 wrote:

The Jingasa was ridiculously under priced for what it did. The cost should have been close to 45,000 for +2 luck AC (with trait) & negate a crit once per day.

However, I would have nerfed the item to a simple +1 luck bonus that did not work with Fate's Favored. 5k is about right for that benefit. The name after all is Jingasa of the fortunate soldier.

Case in point. How many adepts can I keep in my employ with 45000!!! gold pieces? Why have magic items if they don't even make sense? There's no sensible reason to ever create this type of object. You could feed an army for a month with that much gold!

Does no one care that magic items shouldn't exist!? Why would you buy this if you can keep a Balor on call for a friggin year!?

(Did not fact check the numbers. Expect some discrepancy in how long you can bind a Balor for.)


the economy doesn't have to make sense for peasants but it does need to make sense for adventurers


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right, why would an adventurer not go out and pay for an epic outsiders service instead of buying a friggin hat that still puts them face to face with potential death and dismemberment? It may not work forever, but purchasing way above your cr can be accomplished through spell services. Buy a hat, or send in assault angels into the bbegs lair. Which makes more sense in the context of the universe? Which is more fun to deal with as a GM?

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a couple baiting posts and the responses to them. Folks, we get that some people are frustrated and disagree with the errata, however, escalating the conversation doesn't help.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Frogsplosion wrote:
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.
Not game-breaking. But it was good enough that 98% of characters grabbed it for that slot. I think that outside of The Big 6, Pathfinder has tried to avoid that.

And now there's almost no good option for the head magic slot, just specific itens for specific builds. With this change, they could easily merge the head and headband slots and call it a day, and now we only need the big six. Horray for the diversity. #kappa


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alceste008 wrote:

The Jingasa was ridiculously under priced for what it did. The cost should have been close to 45,000 for +2 luck AC (with trait) & negate a crit once per day.

However, I would have nerfed the item to a simple +1 luck bonus that did not work with Fate's Favored. 5k is about right for that benefit. The name after all is Jingasa of the fortunate soldier.

Or they could have done away with the trait, or merely modified it so that it only applied to spell effects and not magic items.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Steelfeather wrote:
And now there's almost no good option for the head magic slot, just specific itens for specific builds. With this change, they could easily merge the head and headband slots and call it a day, and now we only need the big six. Horray for the diversity. #kappa

This, and most of the arguments about "limiting diversity" and "I'm going to quit Pathfinder Society now" are nothing more than hyperbole.

Hate the change, that's fine, but at least be honest about it. You don't like it. Changing one item doesn't "limit diversity" when everybody has the same item in the first place. Changing one item doesn't mean that there's "no good option". There's one less overpowered option. Saying that "you might as well get rid of the two slots" doesn't do anything to advance an argument that there's a lack of diversity now. In fact, the absolute contradictions in the arguments being made are amazing.

You may like that, and that's fine, but to expand it to the point that "everything sucks now" isn't doing anything to move your argument forward.

How about alternatives? Point out how much it WOULD have cost. Once you see how outrageous that is, try working with the system and propose a reasonable change. Instead of just saying "waaah, I hate things now" figure out why, really figure out why, and then propose the "right solution". Not in terms of sweeping "you shouldn't have" but rather in terms of what would have been realistic. Otherwise that's all this is, complaining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People have pointed out alternatives. Nearly anything would have been better than making it a waste of space on the page.

More to the point, suggesting alternatives is just as useless now. It can't be changed for another half decade or so now anyway.

Which is why people are ripping on the errata process.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I made the mistake of quoting a baiting post, and I have been graciously provided with the opportunity to repost my reply. The following regards errata decisions and philosophies that prop up the Big 6 at, in my opinion, the expense of more interesting options-

Isn't that part of the problem though? It's boring to know that you basically always have to have your +1 sword, your +1 cloak of resistance, your +1 ring of deflection, your +1 amulet of natural armor, etc. We've all played 50 or so characters who've dotted their I's and crossed their T's and grabbed that junk, so how about instead of it remaining eternally enshrined as a necessity, we get more goodies that help fill that requirement while also being new and cool? I mean, that's all a lot of people are saying.

