I’m not going to say that I feel all of Paizo’s recent nerfs were well executed. In fact, I think the Scarred Witch Doctor nerf could have been done much better. I also think it is nice for home DMs to have official support from Paizo on nerfs though. If the DMs don’t think those nerfs are needed then the house rule street runs both ways. For instance, I have one DM who decided to enforce the Cap of the Free Thinker nerf but not the Scarred Witch Doctor nerf.
If a DM house ruled Cap of the Free Thinker “out of the blue” I’d guess that at least some players might give him or her a bunch of grief about it. Sure, the DM should be able to overpower the players with ironfisted authority, but players can easily tire of tyranny, so sometimes it is easier to say, “Paizo made me do it!”
The Jingasa probably could have been handled better. I wonder if Paizo sharing their FAQ and errata planning with the community would help or hurt the process and the community’s reaction to its results. I've certainly seen them incorporate some stuff from message board discussions into their previous changes, but whether they literally took our suggestions or it was just a case of "great minds think alike" would be tough for me to say.
If folks wanted to have a more open and frank discussion with Paizo about what the rules "should be" I think there would need to be a greater spirit of compromise though. That would include thinking about how you might change a game element you think works just fine to make it more palatable to people who don't.
I think I posted before that maybe the Jingasa could have provided Light Fortification rather than 1/day crit immunity. Maybe that's a terrible idea or you just hate it, but it seems to me like the sort of thing Paizo could work with better than being told that they shouldn't have responded to whatever complaints generated the nerf, that they're really bad at their jobs, etc.
Alternatives instead of anger and compromise instead of demands seems like it could work better to me. Of course I've been using post-errata Crane Wing for around 10 levels now in a home game and think it works great, so maybe I've got a different perspective than most folks. On the other hand, I think the triggering mechanism for Crane Riposte is pretty clumsy and would rather see it just be usable once per round when you're using Crane Wing and get missed (triggering on the first miss would be less versatile/powerful but more streamlined than constantly checking with the DM to verify exactly what AC each attack hit). I'm not going to stop being a mediocre customer over it though.
Wow - that was a long post - this is a long thread though...
The things is some of these changes are not things I've seen any complaint over. I've not seen complaints for scarred witch, jingasa, or SLA counting as spellcasting. So it's hard to compromise when I'm not seeing anyone on one of the sides.
I think any mature player is going to respond decently enough to "I think it's too overpowered and don't enjoy balancing the game for it" as an acceptable reason not to have access to an option or have it have a higher cost. Banning core classes for power reasons is common enough in this hobby, let alone supplement material. Immature players are probably going to be difficult to please in regards to any step of GM authority.
And again, if the issue is enough to, say, deserve a modification or ban in PFS, GM's would have to go fall back on. "Paizo thinks this item is too tricky to work in their own organized play, so I don't feel it's unfair to ban it at my table. Look at another option please."
Having these balances fixes happen in PFS fix or blog post instead of as errata preserves the original item for those groups that don't care, while giving a resource for those that do.
My own game, party fighter recently invested in cap of free thinker after book three of shattered star. Quite frankly I'm happy enough. That AP is filled with mind whammy stuff that can seriously effect a player's enjoyment of the game if they're constant confused or mind controlled. The hat might be a bit powerful but it allowed a player to make a deliberate investment in responce to a theme in enemies and weaknesses and everyone has been happy enough since. So I'm happy I have a first printing and access to the text, otherwise I'd be very annoyed at not having access to the version we enjoy on SRD.
@Chess Pwn - Yeah, the lack of previous discussion on stuff like the Jingasa is one reason why I was thinking that increased communication between Paizo and players about brewing changes might be nice. I mean, I can imagine that some DMs (especially in PFS) might have raised a stink like, "Every PC has Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, and it stops almost all of my crits!", but since many of us didn't know this was a controversial item we didn't think to discuss how it could be improved much.
