Paizo Errata Missed Opportunities


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

With the latest release of errata, this time for Ultimate Equipment, it seems like Paizo has lost sight from where they came and who has built Pathfinder to be the premier RPG game. Pathfinder was born, literally, from the ashes of D&D 3.5 as WoTC tried to burn all traces of it. Lead by the visionaries from the core staff at Paizo, Pathfinder was built by its fans. Based on the OGL and SRD, a beta copy, available as a free download, was sold to eager fans at GenCon 2008. Through open play testing, feedback from hundreds of dedicated fans, and a dialogue between developers and gamers, Pathfinder was honed, refined and delivered at GenCon 2009.

Over the years, through additional play testing, the gamers and developers have continued to expand the Pathfinder game. Through play testing, author open calls and the RPG Superstar contest, we the fans and gamers feel empowered and take part ownership to the Pathfinder game system. The writers and developers of Paizo guide us and refine our efforts as the system grows. It’s our game, and it’s been a good partnership, gamer and developer.

Through the past few releases of errata, it seems like Paizo has forgotten how Pathfinder was built. With no apparent gamer input, chunks of our game have experienced drastic changes. Where many would say sharp chisel and soft mallet, or a fine brush and a steady hand are needed to reshape some item, class or feat, it feels like Paizo has swung a dull axe. Often missing the mark, destroying instead of shaping its target.

These drastic changes hurt. They hurt PCs, they hurt the players who have invested so much time creating and playing the PCs. They hurt the community-Paizo relationship. They hurt even more because the community seems to have no say in the changes. The pain is slow to subside because the Paizo developers rarely reply directly to the questions and concerns raised by the players in response to the changes.

These are opportunities lost for Paizo to make better improvement/errata with gamer input. Opportunities lost to improve Paizo's relationship with it's community.

Paizo is a business. Run by daring, creative individuals. They must be profitable for our Pathfinder game to continue. But please don’t forget the partnership that has built Pathfinder over the past eight years.

We ask that Paizo asks the gaming community for feedback on possible changes before they are committed to print. Once the commitment has been made to ink and paper, future changes are much more difficult.

I look forward to the continual growth of Pathfinder, led by Paizo, built by the community, over the next eight years.

Just My Thoughts


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Swiftbrook wrote:

With the latest release of errata, this time for Ultimate Equipment, it seems like Paizo has lost sight from where they came and who has built Pathfinder to be the premier RPG game. Pathfinder was born, literally, from the ashes of D&D 3.5 as WoTC tried to burn all traces of it. Lead by the visionaries from the core staff at Paizo, Pathfinder was built by its fans. Based on the OGL and SRD, a beta copy, available as a free download, was sold to eager fans at GenCon 2008. Through open play testing, feedback from hundreds of dedicated fans, and a dialogue between developers and gamers, Pathfinder was honed, refined and delivered at GenCon 2009.

Over the years, through additional play testing, the gamers and developers have continued to expand the Pathfinder game. Through play testing, author open calls and the RPG Superstar contest, we the fans and gamers feel empowered and take part ownership to the Pathfinder game system. The writers and developers of Paizo guide us and refine our efforts as the system grows. It’s our game, and it’s been a good partnership, gamer and developer.

Through the past few releases of errata, it seems like Paizo has forgotten how Pathfinder was built. With no apparent gamer input, chunks of our game have experienced drastic changes. Where many would say sharp chisel and soft mallet, or a fine brush and a steady hand are needed to reshape some item, class or feat, it feels like Paizo has swung a dull axe. Often missing the mark, destroying instead of shaping its target.

These drastic changes hurt. They hurt PCs, they hurt the players who have invested so much time creating and playing the PCs. They hurt the community-Paizo relationship. They hurt even more because the community seems to have no say in the changes. The pain is slow to subside because the Paizo developers rarely reply directly to the questions and concerns raised by the players in response to the changes.

These are opportunities lost for Paizo to make better improvement/errata with...

Asking for feedback here without an actual playtest would be a terrible idea. Too many people here think their way is the correct way to play and someone's underpowered is someone's overpowered. A playtest cant be done for every possible errata due to the employees being so busy.

PS: I don't care much for the newest errata either.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

With a few exceptions I haven't been happy with all the errata lately as well.