In the beginning, loot was lame, but lo, Paizo came forth and brought forth that which was not lame, and many were happy. Alas, then the floods of dark errata came, and all that was not lame was once more washed away upon the tides of golden cows and subjective balance.

People want loot that is useful and interesting, not loot that is useful or interesting (and for the record, I kind of agree with the assertion that the new jingasa is neither). Were 90% of people really using the jingasa instead of a ring of protection? Even if that's true, couldn't that mean that the problem was less that the jingasa was too good (I mean it was, but not to the degree that warrants the nerfing it got) and more that the other options were too lame? Why roll out a cool Automatic Bonus Progression system in Unchained if you aren't going to allow any items that are competitive replacements for the Big 6 to exist anyways? An item needs to be interesting enough in its function that it is equivalently worth a flat bonus progression bump, and the function needs to either be unique, or something that isn't more cost effectively achieved by a consumable.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Were 90% of people really using the jingasa instead of a ring of protection?

Actually - that wasn't the problem.

The problem was that they were using the jingasa AND the ring of protection.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
And the fact that James can say "I replaced the Jingasa (giving me +2) with a dusty rose (+1)." Kind of bares it out

You miss the point that I didn't yet have the dusty rose, but there is no chance the character wasn't going to own a Jingasa and a dusty rose. Now I am permanently +1 (or +2 with Fates Favored) lower AC.

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.

Actually no, if they matched the price to what it should be you would be talking 12,000 gp for Feather step. I'm confident a price increase of that amount would be causing just as much uproar. I think they decided to try to maintain a lower price, by modifying the item.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the problem of a character that invest most of his resources into having a high AC to actually achieve a high AC. And still find no reason to destroy the item the way they did it.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Were 90% of people really using the jingasa instead of a ring of protection?

Actually - that wasn't the problem.

The problem was that they were using the jingasa AND the ring of protection.

I have a suspicion that if we do some comprehensive breakdowns of what you can do with level appropriate wealth, there's going to be more than one way to find some bonuses that will meet or exceed the results of combining a jingasa and ring of protection. Where is the "break even" point that this actually becomes problematic? What is our spread above and below that point, when a character can only afford one or the other, or when the character can afford markedly more expensive gear? What's the actual impact if you parlay that wealth into, for example, light fortification and a blinding shield, which may prevent much more damage from hitting you? Sure, the jingasa is a head slot item which means it's more accessible in some ways than armor and shield enchants, but it all has to come from the same pool of wealth, and, other than perhaps at that "break even" point which represents the absolute best point in the game to have a jingasa, I very much doubt it's meaningfully changing the assumed parameters of the game regarding AC and to-hit values.

James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
And the fact that James can say "I replaced the Jingasa (giving me +2) with a dusty rose (+1)." Kind of bares it out

You miss the point that I didn't yet have the dusty rose, but there is no chance the character wasn't going to own a Jingasa and a dusty rose. Now I am permanently +1 (or +2 with Fates Favored) lower AC.

"No chance"? "Permanently"? There are Wealth By Level expectations in this game, and the jingasa does eventually cease to be the best head slot item. More than that, it's an immediate action to activate the critical negating ability, which means that there are going to be a lot of swift action reliant characters who may not want to take that risk. "Good news paladin Joe, you survived the critical hit! However, no swift action Lay on Hands this round.... Hope that hit was going to deal more damage than your LoH normally heals, huh?" Or maybe they're just a Vital Striking barbarian with an oversized bastard sword and a sincere desire to pick up a free rage power with the Helm of Fearsome Mien. Which is more valuable, a stacking +1 bonus to AC, or a move action intimidate that will apply a -2 to an opponent's attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks for essentially the average duration of an entire fight?

