This, alternate classes not being archetypes, invulnerable Barb Increased DR, gauntlets/cestus, and probably a handful of other issues are things they perhaps had a different RAI when made but the current RAI is what we're told now and are told that it was always this way.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Like vehemently insisting that nothing was changed even though something was clearly changed. What does it matter? Everyone knows how it works now, so why this weird insistence that history be rewritten?
It's more nuanced than that. All those that think "nothing has changed" always interpreted the rule the way it is written in OA. Those that didn't see OA as a change. So for you, you need to understand that not everyone thought the rules worked how you did.
If you consider this as a possible fact, their insistence of "there is no change" is the truth, and their clarification is simply that.
This, alternate classes not being archetypes, invulnerable Barb Increased DR, gauntlets/cestus, and probably a handful of other issues are things they perhaps had a different RAI when made but the current RAI is what we're told now and are told that it was always this way.
Can you link to some of the places where the Design Team claimed that obvious changes weren't really changes? I've seen guests make such claims, but I don't recall the Design Team doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still agree that this is an example of PF2.0-creep. :)
I'm not sure the world can handle a Captain Yesterday 2.0...
Why this weird tendency of claiming you meant the exact opposite of what you wrote all along?
Because you insist on a strict legalistic interpretation of raw that gets you a power increase no matter how many times the authors tell you that they're not writing a law manual.
Yes, they have added a few things. Alternate classes not being archetypes, visual effects to spells to keep psycic casters from becoming unstoppable. But it's not a massive standard operating procedure like what you're making it to be.
Why this weird tendency of claiming you meant the exact opposite of what you wrote all along?Because you insist on a strict legalistic interpretation of raw that gets you a power increase no matter how many times the authors tell you that they're not writing a law manual.
Yes, they have added a few things. Alternate classes not being archetypes, visual effects to spells to keep psycic casters from becoming unstoppable. But it's not a massive standard operating procedure like what you're making it to be.
Considering I wrote that, I'll assume you're addressing me. So I'll ask...since when do I do that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like vehemently insisting that nothing was changed even though something was clearly changed. What does it matter? Everyone knows how it works now, so why this weird insistence that history be rewritten?It's more nuanced than that. All those that think "nothing has changed" always interpreted the rule the way it is written in OA. Those that didn't see OA as a change. So for you, you need to understand that not everyone thought the rules worked how you did.
If you consider this as a possible fact, their insistence of "there is no change" is the truth, and their clarification is simply that.
So I do have to ask for the 2 years prior to John Compton's post when the exact text from the Advanced Race Guide specifically showed a boost to a class feature not gained till level 3 being taken 20 times why would you assume you couldn't do it?
See, if the design team issues a FAQ that agrees with your position, it's just confirming that it's been that way all along.
If the design team issues a FAQ that disagrees with your position, it's stealth errata.
Easy.
It's not quite so cut and dry. Take, for instance, the Compton post. It's years old and got a "we've known this for years" response. It's never been like that outside of PFS. So, no, it's not "always been" like this for the game overall and objectively so.
See, if the design team issues a FAQ that agrees with your position, it's just confirming that it's been that way all along.
If the design team issues a FAQ that disagrees with your position, it's stealth errata.
Easy.
I can definitely see that being the case some of the time. Other times though, it really is stealth errata.
I suppose it ultimately comes down to the intent of the Pathfinder Design Team; did they really intend for it to work a certain way from the beginning, or are they just claiming that?
If you make enough such claims, whether they are true or not, it begins to looks suspicious.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So I do have to ask for the 2 years prior to John Compton's post when the exact text from the Advanced Race Guide specifically showed a boost to a class feature not gained till level 3 being taken 20 times why would you assume you couldn't do it?
The same way I consider all NPC stat blocks, I ignore them for rules purposes. You can't take feats or other things with prerequisite before you have it. Needing a feature before you take a FCB seems intuitive to the system, so much so that the design team said that some thought otherwise. So we get OA which essentially makes it clear the intent and the intuition.
The same way I consider all NPC stat blocks, I ignore them for rules purposes. You can't take feats or other things with prerequisite before you have it. Needing a feature before you take a FCB seems intuitive to the system, so much so that the design team said that some thought otherwise. So we get OA which essentially makes it clear the intent and the intuition.