We were also probably quite surprised to see that particular nerf, and I'd guess that increases the shock value, especially since people might have bought the item, taken the feat, etc and now have a more vested interest in it without having known that the game element they're "investing" in might be likely to change (which you can sometimes tell just by the fact it seems "too good" though there will almost always be numerous people on the message boards telling you that actually it is just fine - literally no matter what it is - no save instant death? that's just fine since you can only kill 1 thing per round!)
@Carter Lockhart - We mostly disagree, but I can see the appeal of your idea to preserve the original if sometimes controversial pre-errata rules. The idea of having a separate stream of super official PFS or "Revised" rules seems to have merit, but I'd guess it might create a bit of a tricky situation for Paizo if they really feel that the new rules are better and would like to print them in their new books.
Would enhancing the Errata PDF documents so that the full text of the old rules is in there and/or adding a "Variant Old Rules" or "Errata Unchained" section to the PRD make the situation better for you? I mean, I'm not a Paizo employee, and in fact they might think it is pretty darned presumptuous of me to make suggestions on how they could improve customer satisfaction, but I was trying to think of what might make folks feel better besides no more nerfs (I'm a nerf addict, can't get enough nerfs - somewhat kidding there...)
If the DMs don’t think those nerfs are needed then the house rule street runs both ways.
It's not that easy though when the original gets sanitized from online sources and PDF's. So the street isn't quite two way when you say 'We're using version 1 crane wing of this rule and version 2 of the SLA rule and ect' when the other versions aren't found when they looking up the rule. Most DM's I know don't keep a house-rule book like PFS' to hand out to players to spell out the changes to the game.
Naive Wolf Joshua: Bashing the layout guy? No, that's not what you quoted. It seems to me a comment that the book was shoved out so quickly that even simple errors didn't get caught, like Adventure Path. So I don't think anyone is blaming the guy that wasn't given enough time to do his job right: ie, bashing.
That is correct. I can't help but believe the mistake would've been caught and corrected if Paizo didn't rush things. And if they didn't rush things, they'd have more time to figure out how something might be unusable/underpowered/overpowered and change it before anyone has a chance to grow attached to it(because it's not out yet due to no time constraint ruining things).
@graystone - Based on your last post it sounds like if Paizo kept the original rules text available in PDF and on the PRD that would satisfy some of your concerns. To me it seems like it might allow for something kind of like asking the DM if a PC boosting option from Unchained is available (in my limited experience most say Yes to Background Skills and No to Combat Stamina). I don't think that sounds bad overall.
If the DMs don’t think those nerfs are needed then the house rule street runs both ways.It's not that easy though when the original gets sanitized from online sources and PDF's. So the street isn't quite two way when you say 'We're using version 1 crane wing of this rule and version 2 of the SLA rule and ect' when the other versions aren't found when they looking up the rule. Most DM's I know don't keep a house-rule book like PFS' to hand out to players to spell out the changes to the game.
Naive Wolf Joshua: Bashing the layout guy? No, that's not what you quoted. It seems to me a comment that the book was shoved out so quickly that even simple errors didn't get caught, like Adventure Path. So I don't think anyone is blaming the guy that wasn't given enough time to do his job right: ie, bashing.
It was a critique involving the cover layout. I don't necessary agree with calling it "bashing", criticism is a better word choice, but it was what was referred to. I can at least see how others could see it, as someone did, as "bashing". Please don't take it as me thinking it was though.
@graystone - Based on your last post it sounds like if Paizo kept the original rules text available in PDF and on the PRD that would satisfy some of your concerns. To me it seems like it might allow for something kind of like asking the DM if a PC boosting option from Unchained is available (in my limited experience most say Yes to Background Skills and No to Combat Stamina). I don't think that sounds bad overall.
It would make not using the errata/FAQ's viable for the average player. For instance, a simple hyperlink could note a rule has been errata'd in the past and clicking on it could bring up a list of the changes. It doesn't seem too disruptive and/or complicated and I think it would make people more accepting of brutal errata when they know they can easily point people to where the original is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would certainly make it a lot easier for people to go along with "Just don't use it" some people think is oh so easy.