In fact, the jingasa was most effective in the hands of characters with few or no uses for their swift actions, which feeds back into why this is an upsetting errata for a lot of people. Classes without swift actions are, typically for ancillary reasons, amongst those most commonly regarded as underserved or underpowered, like the Fighter. This ties back into what I was talking about earlier, regarding how errata for the sake of balance will inevitably lead to threads like this. For some people, the jingasa was imbalanced. For others, it was a welcome portal to create an opportunity for their character to use action economy normally denied them in a meaningful way. Suddenly Karen's Fighter not only has a use for his immediate action, it actually makes him better at staying alive and defending the party! Woo-hoo! Karen is not going to see the errata to the jingasa as a fix, she's going to see it as a direct nerf to her character, making her worse at her job and taking away an option that many other characters already had (using a swift/immediate action). Sure they still get to use their immediate action... once, ever, until they buy a new one, which isn't doing much for anyone and very much puts the item in a position where man players are going to forego using it at all since they'd be terrified of wasting its single special use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The conspiracy theory is really strong here.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:


Hate the change, that's fine, but at least be honest about it. You don't like it. Changing one item doesn't "limit diversity" when everybody has the same item in the first place. Changing one item doesn't mean that there's "no good option". There's one less overpowered option. Saying that "you might as well get rid of the two slots" doesn't do anything to advance an argument that there's a lack of diversity now. In fact, the absolute contradictions in the arguments being made are amazing.

Not everybody has the same item, but some of them have add a good diversity besides the big 6, because they were worth spending gold, besides the big 6. Instead of cutting the items out, we would like to see more viable options.

If the problem is "every build has this item", why is this item so good in the first place? When you analyse, you'll notice that apart from the item, there is not a plenty of good options for that slot.

Like I said earlier, if you cut out the niche exotic builds, most characters aren't going to use something in their head slot, because they'll need to save gold for the big six.

MisterSlanky wrote:


You may like that, and that's fine, but to expand it to the point that "everything sucks now" isn't doing anything to move your argument forward.

Well, that's a nice way to put words I didn't say into my mouth. I didn't say "every other item suck" i said "apart from some builds, there's nothing worth spending gold for head slot" and now I will complete the sentence: "Because we'll be needing the big six, more now than before"

All head slot items sucks DOES NOT EQUALS there's almost no good options for the head magic slot

MisterSlanky wrote:


How about alternatives? Point out how much it WOULD have cost. Once you see how outrageous that is, try working with the system and propose a reasonable change. Instead of just saying "waaah, I hate things now" figure out why, really figure out why, and then propose the "right solution". Not in terms of sweeping "you shouldn't have" but rather in terms of what would have been realistic. Otherwise that's all this is, complaining.

A good price would be something between 10~15k for the Jingasa.

And I'm not the first one to suggest a price.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
The conspiracy theory is really strong here.

Not sure if that was directed at me, but I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, I'm saying that everything about the way errata is currently implemented is going to engender feelings like "Paizo hates martials" or "PFS is ruining my game". Errata for the sake of balance, when combined with a policy of incremental design, is inevitably going to target mathematically simple mechanics, and those mechanics, generally, are going to be the ones that are favored by martial classes or are viewed as martially oriented mechanics. Most caster oriented mechanics that are broken tend to be broken in narrative effect, which can't be addressed by incremental design, or they get fixed right along with everything else and go largely unnoticed because there's still hundreds of other viable options.

Everything about why Paizo does their errata makes sense, as does the fact that it frequently results in threads like this. Design decisions made for reasons A and B naturally lead to community reaction C and/or D.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Ssalarn wrote:

There are Wealth By Level expectations in this game, and the jingasa does eventually cease to be the best head slot item.

Suddenly Karen's Fighter not only has a use for his immediate action

There is no way I could ever recommend replacing the +1 luck AC that item provided for any other head slot item. Because AC is king, nothing else matters until you are max AC (which is essentially reached under 25,000 gp.) You can later upgrade +2 to +3 and so on for your armor and shield.

What I find strange, is I don't recall on all my characters having ever used the 1/day of Jingasa's I've owned. I guess it's all the "save it for an emergency" but never reaching the emergency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:


Because AC is king, nothing else matters until you are max AC

I'm going to guess you've played in quite a few games that don't involve saving throws.

