Apologies for the intrusion (as I know this thread began as a simple inquiry as to why Improved Snap Shot was nerfed) and for my personal ignorance on the matter that everyone now is discussing (Paizo and their handling of "nerfing" game mechanics), but I am rather lost.
Unlike video games, such as World of Warcraft, where you are bound by the errata, the nerfing, and are forced to play within the new rule structure, TTRPGs are much more flexible and free. If you feel that Improved Snap Shot should be 10' as opposed to 5' then make it so for your gaming group. Can you not keep the rules you like and throw away the rules you don't like at your table to maximize your gaming experience?
I promise I'm not being coy, but rather am perplexed as to why so many people seem frustrated with Paizo's errata when you don't have to play with their new rulings at your table.
Is it directly related to PFS, which would be bound by errata? Is it also related to DMs who run everything as written with no exceptions?
Thanks for any feedback! :)
Cheers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well, yeah, its not just PFS. some people play with GMs who assume paizo always knows best. so despite not participating in organized play, errata can have far reaching effects.
Emmm... Last errata to Ultimate Combat was in 2015... I don't get it...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you feel that Improved Snap Shot should be 10' as opposed to 5' then make it so for your gaming group. Can you not keep the rules you like and throw away the rules you don't like at your table to maximize your gaming experience?
There's a few reasons not to.
Not everyone is the dm. The dm may listen to you when you explain why it should be 10 feet.. or not. In fact if it matters for a build at all you're probably a player.
Secondly is that as an avid optimizer I insist on doing so within the rules. If the rules change, so will my character.
Lastly, the dirty word, PFS. A number of people on the boards play there and the DM is bound by the rules
@Mrakvampire
August 2015 is when the errata'd improved snap shot.Thanks for that. I only noticed it a couple of weeks ago.
@Mrakvampire
August 2015 is when the errata'd improved snap shot.Thanks for that. I only noticed it a couple of weeks ago.
It is REALLY wierd, I swear that I've checked Improved Snap Shot 2 or 3 months ago in my recently downloaded and updated UC, and it granted +10 feet.
It's really confusing...| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mrakvampire
August 2015 is when the errata'd improved snap shot.Thanks for that. I only noticed it a couple of weeks ago.It is REALLY wierd, I swear that I've checked Improved Snap Shot 2 or 3 months ago in my recently downloaded and updated UC, and it granted +10 feet.
It's really confusing...
I don't know which is worse with this endless parade of errata - everybody having rule books that contradict one another, or the certain knowledge that if you decide to play an AP, by the time you're done, pretty much every character at the table will have become illegal.
@cuatroespada and @BigNorseWorlf:
Thank you for the information! I hadn't considered those elements. As for power-gaming, I can understand where you're coming from as well. One of my players loves to maximize the rules to his tactical advantage, so I see where errata could be a detriment to playing as effectively as possible within the given system.
Thanks again to you both.
Cheers!
Can you not keep the rules you like and throw away the rules you don't like at your table to maximize your gaming experience?
Well, it depends on whether you have a physical copy or a PDF of the original work. Without it, then you generally CAN'T due to reprintings and the online resources updating with errata releases.
@ Air0r:
Oh, now I feel terribly ignorant. Everyone's providing such obvious advice haha. I never even thought of the lack of, or differing, published materials (my players have become so lazy and bloated upon the flesh of d20pfsrd.com D:).
Cheers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies for the intrusion (as I know this thread began as a simple inquiry as to why Improved Snap Shot was nerfed) and for my personal ignorance on the matter that everyone now is discussing (Paizo and their handling of "nerfing" game mechanics), but I am rather lost.
Unlike video games, such as World of Warcraft, where you are bound by the errata, the nerfing, and are forced to play within the new rule structure, TTRPGs are much more flexible and free. If you feel that Improved Snap Shot should be 10' as opposed to 5' then make it so for your gaming group. Can you not keep the rules you like and throw away the rules you don't like at your table to maximize your gaming experience?
I promise I'm not being coy, but rather am perplexed as to why so many people seem frustrated with Paizo's errata when you don't have to play with their new rulings at your table.
Is it directly related to PFS, which would be bound by errata? Is it also related to DMs who run everything as written with no exceptions?
Thanks for any feedback! :)
Cheers!
That's one of the things that I find so confusing and frustrating about all these nerfs that trickle down. There is only one situation where players and GM's are bound to the rules as written - PFS - and that version of the game already has a specially set aside list of rules changes just for it, there is already an established mechanism to deal with any perceived rules imbalances... and for GM's in home games who want to run the most balanced campaign they can, all they have to do is look to PFS.