That is correct. I can't help but believe the mistake would've been caught and corrected if Paizo didn't rush things. And if they didn't rush things, they'd have more time to figure out how something might be unusable/underpowered/overpowered and change it before anyone has a chance to grow attached to it(because it's not out yet due to no time constraint ruining things).
One trouble with slowing down the release of new product is that it would probably involve firing people. In a perfect world, I'm sure the developers would love two months per AP instalment rather than the one month they get or six months for a hardcover rather than the three months they get*. Paizo have to balance their release schedule with a whole host of other, business-related decisions (and no doubt some decisions they make with one line negatively impact on decisions they subsequently have to make with another).
There's a subset of posters on the forums who don't like Paizo's errata policy and would prefer a different approach as spelled out above. I would bet London to a brick that, in a perfect world, Paizo staff would love to cater to that crowd.
However, Paizo aren't publishing in a perfect world and also don't have the luxury that we do of holding one viewpoint as more important than another. They have to balance the question of what the majority want (whatever that is) with what different minority groups want (often mutually inconsistent, I suspect). They have the added complication of needing to determine what the company's resources can support and to manage the allocation of those resources.
Even when I disagree with an approach they take, I find it hard to believe they're objectively doing it wrong when they have consistently sold thousands and thousands of books and many, many gamers swear by the company and by the game. It is one of the best selling roleplaying games in the world and it's hard to hold the position that the people responsible for that success over the last ten plus years don't know what they're doing or are somehow missing an 'obvious' solution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes: The issue with doing it this way is that I'm seeing more and more people saying that they aren't going to be part of those "sold thousands and thousands of books" when the physical books become unusable as a reference after a new set of errata comes out that could have been fixed before you bought it. If they drive enough people away from the books, that "viewpoint" is going to hit them in the bottom line.
I know I'm haven't bought a hard cover in ages because of it and I've got every other D&D book publish from blackmoor to 3.5 on my shelves. I even wait on PDF's now and look at the content online first because I can't trust them anymore. I didn't used to feel that way but after the continued scorched earth errata/FAQ methods and the 'toss it out the door and we'll fix it later publishing' I can't help it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes: The issue with doing it this way is that I'm seeing more and more people saying that they aren't going to be part of those "sold thousands and thousands of books" when the physical books become unusable as a reference after a new set of errata comes out that could have been fixed before you bought it. If they drive enough people away from the books, that "viewpoint" is going to hit them in the bottom line.
I know I'm haven't bought a hard cover in ages because of it and I've got every other D&D book publish from blackmoor to 3.5 on my shelves. I even wait on PDF's now and look at the content online first because I can't trust them anymore. I didn't used to feel that way but after the continued scorched earth errata/FAQ methods and the 'toss it out the door and we'll fix it later publishing' I can't help it.
There's clearly a group of people who are not buying books who otherwise would. However, I personally don't think it's any more now than it used to be a couple of years after PF's release. There were people predicting the end of Pathfinder for this and similar reasons back then and I think we as individuals run the risk of over-valuing our own experiences as "typical" when, in fact, we're all pretty idiosyncratic.
I certainly agree that if there are enough who respond in this way then Paizo will notice it commercially. My thesis is that they would then adapt their processes - and consequently that the fact they haven't is evidence that the "I'm not buying any more Paizo books" people are actually quite a small section of the market.
Even on the messageboards, I tend to see the same people criticising the errata process and favoriting one another's posts each time it comes up. It seems to me to be about a dozen really prolific posters who feel strongly about it and probably fifty or so who share the view but who don't post much.
Obviously, I don't have any insight into what proportion of the fanbase are upset, what proportion are well served by the current state-of-play and what proportion are indifferent. I just think it's worth bearing in mind that Paizo have much, much more information than we do about these things - especially when it comes to suggestions like "take longer" which is the main point I was responding to. Taking longer probably means firing some people and who would want to do that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@graystone - Based on your last post it sounds like if Paizo kept the original rules text available in PDF and on the PRD that would satisfy some of your concerns. To me it seems like it might allow for something kind of like asking the DM if a PC boosting option from Unchained is available (in my limited experience most say Yes to Background Skills and No to Combat Stamina). I don't think that sounds bad overall.