AC is important, but not the MOST important. I'd say Saves, then attack (attack bonus for martials, save DCs for casters), then AC. Followed by HP/DR, and then everything else.

Because if you fail most saves, you can't contribute. If your combat ability isn't high enough, you can't contribute. If your AC is relatively low...you're inconvenienced. After a round or two, you may not be able to contribute, but better than being knocked out round 1.


Well, at least every single person of more than moderate means in every campaign world will no longer be wearing iron conical caps at all times, in the loo, at the royal ball, etc. Perhaps floppy hats will be the next fashion to sweep the continents! They go so well with nightgowns! Oh, I mean, 1 headband, 1 pair of gloves, 2 rings, 1 necklace, 1 vest, 1 suit of armor, 1 cape...

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Sundakan wrote:

I'm going to guess you've played in quite a few games that don't involve saving throws.

Because if you fail most saves, you can't contribute. If your combat ability isn't high enough, you can't contribute. If your AC is relatively low...you're inconvenienced.

I've played in about 150 PFS scenarios, taking 3 characters from level 1 to 12. I've also played outside PFS two adventure paths to level 17. Outside that in 3.5 I've played several more adventure paths or "GM Custom" from level 1 to 20.

I've played and won several PVP competitions and I play or GM two PVP competitions (one at Gencon and one at Dragoncon) every year.

  • AC is king, you need AC such that the average monster needs a 20 to hit you.
  • Saves are important, you need to make Fort and Will saves on average DC on a 5 or less.
  • Reflex isn't as important, if you have good HP.

So I'm not sure. Have I played in games requiring saves?

The point you are missing is that 25,000 gp gets you close to max AC and going up from there is less of a percentage of your wealth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of my casters just have good cons and escape plans. If you're not at the very front of the AC race there's very little point in trying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:


I've played in about 150 PFS scenarios, taking 3 characters from level 1 to 12. I've also played outside PFS two adventure paths to level 17. Outside that in 3.5 I've played several more adventure paths or "GM Custom" from level 1 to 20.

I've played and won several PVP competitions and I play or GM two PVP competitions (one at Gencon and one at Dragoncon) every year.

That's nice.

James Risner wrote:
  • AC is king, you need AC such that the average monster needs a 20 to hit you.
  • Saves are important, you need to make Fort and Will saves on average DC on a 5 or less.
  • Reflex isn't as important, if you have good HP.

So I'm not sure. Have I played in games requiring saves?

I'm not sure exactly what brings about point 1. Why do you "need" such an AC? Survival is all but assured even with significantly less than that, and it's relatively easy to achieve. It also doesn't protect you from 80% of what makes most monsters dangerous.

That's why it isn't "king". Even with such a high AC, you have glaring weak spots elsewhere that are more important to shore up.

James Risner wrote:

The point you are missing is that 25,000 gp gets you close to max AC and going up from there is less of a percentage of your wealth.

It's not a point I missed, it's a point I didn't find particularly relevant.


Sundakan wrote:
James Risner wrote:


Because AC is king, nothing else matters until you are max AC

I'm going to guess you've played in quite a few games that don't involve saving throws.

AC is important, but not the MOST important. I'd say Saves, then attack (attack bonus for martials, save DCs for casters), then AC. Followed by HP/DR, and then everything else.

Because if you fail most saves, you can't contribute. If your combat ability isn't high enough, you can't contribute. If your AC is relatively low...you're inconvenienced. After a round or two, you may not be able to contribute, but better than being knocked out round 1.

Miss chances are also pretty important. Mirror image and blur, you're not going to be hit a lot. That probably goes with AC but for casters.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

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

There are Wealth By Level expectations in this game, and the jingasa does eventually cease to be the best head slot item.

Suddenly Karen's Fighter not only has a use for his immediate action
There is no way I could ever recommend replacing the +1 luck AC that item provided for any other head slot item.

Do what you gotta do, but I'm of the opinion that the sheer essential-ness of the jingasa is being a bit overstated.

Quote:


Because AC is king, nothing else matters until you are max AC (which is essentially reached under 25,000 gp.)