But with all this talk about items being under priced how about we talk about ones that are over priced. I am looking at you ring of shooting stars. I do miss the days when magic items felt magical and people were not so obsessed with how much they cost, number values, if it's level appropriate and if they are "balanced".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think some customer feedback would have made some of the errata better. But maybe they don't have time as someone else mentioned.

Some of the other items that were nerfed aren't even worth using at their current price. That is the exact opposite of a "must have" item. Honestly if Paizo produced books where items aren't even viable to use compared to others (under any circumstances), people wouldn't bother buying.

Home games can ignore errata, PFS can't.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Home games can ignore errata, PFS can't.

That's actually the part of all this that I can't wrap my mind around... why Paizo feels the need to intrude on home games to address perceived problems in PFS, especially when there is already a special subset of rules specifically for dealing with PFS already in place. Its maddening, its frustrating and its the exact opposite of the reason I got into Pathfinder in the first place.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are not intruding on home games.
They are issuing changes to how the rules work.
The home games are welcome to Rule 0 it any way they like.

Liberty's Edge

Y'know, it probably wouldn't hurt to preview the potential errata a month prior and get feedback. Get some advice on what's on target, what they missed, and what is going too far.
They don't need to take *all* the advice, but wider feedback is good. Open the communication, and give us a preview rather than springing it on us.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Printing lead times don't allow that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not to mention given recent posts about fairly innocuous things have erupted into as viewpoints became entrenched and forum battles were fought over the shifting battle lines and a veritable 'No Person's Land' erupted where 'Common Sense' would have once held sway...

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Y'know, it probably wouldn't hurt to preview the potential errata a month prior and get feedback.

It would hurt:

  • In labor cost.
  • By giving the impression the changes may not be done if people complain enough - this almost happened to Sound Striker proposed errata.
  • By implying they are incapable of making something good upon errata re-visiting.

In short, there is no upside to an errata preview. Except a chance for people to go all ballistic in hopes to prevent their toys from being changed.

Full Disclosure: I used Jingasa, Featherstep, and Cap of Freethinker on characters. I'll miss them. I get why they had to leave, they were simply broken.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Printing lead times don't allow that.

This is actually a big part of the problem. The "lead time" for this errata was three and a half years. So if this really is the case, then they crunched themselves in and it likely affected the quality of the product. As in, "Oh crap! We only have 4 copies left in the warehouse! Better get that errata knocked out this afternoon so we can get the new order in. Where's my list of PFS complaints for UE?"

Not that I think that is literally what happened, but that is what results in the logical extension of your statement. And I do think there is SOME truth in it.


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


In short, there is no upside to an errata preview.

The upside is being the same company and maintaining the same product that we all fell in love with 8 years ago.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
James Risner wrote:


In short, there is no upside to an errata preview.
The upside is being the same company and maintaining the same product that we all fell in love with 8 years ago.

I don't know about you, but the fact they do errata more often and now weekly binding FAQ, staff occasionally post rules clarifications on the forums, and their "FAQ is RAW" policy is why I love Paizo.

It helps that it is better written than 3.5 was also.

So the errata is part of why I still spend money.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their responses. Please be civil to each other, thank you!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Y'know, it probably wouldn't hurt to preview the potential errata a month prior and get feedback.

It would hurt:

  • In labor cost.
  • By giving the impression the changes may not be done if people complain enough - this almost happened to Sound Striker proposed errata.
  • By implying they are incapable of making something good upon errata re-visiting.

In short, there is no upside to an errata preview. Except a chance for people to go all ballistic in hopes to prevent their toys from being changed.

Full Disclosure: I used Jingasa, Featherstep, and Cap of Freethinker on characters. I'll miss them. I get why they had to leave, they were simply broken.

The labour cost is minor: reading a thread. They'd likely do so anyway after the fact to gauge the response to the errata, so doing it before means reducing the number of responses from surprises people.

If you're referring to the lead time in printing, they likely knew months ago the number of copies of the book remaining. It'd be easy to throw the proposed errata when copies are getting low and just let that thread sit there until it's time finally make the changes. Like they did with the proposed Stealth errata: posting it with the comment it would be changed, but no firm timetable.

The second "hurt" - that people would think if they complain hard enough things will change - doesn't really hurt Paizo. People do that anyway. Both to errata and in general.

The third point... The thing is, they've revised an errata before, when they corrected Crane Wing a second time. So they have pulled back a little in response to feedback, having gone to far in "correcting" an item.
And from the feedback, yeah, it *does* look like they're not always capable of good errata since they reduced some options to trash. Which just means trap options in the game. There has to be a way to balance some of those items to keep them good and useful without being as useful as they were...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Y'know, it probably wouldn't hurt to preview the potential errata a month prior and get feedback.