You know, having the errata history available on PRD would solve a lot of my concerns. I'd still be somewhat against the practice as it seems kinda a bait and switch (buy the book with the cool version only to have us officially replace it with lamer version on second printing) but preserving the initial functional versions of options in errata documents or PRD allows an approach for people to use and availably access the version they initially wanted to play with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes: For me, I was talking about the forums AND real life when I was saying I'm seeing more and more people not buying books. I can't go to our local game store and expect to find a hardcover on the shelf anymore. After the ACG debacle, most everyone here went to PDF's and the store only pick up a 2 or 3 copies when a new book comes out for the shelf. Sadly, I have a better chance finding a hardcover at BAM as they seem to carry 1 copy of everything no matter how long it sits on the shelf.
Now I'll agree I have no idea how the errata/FAQ are affecting them as a whole, but it's having a clear affect where I am. No one is pulling out books for a game anymore but are pulling out a mobile device and loading up a PDF or using an online site. I find this a sad turn of events as I sometimes LIKE looking through physical books but how can I buy one when I know it's not a question IF the book will get a radical reprint but WHEN will it get one. :P
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wrong logo appearing on the first printing of the Advanced Class Guide had absolutely nothing to do with speed or deadlines. Every product we produce has a step where, right before the book goes to the printer, multiple people verify that it has the right logos, bar codes, product numbers, price, "printed in" country, OGL statement, trademark notifications, and more, and at that time, the cover had the correct logo.
But several weeks after we send files to the printer, we receive a digital proof of the press-ready files. At this point in the process, we're just doing a technical review—we shouldn't be changing content at this point. We're just making sure the fonts rendered correctly, image and text layers rendered correctly, the spine design is properly aligned with where the cover will be folded, color and contrast have been maintained, and so on. In this case, we needed to correct a technical issue on the cover that was unrelated to the logo, but when we uploaded the final corrected file, the file's link to the RPG logo had accidentally been relinked to the AP logo. This is the exact moment that our baby bird leaves the nest; once we reach this point in the process, nobody at Paizo sees the product again until we receive our firstbound samples from the printer, by which time the entire print run is already on its way to us.
It wasn't a lack of care, or a lack of time. It was a simple mistake, made during the last possible moment, during a time when this sort of thing wouldn't intentionally change, after all of the people responsible for checking these things had already done the job they were supposed to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes: For me, I was talking about the forums AND real life when I was saying I'm seeing more and more people not buying books. I can't go to our local game store and expect to find a hardcover on the shelf anymore. After the ACG debacle, most everyone here went to PDF's and the store only pick up a 2 or 3 copies when a new book comes out for the shelf. Sadly, I have a better chance finding a hardcover at BAM as they seem to carry 1 copy of everything no matter how long it sits on the shelf.
Now I'll agree I have no idea how the errata/FAQ are affecting them as a whole, but it's having a clear affect where I am. No one is pulling out books for a game anymore but are pulling out a mobile device and loading up a PDF or using an online site. I find this a sad turn of events as I sometimes LIKE looking through physical books but how can I buy one when I know it's not a question IF the book will get a radical reprint but WHEN will it get one. :P
Absolutely. I appreciate your position - my point about the limited number of posters commenting on it wasn't to suggest that the problem is only confined to messageboard regulars. I was merely pointing out that it is a subset of the market as a whole and that determining what is a significant number of customers is pretty much impossible from where we sit. I didn't mean to imply at all that you were only basing it on messageboard posts. Furthermore, I agree that it could well be a significant issue (I won't go so far as to agree that it IS a significant issue).