Case in point. AC is far from king. I've played characters with absolute garbage AC and done really well. I've had a ninja, a magus, a barbarian, a swashbuckler, and I won't even get into the sorcerers and wizards, all of whom had garbage AC and relied on non-AC defenses to stay in fights, often more effectively than actually having a high AC would have done.

Quote:


What I find strange, is I don't recall on all my characters having ever used the 1/day of Jingasa's I've owned. I guess it's all the "save it for an emergency" but never reaching the emergency.

So why didn't the errata instead have the luck bonus kick in for X rounds after the critical negation was activated? That would have encouraged people to actually use the cool ability, and put a timer and condition on the AC bonus, bringing it in line with its price point without actually fundamentally changing the item's function or general appeal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I didn't really understand how the Jingasa was powerful.

Has anyone ever read Windy Escape? You basically deny everything as a level 1 Spell.
For the price of the Jingasa I could use it once per combat to avoid 1 attack (You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.), buy 5 Pears of Power and keep using them throughout the day.

I honestly can't see how it was considered broken. If the problem was the AC Bonus, it could've been eliminated, made not to work with Fate's Favored.

Yes, Windy Escape triggers before the attack, but they have similar outcomes. It's cheaper, and only accessible to caster.

I'm honestly starting to think that martials can't have nice things.


The jingasa was too cheap for what it did, which was a unique AC bonus type in a slot where everyone could use it. If you did not have a jingasa, you were doing it wrong. End result, most adventurers had 2 AC more than they would without the jingasa and Fate's Favoured. Whoop de doo.

I am glad it's gone. Good riddance. Without it, the game can get a little bit better. Now for errata to Fate's Favoured and Reactionary as well. The best way forward would be to also errata away as much of the big six as possible too, but that is a bit too entrenched to be feasible, I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

The jingasa was too cheap for what it did, which was a unique AC bonus type in a slot where everyone could use it. If you did not have a jingasa, you were doing it wrong. End result, most adventurers had 2 AC more than they would without the jingasa and Fate's Favoured. Whoop de doo.

I am glad it's gone. Good riddance. Without it, the game can get a little bit better. Now for errata to Fate's Favoured and Reactionary as well.

How is reactionary a problem? It's literally half a feat, Imp Initiative giving +4.

+2 AC ONLY ONLY if you invested a trait. That's not a problem on the item.
So, you could avoided a crit? Why is that op? I just don't get it.
You're basically protecting yourself against the randomness of the d20, which can outright kill you, for no particular reason, which is completely unfun.

If you're not familiar with the term unfun, please try playing Middle Earth Role Playing Game.
You walked intro a trap. DM rolls, you get stabbed in the heart, you're dead.

Death should be a consequence of poor decisions/strategies, not a random 20 on a Scythe used by an orc barbarian with 26 STR.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I am glad it's gone. Good riddance.

This here is the language that always gets me. A lot of those who are pro errata admit that the item is for all intents and purpose gone, it is a null item in this game.

What a lot of us would like would be for it to be toned down to a reasonable level, not left as blank space on a page. Why can't we hit a middle ground instead of effectively deleting the item?

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Reactionary is probably fine - it's literally half a feat. That's a much bigger case of "need better traits to compete". In addition, Reactionary is freely available in the traits document. I don't think any of my characters have it, but then, I have every source I need (and a much stronger thirst for class skills). Plus, everyone gets two automatic traits. If people could swap their two starting traits for a feat, you'd see a lot less Reactionary.

As for Windy Escape, given that it's only accessible to one of the boon races, I'm not sure it's 100% analagous. Plus, it's a spell, not a magic item. Feather step wasn't changed, after all.


Kalindlara wrote:
As for Windy Escape, given that it's only accessible to one of the boon races

In PFS. We aren't talking only about PFS are we?

"members of other races can learn to cast them with GM permission"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would have been cool if the Jingasa kept the once per day ability, lost the AC bonus and had the price knocked down super cheap like less than 1,000 gp.