Meanwhile, in most home games, if the general perception is that people are free to use or ignore whatever errata they wish, THEN WHY HAVE IT? Why have print copies of rulebooks that contradict themselves? Why have characters' core mechanics suddenly and inexplicably go 'poof' when its not causing any issues in the game they themselves are playing? If GM's are perfectly capable of using whatever rules they deem appropriate, then aren't they just as capable of doing that without the inevitable controversy of Paizo's heavy-handed mid-game gear shifts?
Re-write and re-balance the game all you want, re-balance it into the ground for all I care, but use the existing mechanism for that, PFS, and leave the game that people play in their homes alone. Its as simple as that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's one of the things that I find so confusing and frustrating about all these nerfs that trickle down. There is only one situation where players and GM's are bound to the rules as written - PFS - and that version of the game already has a specially set aside list of rules changes just for it, there is already an established mechanism to deal with any perceived rules imbalances... and for GM's in home games who want to run the most balanced campaign they can, all they have to do is look to PFS.
Meanwhile, in most home games, if the general perception is that people are free to use or ignore whatever errata they wish, THEN WHY HAVE IT? Why have print copies of rulebooks that contradict themselves? Why have characters' core mechanics suddenly and inexplicably go 'poof' when its not causing any issues in the game they themselves are playing? If GM's are perfectly capable of using whatever rules they deem appropriate, then aren't they just as capable of doing that without the inevitable controversy of Paizo's heavy-handed mid-game gear shifts?
Re-write and re-balance the game all you want, re-balance it into the ground for all I care, but use the existing mechanism for that, PFS, and leave the game that people play in their homes alone. Its as simple as that.
It is a lot easier socially to let GMs be permissive rather than restrictive. To that end, Pathfinder is often rebalanced to the "conservative" or "nerfed" power level. GMs that enjoy high-power play with their players get to hand out goodies, and those more comfortable at lower power levels don't have to ban things.
So, yes. Home game GMs are perfectly capable of using whatever rules they wish. Paizo makes it easier for them to play the game they want (sometimes to the detriment of a few players).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Errata needs a playtest period so it can go from "It's used a lot? Let's kill it!" to "It's used a lot, let's make it reasonable." Guess which one will be better received?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, DMs rely on paizo to come up with new things and to keep things balanced. If professional game designers are saying that something is out of whack, many dms will listen to them.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Errata needs a playtest period so it can go from "It's used a lot? Let's kill it!" to "It's used a lot, let's make it reasonable." Guess which one will be better received?
My theory - which, based on these threads, appears to be unique to me - is that the Pathfinder Design Team doesn't believe they're making these options useless.
Do you truly believe that "It's used a lot? Let's kill it!" is the mindset in which they write errata? That they seek out popular options with the express intention of making those options unusable?
When you make implications like that about their work, is it any surprise that they might be less interested in your other opinions?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you truly believe that "It's used a lot? Let's kill it!" is the mindset in which they write errata? That they seek out popular options with the express intention of making those options unusable?
Sometimes when the pain killers set in and i wonder about these things this is what it looks like to me
Geek 1: Well we could just change it to a deflection bonus
Geek 2: How about we make the crit negation a 1 time effect?
High geek: As it is written, this disagreement shall be settled by racing the velociraptors while wearing the steak suit of Gaga. The one who lives longer shall have their idea implemented....
Geeks 1 and 2 together: ""or we could just do both!""
That's exactly what they're doing though, Kalindlara. Knee jerk reactions are killing cool parts of the game. Not broken parts, like Simulicrum, but stuff like the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier(now broken and far, far less thematic) or Quick Runner's Shirts(nerf to martials but not spellcaster, big surprise). Do options that don't show up a lot on the boards get nerfed as much? When was the last time something like Skill Focus or Wings of Flying got made into wasted wordcount?
It's even worse for that which drives errata the most -Pathfinder Society- because those players have to either buy new copies of the book or use PDFs. There are no other choices.
Even if it's something class specific it will still be killed off/overpriced/FAQ-to-be-something-it-isn't. Most recently Wild armor and shield proved this. I haven't played a Druid that can Wild Shape since 3.5 Rise of the Runelords, and now I likely won't. Glass Cannon isn't a good idea for melee.
If the fan base make implications about their erratas and messed up FAQs, maybe they should wonder why instead of ignoring their fan base again and again and again. Maybe they shouldn't release errata only when it makes them more money. But hey, what do I know, right? I'm one person you've already made up your mind about.