What makes me more sanguine about it is that the people with the best information (Paizo) are comfortable with the general thrust of their FAQ/errata procedure. I'm sure there are things they regret, things they'd like to improve and things they are planning on changing - however they don't seem (at least from my perspective) to be worried that their books are no longer selling or that there is a significant segment of their market deterred from buying physical books due to the FAQratta process. I can't really frame a defense of the process (it's unimportant to me personally as I just buy a new hardcover whenever they are reprinted so my books are always up to date) but I think there's likely to be pros and cons to pretty much anything. Some of the arguments are probably things you and I would never even have thought of.
The only thing I think I really disagree with you about is a subjective impression as to how big a problem it is now compared to previous years. I don't see it as growing problem - in my view there have always been people opposed to Paizo's reprinting strategy and changing their buying patterns accordingly. There are also people like me (who basically give Paizo incentive to continue with their current strategy) and newcomers who are oblivious to the issue. I wonder how much of the change you notice in your gaming community is due to a maturation of tastes and circumstance of that cohort and a shift in their position within the marketplace, rather than a real change in the market overall.
Out of my 30+ regular and irregular PF-playing people, I am one of the three persons who are aware of errata/FAQ/PDT's existence and one of two who actually are following it on a regular basis.
My views on anecdotalness go both ways, of course. But out of interest, what would you estimate the purchase patterns of those thirty are? Do the twenty seven buy many PF books?
I'm the only member of my gaming circle to know anything about Paizo, but I also spend 99% of our collective gaming budget so the rest of them don't really count (from a narrow, mercantile/commercial perspective).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vic Wertz: Well that explained the very smallest issue to be had with the first printing, I don't think it impacts the greater points being made. No one was serious that the AP on the cover was a real issue: if that was the only issue I'd happily have the book on my shelf today.
Steve Geddes: On our local gaming community, I'm in a town with several colleges and there is always a fair turnover in people every year so I don't see a change being "due to a maturation of tastes and circumstance". The owner of the game shop asked customers why they weren't buying books and the reason the majority of people gave was issues with errors and errata. I myself heard several say 'why buy a book when they just change everything around and make useless after a year.'
As to "(Paizo) are comfortable with the general thrust of their FAQ/errata procedure", well there can be several reasons for that. I just know that what they are comfortable with is off-putting to gamers I know and isn't doing them any favors getting more book sales here. If that happens in enough areas they'll have to address it no matter how "comfortable" with the status quo.
The wrong logo appearing on the first printing of the Advanced Class Guide had absolutely nothing to do with speed or deadlines. Every product we produce has a step where, right before the book goes to the printer, multiple people verify that it has the right logos, bar codes, product numbers, price, "printed in" country, OGL statement, trademark notifications, and more, and at that time, the cover had the correct logo.
But several weeks after we send files to the printer, we receive a digital proof of the press-ready files. At this point in the process, we're just doing a technical review—we shouldn't be changing content at this point. We're just making sure the fonts rendered correctly, image and text layers rendered correctly, the spine design is properly aligned with where the cover will be folded, color and contrast have been maintained, and so on. In this case, we needed to correct a technical issue on the cover that was unrelated to the logo, but when we uploaded the final corrected file, the file's link to the RPG logo had accidentally been relinked to the AP logo. This is the exact moment that our baby bird leaves the nest; once we reach this point in the process, nobody at Paizo sees the product again until we receive our firstbound samples from the printer, by which time the entire print run is already on its way to us.
It wasn't a lack of care, or a lack of time. It was a simple mistake, made during the last possible moment, during a time when this sort of thing wouldn't intentionally change, after all of the people responsible for checking these things had already done the job they were supposed to do.
I think "ACG debacle" refers more to the actual content. The entire design of the Swashbuckler class, awful things like the original Divine Protection feat, the many (many) editing errors in the text, etc. The cover mistake was just a cosmetic symptom of the fundamental rot within. It felt like you outsourced the book to the random know-nothing freelancers writing for Catalyst on the Shadowrun line the last time I checked in on that dumpster fire.
But, hey, Occult Adventures and Ultimate Intrigue were great books, so congrats on turning it around. You definitely won some of us back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Occult Adventures and Ultimate Intrigue were great books
Overall I like them too but I can only say that as of this moment. Who knows how I'll feel after they too get their 'scorched earth/nuke from space' errata. Going by past experience, whatever I enjoy in them will get nerfed hard if I wait long enough.
