| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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)
They've spoken about keeping all printings available somewhere. As I recall there were two main objections to that:
The first was the potential for confusion if multiple copies of the same rule were to be found on an "official source".
The second (and I think this is the heart of the issue, personally) is that Paizo clearly think that the errata-d version of their books are superior and the way things are meant to be. There are many who don't share the design aesthetic that Paizo have adopted to one degree or another, but the fact is - Paizo think the erratad ACG is better than the pre-erratad ACG (and the same is true for all their reprinted hardcovers).
Broadly, the people who are unhappy with any given errata have a difference of opinion with the PDT as to what the design goals of Pathfinder should be. It seems to me that the position one takes hinges on whether you think the errata-d versions of Paizo's hardcovers are usually an improvement or not.
I think it would be odd for Paizo to think "This rule needs changing but we're going to continue to reprint the inferior rule and our new customers can just make do with the poorer version and continue to purchase an incorrect rule" unless that section of the market who are expressing their frustration here are a really significant segment. My belief is that the fact they aren't changing their policy is a sign that the dropoff in sales from people like graystone and his gaming group is not so significant to affect the profitability substantially. As graystone says - if that section grows large enough, Paizo will notice and I'm sure they'll then change their practise.
That's all pure conjecture from very little evidence, of course.
@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.
I had issue with prerequisites rather than feat itself. It would make more sense if it had "no spellcasting" prerequisite rather than all those "domain, mystery or whatever". In the original wording, the most broken was on the oracle, secondary was cleric, while inquisitor or warpriest where probably fine due to Cha being a dump stat for them. And opening the feat to fighter and rogues would boost their pitiful magical defenses.
Incidentally, my GM allowed me a version with half Cha bonus on saves on my oracle(with I'm guessing original prerequisites, since I fulfill them we didn't discuss those and nobody else in the group was interested). And I'm still the guy with probably second to last save bonuses in my group.
On the OP, count me as an additional supporter of discussion before errata, nerfing with a scalpel rather than a bat, and wanting to have multiple versions on reference sites. I hardly know any piece of errata that I found reasonable.
Steve: No offense, but I'm not sure what you're adding to this discussion at this point. Your general stance seems to be "Paizo knows what they're doing, there is no problem, if there was a real problem Paizo would change."
This discussion is a check on if there is a problem by engaging the message board community. While Paizo will ultimately be the decider on whether the complaints raised in this thread represent a significant market factor. While it's fair to chime in to say that you support the current errata system, many of your posts seem to feel that we should just shut up if we're unhappy instead of bringing our issues forward. That Paizo's own internal data collection and feedback system and the resulting policy is already the optimal solution for their business.
Just because Paizo has shown established history and policy doesn't mean we cannot make our opinions known and advocate change. As an example Paizo's policy was that they were not to be expected to do another hardcover AP compilation after RotRL AE, however now we are getting CotCT. So official statements and past activity are not indicators that Paizo will not change their mind. Maybe Paizo will not change as a result of the thread, maybe that is on their best interests. But let's leave that decision to them and if people want to make complaints in a polite and reasoned way, let them have their say without implying it's a futile effort because Paizo knows best. If Paizo truly does then they should be able to take and survive some small customer dissatisfaction if it's overall a better decision for them.
I dunno. Again, I don't want to be making offence or confrontation and maybe I'm reading too much into things but it was just a subtext or feeling I got. So, premptive apologies for getting things wrong and overstepping.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
speaking as an expert on the class [kinetecist]
I'm not. I'm also allowing it for this year's Battle Arena at GenCon.
But some others banned it, over fear of supernova for hundreds of dice rolled. Maybe they don't know how the class works? I don't know enough to call them out on their confusion.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
I don't think this will help. You will still have math inclined folk taking the belt and power attack. Or you will have someone who figures out how to combine the alternative with belt and power attack.
I wonder how much more profit, if any, Paizo makes on hardcover books compared to PDFs.
were available online and or in PDF form. Maybe Paizo would consider doing something like that.
Divine Protection was just fine.
you and I were opposing forces in the Weird Words ... agree was at least decent and usable rather than hopelessly over or under powered.
I'd wager they make more off PDF at $10 than Book at $50. The books cost a lot to make, they sell to distributors for about $21 (who sell to stores). So I'd say they only make $5 or $7 a book in printed form unless they sell it direct or on their website.
I think d20pfsrd could add the errata in easily as a side bar on the 10 or so items that are most commonly brought up.
Divine Protection (from a character optimizer perspective) was eqivalent to 2 levels of Paladin in every Cha build that allows you to maintain primary spellcaster levels without adding two "required" melee class levels to get Divine Grace. I started putting it in every build. I'd have used it this weekend if it worked as originally printed instead of adding two levels of Paladin to my bard. The winner of 2013 GenCon PvP won with 10 levels of Synthesist Summoner and 2 levels of Paladin just for Divine Grace.
Yea we were on opposites. The final errata was better than the first draft. But it was a huge time investment for SKR. Something I don't think was worth the time had he not have a personal (and from time stamps off work hours) interest in the question. I wouldn't count on a "hash it out in a forum thread" as an always beneficial tactic.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
have a difference of opinion with the PDT as to what the design goals of Pathfinder should be
That is absolutely true. They make the books "better" in their view. The entire point of the errata is to improve the product. The 20 or so posters on here that have voice concern over the Ultimate Equipment errata don't agree.
Bracers of Falcon's Aim standard action to activate for one minute per day is nowhere near worth 4k gold
This is an example of the "by the chart it costs X" if you ignore most of the wisdom in item creation. Items are priced by power level and an item that gives that spell is way out of power level for 4,000 gp. Something had to change, and I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of the item would have been 40,000 or more if they kept it identical in function. So 4,000 for an activated effect seems in line with item creation now.
It's hell if a lot more than 20!