It would hurt:

  • In labor cost.
  • By giving the impression the changes may not be done if people complain enough - this almost happened to Sound Striker proposed errata.
  • By implying they are incapable of making something good upon errata re-visiting.

In short, there is no upside to an errata preview. Except a chance for people to go all ballistic in hopes to prevent their toys from being changed.

Full Disclosure: I used Jingasa, Featherstep, and Cap of Freethinker on characters. I'll miss them. I get why they had to leave, they were simply broken.

The labour cost is minor: reading a thread.

I think it would be much more than that, unless it's tokenistic consultation. All of the design team have to read it, then they all have to debate it amongst themselves (again, probably) and the overall effect is likely to be minimal, I suspect. As you say, they do amend their adjustments based on feedback - but they don't often 're-errata' things.

It seems to me that often the people who are upset about various changes tend to be upset about many changes (obviously a generalisation, not a univeral rule). That would suggest to me that they fundamentally want the game to be different than the design team do - not just that they broadly agree with the PDT's philosophy on game design, but are occasionally unhappy with an over-reach or under-correction.

If you want to challenge and hopefully change the PDT's underlying philosophy and assumptions then I think a specific errata preview is the wrong forum.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Moving this thread from the Paizo general forum because it isn't actually about Paizo (the ACG errata process works entirely differently from the RPG process).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh. I really feel like you over-dramatize things when you say that the game has changed drastically due to erratas and that Paizo swings dull axes and misses the targets.

It also seems like a lot of people underestimate the cost of labour (very common misstake). Everything anyone does means that there's something they're not doing with that time instead. And what ever they do, they get paid for it, which means that it must be something worth paying them for (And salaries are very expensive. Compare it to a computer, which is a one-time cost: one month of someone sitting infront of it is still more expensive than the actuall computer itself).
I'm quite sure that the design team (and probably everyone else at Paizo) already has a full schedule, simply adding "read more threads" would have to remove something else from it. Everything gets pushed back.

In my experience, listening to a community means to also contridict the community. Everyone wants different things (though most seem to think that everyone shares their opinion, while the only thing they actually agree on is that something should change).
And I'm really happy that the designers don't listen to everyone else, they're designers, not community managers. I want them to do a good job, that's what I pay for, not for them to bend over because there's a vocal population within the entire community with an (or many) opinion(s).

(Please note, this does not only apply to this community, it's actually more applicable on many others)


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

They are not intruding on home games.

They are issuing changes to how the rules work.
The home games are welcome to Rule 0 it any way they like.

If that's the case, then why exactly couldn't home games have 'Rule 0'ed it in the first place without the sweeping and unnecessary errata? If people are free to house rule issues as they see fit, then what's the point of the endless parade of errata, revisions and balance changes in the first place?

Clarification of poor wording is fine - and appreciated (though less poor wording in the first place would be more appreciated) - but changing classes and items that tens of thousands of players have been enjoying as-is and invalidating the books purchased by gamers the world over is happening WAY too much.


James Risner wrote:
In short, there is no upside to an errata preview. Except a chance for people to go all ballistic in hopes to prevent their toys from being changed.

I'm still trying to figure out the upside to errata, period.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:


In my experience, listening to a community means to also contridict the community. Everyone wants different things (though most seem to think that everyone shares their opinion, while the only thing they actually agree on is that something should change).
And I'm really happy that the designers don't listen to everyone else, they're designers, not community managers. I want them to do a good job, that's what I pay for, not for them to bend over because there's a vocal population within the entire community with an (or many) opinion(s).

(Please note, this does not only apply to this community, it's actually more applicable on many others)

They seem to listen to part of the community though: PFS. I think people would just like them to take the rest of us into consideration once in a while.

Rub-Eta wrote:
Eh. I really feel like you over-dramatize things when you say that the game has changed drastically due to erratas and that Paizo swings dull axes and misses the targets.

"the game has changed drastically due to erratas and that Paizo swings dull axes and misses the targets" actually seems pretty spot on IMO. They seem to favor the hammer over the scalpel and often 'fix' things an issue with a Band-Aid 'fix' of a rule/item that isn't the actual cause of the problem because the actual cause isn't in a book that's up for reprint...