Occult Adventures and Ultimate Intrigue were great booksOverall I like them too but I can only say that as of this moment. Who knows how I'll feel after they too get their 'scorched earth/nuke from space' errata. Going by past experience, whatever I enjoy in them will get nerfed hard if I wait long enough.
Yeah, I like a lot of stuff about both those books.
But I'm afraid post errata we'll have composite blasts become talents you have to pay for, or the Useful vigilante talents will give smaller benefits.
Maybe the decent feats will get turned into prone shooters.
I don't trust Paizo errata.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
How did you even come to that conclusion, I can't disagree with you in argument until I understand that.
When people point out the "Adventure Path" title should have been Pathfinder RPG" instead, they are complaining about a graphics layout person. Not the people writing the rules.
I've seen any complaint over. I've not seen complaints for scarred witch, jingasa, or SLA counting as spellcasting. So it's hard to compromise when I'm not seeing anyone on one of the sides.
I run, play, or assist on two yearly PVP events and several more one off events.
Scarred Witch Doctor is very strong, banned in a couple when it was Con. SLA allowed for some pretty good early entry classes (especially Evangelist).
the lack of previous discussion on stuff like the Jingasa is one reason why I was thinking that increased communication between Paizo and players about brewing changes might be nice.
Sound Striker was an example. They talked to us (you and I) in a thread before changing it. It was hashed out. Most of the players didn't want a change made at all. I played one at a GenCon PVP defeating all other teams in one round of Weird Words. A couple months later errata landed.
The problem I witnessed, is opening up the line of communication is lost effort. 1000+ posts where most people were begging for "no change" doesn't help.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I can't go to our local game store and expect to find a hardcover on the shelf anymore
As someone that owns a local game store, I don't see any change in buying habits at or around errata times. I also don't seem to have any trouble selling online all the older printings (clearly listed as "1st edition" etc) when a newer edition comes out. We still buy 10's of copies of everything and more for hardcovers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is correct. I can't help but believe the mistake would've been caught and corrected if Paizo didn't rush things. And if they didn't rush things, they'd have more time to figure out how something might be unusable/underpowered/overpowered and change it before anyone has a chance to grow attached to it(because it's not out yet due to no time constraint ruining things).One trouble with slowing down the release of new product is that it would probably involve firing people. In a perfect world, I'm sure the developers would love two months per AP instalment rather than the one month they get or six months for a hardcover rather than the three months they get*. Paizo have to balance their release schedule with a whole host of other, business-related decisions (and no doubt some decisions they make with one line negatively impact on decisions they subsequently have to make with another).
Not in response to you here Steve, but in this chain of examination: When deciding how the RPG line books are looking after the ACG, if that's what we want to do, we need to specifically look at the RPG line books that we put out after the ACG, starting with Unchained, rather than looking at pre-ACG books. I'm a numbers guy, and I like to use them to see how things are going, so I'll share some that I was looking at today that amazed me in a good way.
While they aren't the only source that we use to find potential errata, the unofficial errata gathering threads on the forums here are full of awesome posters who consistently find errors in proportion to the total errata (some errors, issues, and so on flagged in those threads aren't actually errors or we don't change, some posts are talking back and forth between people looking for errors, and other errors the threads miss but someone else catches). So the length of one of those threads is an excellent predictor of the length of the errata doc (now that I've discussed this, we may see a Hawthorne effect that confounds this data if a lot of people read this post). By June 13th of last year, ACG had over 700 posts in its errata thread (703 precisely). I decided to check Occult Adventures thinking it would have maybe 1/2 or 1/3 that much because I remembered it was low, and I was astonished and pleased to see it has only 64 posts (less than 1/10 as many!).