Then it'd be a good GM tool to keep their BBEGs safe from a crit.

That would be good design. As it is, it's a bit too expensive to do anything with since an NPC can't afford it at all.

My two copper since Ssalarn seems to have a handle on this discussion. He's worded things way better. Also I wouldn't count on folks forgetting Crane Wing ever. It's probably the #1 turning point that made it super obvious Paizo relies on PFS for feedback.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Scavion wrote:

Jingasa kept the once per day ability ... had the price knocked down super cheap like less than 1,000 gp.

I wouldn't count on folks forgetting Crane Wing ever.

I find it difficult to imagine your first statement is serious?

I also find the Crane Wing example is all but forgotten. The only place it ever seems to come up in online and during errata discussions.


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

Jingasa kept the once per day ability ... had the price knocked down super cheap like less than 1,000 gp.

I wouldn't count on folks forgetting Crane Wing ever.

I find it difficult to imagine your first statement is serious?

I also find the Crane Wing example is all but forgotten. The only place it ever seems to come up in online and during errata discussions.

Right. Which means it hasn't been forgotten. If you meant it being forgotten because no one uses it...well Paizo does tend to go overboard on the nerf department.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Were 90% of people really using the jingasa instead of a ring of protection?

Actually - that wasn't the problem.

The problem was that they were using the jingasa AND the ring of protection.

I have a suspicion that if we do some comprehensive breakdowns of what you can do with level appropriate wealth, there's going to be more than one way to find some bonuses that will meet or exceed the results of combining a jingasa and ring of protection. Where is the "break even" point that this actually becomes problematic? What is our spread above and below that point, when a character can only afford one or the other, or when the character can afford markedly more expensive gear? What's the actual impact if you parlay that wealth into, for example, light fortification and a blinding shield, which may prevent much more damage from hitting you? Sure, the jingasa is a head slot item which means it's more accessible in some ways than armor and shield enchants, but it all has to come from the same pool of wealth, and, other than perhaps at that "break even" point which represents the absolute best point in the game to have a jingasa, I very much doubt it's meaningfully changing the assumed parameters of the game regarding AC and to-hit values.

James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
And the fact that James can say "I replaced the Jingasa (giving me +2) with a dusty rose (+1)." Kind of bares it out

You miss the point that I didn't yet have the dusty rose, but there is no chance the character wasn't going to own a Jingasa and a dusty rose. Now I am permanently +1 (or +2 with Fates Favored) lower AC.

"No chance"? "Permanently"? There are Wealth By Level expectations in this game, and the jingasa does eventually cease to be the best head slot item. More than that, it's an immediate action to activate the critical negating ability, which means that there are going to be a lot of swift action...

Great words of wisdom, Ssalarn, I have also the same feeling on Erratas in PF, I can feel a kind of lazyness in the Developement Team.

It is not how can I balance the item but the item is too strong, let's reduce it...Working to reduce the overpower of the spells in PF is too much work, time-consuming and need a complete rewrite for most of them...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Letric wrote:

Honestly, I didn't really understand how the Jingasa was powerful.

Paizo hammers martial nerfs into the ground, and barely touches caster things, surprise!

It is really sad that items you might buy because they seem cool are removed from the game. There are way too many garbage equipment options, but that is a problem with pathfinder as a whole


I am hugely in favour of errata. It shows Paizo are reflective in what they do, which is always a good thing and hopefully that they listen to feedback from their customers, which as a business if you dont do will eventually end up with you going down the toilet!

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Harleequin wrote:
I am hugely in favour of errata. It shows Paizo are reflective in what they do, which is always a good thing and hopefully that they listen to feedback from their customers, which as a business if you dont do will eventually end up with you going down the toilet!

People aren't complaining that Paizo does errata, they're complaining about the nature, direction, and result of the errata that is produced.

They're worried that the result of the errata that Paizo does do is such that, to them, Paizo doesn't take the time to reflect on their errata, and instead installs knee nerk overreactions that may be a worse contribution to the game than if they'd nothing. It's also a concern from some that the errata tends to feel like Paizo doesn't listen to their customers, since errata and reactions to it like this keep happening.