See crane wing and MoMS for example.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

James Risner wrote:
Full Disclosure: I used Jingasa, Featherstep, and Cap of Freethinker on characters. I'll miss them. I get why they had to leave, they were simply broken.

You know...

I keep reading this, and wondering 'why are they broken?'

The Jingassa, figure it's 2500 for the +1 luck bonus, per the book. So how much more is 1/day crit negation worth? 1500? then it's right in line. 3000? then the thing should cost 7000. It's not broken, it's underpriced.

(And I disagree with Mark's 'breaking the game' comments elsewhere. Luck bonuses have existed since the game's inception.)

As to featherstep boots. Again, maybe under valued, but compared to boots of speed? Striding and Springing? It added a value to the item. Made the boot slot more... diverse.

Cap I don't have an opinion on. Until the Jingassa of the Nerfed Soldier came out, I mostly looked to circlets and the Jingasa for characters who worried about it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
James Risner wrote:
In short, there is no upside to an errata preview. Except a chance for people to go all ballistic in hopes to prevent their toys from being changed.
I'm still trying to figure out the upside to errata, period.

There are lots:

  • Most want clean understandable rules that have as few as possible alternative interpretation.
  • They bring their product closer to the desired design.
  • Some (like me) prefer them to update their product unlike WotC rarely updating.

In my view, there isn't much of a downside. Well other than a few people posting on the forums after each errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo rarely updates only when they sell all of a printing, so it can update quite rarely too. Case and Point, Ultimate Equipment came out four years ago.


Matthew Morris wrote:
(And I disagree with Mark's 'breaking the game' comments elsewhere. Luck bonuses have existed since the game's inception.

Yep, I thought the same thing. Ultimate magic lists luck to AC and Core lists the price for it and they have been there since the books came out so it's NOT a new thing. And if luck bonuses are so awful bad, why did they just make a rogue archetype in ultimate intrigue with luck bonuses to saves?

Lets be honest, it's the trait that's an isue but that's not up for errata right now so they HAD to nerf something... :P

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Luck to AC isn't a problem if the GM is fine with it. It's an issue she published items can be assembled to reach AC 36 on 24,000 go by level 7 on an effective combatant (melee fighter with greater sunder.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't want to see Paizo influenced by those who whine the most. The errata are generally appropriate, meaning adjustments according to the already existing guidelines. Nobody is making anybody do anything, and Paizo runs the on-line-play. I mean it's a game where your players can craft things on their own and home-brew any way you want.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I don't think we have to worry too much about those that whine influencing. That is usually the best way in business, work, and social situations to not get your way. “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Luck to AC isn't a problem if the GM is fine with it. It's an issue she published items can be assembled to reach AC 36 on 24,000 go by level 7 on an effective combatant (melee fighter with greater sunder.)

All of that AC was from items? Or are you adding 2 because of a trait? If so it's not REALLY just an issue with the Jingasa is it? Are they going to get rid of Defender of the Society, dodge, Shield Focus, and any number of other things that can give AC or is it JUST a war against luck because it gets a trait boost of +1?

James Risner wrote:
“You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

It'd be nice if we saw more "honey" in the errata but I'm finding mostly "vinegar".


James Risner wrote:
I don't think we have to worry too much about those that whine influencing. That is usually the best way in business, work, and social situations to not get your way. “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

True.

Except in politics, it appears ( just saying, not taking sides).


I don't like/agree with every Errata or FAQ, but I think Paizo has been doing a much better job at it over the years. Please keep up the good work... If anything please aim high to address Errata of more difficult issues, even if it would ALSO require a FAQ to adequately expand. Also, looking forward to Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:

All of that AC was from items?

It'd be nice if we saw more "honey" in the errata but I'm finding mostly "vinegar".

I found more honey, and pretty much everyone of the local players I know (20+ people) did also. Apparently, online, some people are not happy.

I played Roland from 1 to 11 in 2014 in PFS and got hard hit by the errata (Maneuver Master last year, Jingasa, Cap of Freethinker, Featherstep Boots).

He was a Sunder and Grapple Master (retained feats at 7th level to have Greater Sunder and Greater Grapple with an Adamantine Temple Sword 1d8+13 with +21 CMB Sunders with happens to be "don't roll a 1 or 2" for the average monster. Needed a 5 for the average grapple. If you have weapons or armor, I break them quickly. If you don't, I grapple you.