So while I knew I've been passionate about Occult Adventures (if you saw me last Gencon and talked to me, you knew that already) and I felt like we had really done a great job in putting out a book with few errata (which especially excited me because it was my first big summer book after joining Paizo), I now have some great preliminary data to back that up. There's right now startlingly few errata doc changes that the PDT would need to discuss for Occult Adventures, and many of them are already part of that quick series of FAQs we made right after the book came out, so you guys know what those are already (and if you want to talk about one of those OA FAQs from just after release last year, hit me up at some point [not in this thread though, it's cluttered already] and I'll put your notes in for our discussion whenever it hits errata).
I've seen any complaint over. I've not seen complaints for scarred witch, jingasa, or SLA counting as spellcasting. So it's hard to compromise when I'm not seeing anyone on one of the sides.I run, play, or assist on two yearly PVP events and several more one off events.
Scarred Witch Doctor is very strong, banned in a couple when it was Con. SLA allowed for some pretty good early entry classes (especially Evangelist).
Was everyone complaining about it's existence? Was anyone complaining about it's existence? Were these classes breaking the game? Did they destroy the need of a party to go with them? Or were they nice interesting options?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Or were they nice interesting options?
Scarred Witch Doctor was nice, interesting, and immensely broken. At a Cheese Grinder event at Dragoncon, someone played one for 34 hours until being killed. If you don't know cheesegrinder, it's a 11th level PvE event where every encounter is
Two Examples:
6x Gorgon's doing their 60 ft area effect DC 21 Fortitude save or "die"
12x Fiendish Dire Lion's pouncing
4x Half-Dragon Cyclops doing an automatic critical
Things like this demonstrate a feature is too good.
Or were they nice interesting options?Scarred Witch Doctor was nice, interesting, and immensely broken. At a Cheese Grinder event at Dragoncon, someone played one for 34 hours until being killed. If you don't know cheesegrinder, it's a 11th level PvE event where every encounter is ** spoiler omitted **
And I'm just curious what of the scarred witch doctor let it break that over a normal witch?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
And I'm just curious what of the scarred witch doctor let it break that over a normal witch?
PvP/PvE highlights SAD better than MAD. The normal Witch needs more than one ability high. The Scared Witch only needs Con and everything else can be 10 or less.
It's the same reason Kinetecist is banned in most of the upcoming PvP/PvE tournaments. Why Ban? If you don't, you get a tournament with 12 players and 9 of them are Kinetecists.
|
And I'm just curious what of the scarred witch doctor let it break that over a normal witch?PvP/PvE highlights SAD better than MAD. The normal Witch needs more than one ability high. The Scared Witch only needs Con and everything else can be 10 or less.
It's the same reason Kinetecist is banned in most of the upcoming PvP/PvE tournaments. Why Ban? If you don't, you get a tournament with 12 players and 9 of them are Kinetecists.
...really? I mean seriously? I can't believe this, and this is speaking as an expert on the class. Maybe that many show up, but I'm unwilling to believe they do well, and I'm assuming they're all telekineticist if that's the case.
Also Insain Dragoon, Vic came in here to talk about that issue specifically, there's no need to get so heated about this when talking with them.
Dont get me wrong... I thought ACG was and still is a bit of a mess. If you think about it, the whole notion of hybrid class design is bound to have many problems in terms of balance.
But... errata is surely a good thing... Paizo is listening and Paizo is acting....customer service 101
However, I do think some sort of official sticky thread would be useful for people to put forward concerns/suggestions regarding tweaks.
It would have to be made clear that it wasnt a thread for arguments/debates between posters or between posters and staff, but one where suggestions/concerns were put forward and then Paizo staff could view the thread to see which had merit and which didnt. Simple!
After all, with content expanding at a rate faster than Paizo employees being hired, you cant expect the staff to pick up on everything! Use your customers to help... they're willing to work for free - thus a WIN-WIN scenario.
Thoughts?
Do they not cast any spells? you need 16 int at level 11 to cast your spells
PvP/PvE highlights SAD better than MAD. The normal Witch needs more than one ability high. The Scared Witch only needs Con and everything else can be 10 or less.