My position is something like "I get exactly why they do it, but it's also pretty apparent that threads like this will crop up as a resort of those policies", but I think it's important to recognize exactly what's being argued and why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
In fact, the jingasa was most effective in the hands of characters with few or no uses for their swift actions, which feeds back into why this is an upsetting errata for a lot of people. Classes without swift actions are, typically for ancillary reasons, amongst those most commonly regarded as underserved or underpowered, like the Fighter. This ties back into what I was talking about earlier, regarding how errata for the sake of balance will inevitably lead to threads like this. For some people, the jingasa was imbalanced. For others, it was a welcome portal to create an opportunity for their character to use action economy normally denied them in a meaningful way.

Spot on... Of course exacerbated by the fact that martials suffer from action economy subjugation to Full Round Action for offensive (or defensive e.g. Full Round Defense) "scaling with level". (most acutely felt by melee martials most likely to need to spend Move Actions before being able to attempt to do stuff)

...While casters have little use for Full Round Actions in the first place, or conversely, barely suffer from circumstantially being denied from spending Full Round Actions. (with Channeling Casters even being able to optimally leverage Move Actions for Quick Channels, while casting full power Standard Action Spells, and Quickened Spells).

Ideally, something like Unchained Stamina but designed around Immediate Actions would have been called for, and much more easy/justifiable to integrate it into Core game... in fact, extending it to cover Barbarian, Rogue, Cavalier, etc abilities. Existence of broad Immediate Action options in fact would have impacted Jingasa usability scenarios enough to have affected (re)balancing of that item. But instead, Unchained Stamina styled itself as a flat power-up agnostic of action economy limitations... A power-up obviously assessed as so alien of Core Game that it wasn't presented as generally available, but only as Fighter-only option (Fighter needing particular help, as lacking Weapon/Armor Master at the time).

Ssalarn wrote:

...I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, I'm saying that everything about the way errata is currently implemented is going to engender feelings like "Paizo hates martials" or "PFS is ruining my game". Errata for the sake of balance, when combined with a policy of incremental design, is inevitably going to target mathematically simple mechanics, and those mechanics, generally, are going to be the ones that are favored by martial classes or are viewed as martially oriented mechanics.

Everything about why Paizo does their errata makes sense, as does the fact that it frequently results in threads like this. Design decisions made for reasons A and B naturally lead to community reaction C and/or D.

Yup. /thread


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Letric wrote:

How is reactionary a problem? It's literally half a feat, Imp Initiative giving +4.

+2 AC ONLY ONLY if you invested a trait. That's not a problem on the item.
So, you could avoided a crit? Why is that op? I just don't get it.
You're basically protecting yourself against the randomness of the d20, which can outright kill you, for no particular reason, which is completely unfun.

If you're not familiar with the term unfun, please try playing Middle Earth Role Playing Game.
You walked intro a trap. DM rolls, you get stabbed in the heart, you're dead.

Death should be a consequence of poor decisions/strategies, not a random 20 on a Scythe used by an orc barbarian with 26 STR.

Reactionary is half a feat. You can also take both, giving you a +6 Init before Dex. That is huge. It means your entire party (all sadly bullied as children) can go before any monster gets a chance. They do not, usually, get traits, hmmm?

As for the unfun of playing MERP, I am sure I can't agree with that. There seems to be quite a few people who like it and find it fun. And whether death should come only as a consequence of bad planning and strategies, well, that is an opinion you are quite entitled to. Different people want different things from the game.

This reminds me of my early days of Magic the Gathering. In the original set was a spell called Channel. It let you get mana for life, letting a deckbuilder do some quick damage, then channel/fireball to kill the opponent, leaving them with 1 life. If this was countered, they conceded. In short, it was pitiful and stupid. WotC banned Channel, setting off a storm of rage about how they hurt the game and should have banned Fireball instead. See, there was also Disintegrate that had mostly the same effect the Channel morons could use, but Channel itself was irreplaceable to them. After this ban, the game was much better.

401 to 450 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