His AC at level 7 was:
10 base
12 +2 full plate (5650 gp) with Defender of the Society
6 +2 darkwood tower shield (4630)
1 +1 ring (2000)
2 Jingasa with Fate's Favored (5000)
1 amulet of natural (2000)
1 dusty rose in wayfinder (5250 +2 CMB)
1 DEX 13
--
AC 34 spending 22,050 (Master of Trade Qadira Faction)

I upgraded to +4 Tower Shield at level 8. This character played all 3 Bonekeep with 3 differ groups of players clearing every room (max gold.) The least amount of remaining time was BK2 with 2 minutes.

AC 36 at 8th level means, I don't get hit hardly every. When I had AC 32 at 5th to 6th level, I did get hit more.

The combined offense of Sunder (the melee folks with weapon/armor) and Grapple (the monster, beasts, and spellcasters) meant I could handle any combat situation well. Also tended to make the GM focus on me.

Saves were (iirc at 7th) +17 Fort, +11 Ref and +5 Will. Yes Will was a problem, hence the Cap of the Free Thinker. Hit points low at 77.

Fun character, very effective. Now it can't be built the same. AC would be 32 at 7th and 32 I got hit a LOT more (at level 5-6 range). A whole lot more.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

James, so are you saying we should ban dodge, the insight ioun stone, defender of the society, etc because they all stack?

Singling out the Jingasa's luck bonus as 'needing nerfed' seems a bit much. We'd better go after Divine Favor too then.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

parsimony wrote:
I really don't want to see Paizo influenced by those who whine

Oh, I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point? See accusing people pf 'whining' makes anything you might say afterwards not worth bothering about.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Matthew Morris wrote:

James, so are you saying we should ban dodge, the insight ioun stone, defender of the society, etc because they all stack?

Singling out the Jingasa's luck bonus as 'needing nerfed' seems a bit much. We'd better go after Divine Favor too then.

The old 3.5 system including Dodge feat, Dusty Rose, and other stuff. So none of that could be changed now. Sacred cows and all.

Defender of the Society should have been "when not wearing heavy or medium armor" as opposed to the opposite. As it stands the disparity between heavy armor characters and light armor characters is too much.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
The old 3.5 system including Dodge feat, Dusty Rose, and other stuff. So none of that could be changed now. Sacred cows and all.

Blackguard, Hierophant, and Archmage disprove that.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Blackguard, Hierophant, and Archmage disprove that.

You are going to have to elaborate how making a change when they transitioned (like removing the sacred cow of Cleric with Full Plate) translates into something that can be changed now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

James you keep mentioning that the errata was a positive thing. How so? From what I understand this errata did very little to make bad items viable and did a lot to make good items into bad items.

Is your definition of positive "more reason to just funnel gold into your big six"?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
You are going to have to elaborate how making a change when they transitioned (like removing the sacred cow of Cleric with Full Plate) translates into something that can be changed now.

You're going to have to elaborate on what the difference is between changing Dodge now versus changing Dodge then. (Which, by the way, it WAS changed then.)


James Risner wrote:
I found more honey, and pretty much everyone of the local players I know (20+ people) did also. Apparently, online, some people are not happy.

James... I didn't see any honey in your post, so I'm not sure what your point was on that and I note +2 AC from traits in your AC. Why is the Luck bonus the issue and not the two traits that boosted AC?

As to sacred cows, they've altered dodge when they made it and they have reprinted core several times so they had plenty of chances to 'fix' it and it's JUST as problematic as the Jingassa or even more so as it doesn't require GP to get and stacks with other dodge bonuses. If they managed to find 'room' in the books/pdfs to fit in the Jingassa nerf, I'm sure they could manage to return dodge back to the 3.5 version. [and that would FULLY preserve the sacred cow-ness]


James Risner wrote:

As it stands the disparity between heavy armor characters and light armor characters is too much.

What do you mean exactly? Heavy armour characters tend to be melee and so need the AC.


Additionally at higher levels the light armor users catch up since a Mithril chain shirt allows +6 from dex (10 total) while full plate has only +1 from dex (10 total).

Sure you can get a mithril set of full plate, but at the level you can afford that you'd already have other armor you invested in that would need selling.

Generally the characters I've seen with the most impressive ACs are either Hunters or Ranger/Slayers using the combat style with shield+sword 2WF.

1 to 50 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Errata Missed Opportunities All Messageboards