Pre-errata SWD used Con for casting spells
Do they not cast any spells? you need 16 int at level 11 to cast your spells
The pre-errata version of the scarred witch doctor actually uses Constitution instead of Intelligence to determine her spell casting abilities. The post-errata version changed that back to Intelligence, but treats the witch's Intelligence score as 2 higher when determining her casting ability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's clearly a group of people who are not buying books who otherwise would. However, I personally don't think it's any more now than it used to be a couple of years after PF's release. There were people predicting the end of Pathfinder for this and similar reasons back then and I think we as individuals run the risk of over-valuing our own experiences as "typical" when, in fact, we're all pretty idiosyncratic.I certainly agree that if there are enough who respond in this way then Paizo will notice it commercially. My thesis is that they would then adapt their processes - and consequently that the fact they haven't is evidence that the "I'm not buying any more Paizo books" people are actually quite a small section of the market.
Even on the messageboards, I tend to see the same people criticising the errata process and favoriting one another's posts each time it comes up. It seems to me to be about a dozen really prolific posters who feel strongly about it and probably fifty or so who share the view but who don't post much.
Obviously, I don't have any insight into what proportion of the fanbase are upset, what proportion are well served by the...
This sort of lines up with my own experiences. My circle of RPG friends is very very tiny compared to many, but most don't pay attention to this site or even realize errata exists.
I generally speaking notice that certain threads, including errata, caster-martial related issues, playtest critiques, etc tend to be dominated by the same core group of posters who all seem to share very similar interests and playstyles. So certain established viewpoints on the forum come across as being established viewpoints of the player base in general, which I don't think is true. And of course those people will probably in real life be playing with people whose playstyle gells with their own, so problems they see will be problems that others they play with will have.
I suspect most of people who are most vocal about errata and practically everything else people take issue with is less about Paizo production of books and business practices than it is simply a difference of playstyle, between the style and philosophy of games the devs and crew want and the style of game and game design those folks want. Even a drastic alteration in how errata was carried out would not at all make some (most?) of those people more happy. If you think a hardcover seriously only has 4 or 5 things worthwhile in it, why would a change in errata production suddenly make you purchase books if the underlying game philosophy stayed the same.
I meant the pre errata version guys, you still needed int to cast your spells I think, con just determined the DC
No:
Constitution Dependent: A scarred witch doctor uses Constitution instead of Intelligence when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, her spell save DCs, number of spells known at 1st level, and any effects of her hexes normally determined by her Intelligence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with errata is not the nerfing of items. Some of them are always nerfed way to hard, and that is not my big gripe.
My big gripe is that there are tons of garbage things that are ignored. These are features that are almost never used. Why not change these items and make a solid use for them.
I hate a book full of features with only a handful of severely niche features.
Also I hate how 99% of melee fighters have power attack and a belt of strength. The reason you have these so common is because they are so good and the competition to them are so pathetic.
Why is there not a feat that can not be used with power attack that does XYZ, and can be taken at first level?
I got annoyed how everyone bought a jingasa, and you fixed that. Awesome, great! Now make your crap features viable.
Echoing Gorbacz MMCJawa, I too am one of the few people I play with who checks the message boards. I'll add that most of the "non-boards" people I know tend to agree with most of Paizo's rulings or at least accept them without much fuss.
I wonder how much more profit, if any, Paizo makes on hardcover books compared to PDFs. I personally buy mostly PDFs since they’re both cheaper and easier for me to deal with. Anyhow, it sounds like at least some people would like it if pre-errata rules were available online and or in PDF form. Maybe Paizo would consider doing something like that. If not maybe somebody else could handle it as a 3rd party (assuming that the fact the original rules were OGL makes it OK to keep posting them somewhere)
@Slithery D - When you referred to “awful things like the original Divine Protection feat” it made me think about how some people felt the original version of Divine Protection was just fine. It seems like one side of that debate was bound to be unhappy whether Paizo acted or not.
@James Risner - As I recall, you and I were opposing forces in the Weird Words debate. Eventually we rejoiced together at getting a version of the power which most people could agree was at least decent and usable rather than hopelessly over or under powered.