There is a long history of rules associated to those restrictions. This reasoning sounds like the kind of mythos that slowly grows up around rules that you can't explain. Just like the reasons and mechanics of taking 10 and taking 20, there is a lot of misconception and table variance in how those are applied despite the fact that more often than not the skills themselves either self qualify or self prohibit take 10 and 20 situations.
"Seems intuitive" is an extremely flimsy justification for claiming something has history that it never had which actually moreso lends itself to after the fact confirmation bias. FCBs just didn't behave like this before, period. Ravingdork even quoted an example from the book that introduced the expanded bonuses that is now illegal with OA. It's a direct contradiction. Something changed along the way.
So I do have to ask for the 2 years prior to John Compton's post when the exact text from the Advanced Race Guide specifically showed a boost to a class feature not gained till level 3 being taken 20 times why would you assume you couldn't do it?The same way I consider all NPC stat blocks, I ignore them for rules purposes. You can't take feats or other things with prerequisite before you have it. Needing a feature before you take a FCB seems intuitive to the system, so much so that the design team said that some thought otherwise. So we get OA which essentially makes it clear the intent and the intuition.
So you ignore it for rules purposes, then in absence of a rule stating the example to be wrong or a precedence for that particular subsection of the rules decide it must be wrong? FCB already functions differently in that you don't have to be the class at 1st level to choose it as your favored class at the same time as feats that call out needing to be a class to take them, did you assume you had to choose your 1st level class as your favored class when the CRB first released?
Why this weird tendency of claiming you meant the exact opposite of what you wrote all along?Because you insist on a strict legalistic interpretation of raw that gets you a power increase no matter how many times the authors tell you that they're not writing a law manual.
In this case, You mean using the rule exactly as the author wrote it with examples and everything?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few more odd examples if this was always the way it was.
Rogue: Add +1 to the number of times per day the rogue can cast a cantrip or 1st-level spell gained from the minor magic or major magic talent. The number of times this bonus is selected for the major magic talent cannot exceed the number of times it is selected for the minor magic talent. The rogue must possess the associated rogue talent to select these options. Here we see the Rogue as specifically being called out to need to feature in question as opposed to the other options presented.
Monk: Add +1 to the monk's Acrobatics check bonus gained by spending a point from his ki pool. A monk must be at least 5th level to select this benefit. Gnome monks had to wait to get high jump before improving it once again unlike every other listing on the page.
These are the only 2 out of the core races section to have specific call outs to when they can be taken or that they need the class feature to be taken. This is in the rules text which show an intent that it wasn't always meant to be this way.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I agree that the FCB thing was a change and have said that I think so before when someone asked me about it, and my group (and other PFS players I knew) had been playing that you could take it right away except for in the examples Talonhawke cites until the PFS FAQ that also said it was design intent (I wasn't at the company yet by that time).
So I do have to ask for the 2 years prior to John Compton's post when the exact text from the Advanced Race Guide specifically showed a boost to a class feature not gained till level 3 being taken 20 times why would you assume you couldn't do it?The same way I consider all NPC stat blocks, I ignore them for rules purposes.
Again, that's a wildly different circumstance. In this case, the example given is printed in the very same block of text where the rule was originally introduced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I agree that the FCB thing was a change and have said that I think so before when someone asked me about it, and my group (and other PFS players I knew) had been playing that you could take it right away except for in the examples Talonhawke cites until the PFS FAQ that also said it was design intent (I wasn't at the company yet by that time).
Like a refreshing glass of ice water after a long hot day of hard work.
A few more odd examples if this was always the way it was.
Rogue: Add +1 to the number of times per day the rogue can cast a cantrip or 1st-level spell gained from the minor magic or major magic talent. The number of times this bonus is selected for the major magic talent cannot exceed the number of times it is selected for the minor magic talent. The rogue must possess the associated rogue talent to select these options. Here we see the Rogue as specifically being called out to need to feature in question as opposed to the other options presented.
Monk: Add +1 to the monk's Acrobatics check bonus gained by spending a point from his ki pool. A monk must be at least 5th level to select this benefit. Gnome monks had to wait to get high jump before improving it once again unlike every other listing on the page.
These are the only 2 out of the core races section to have specific call outs to when they can be taken or that they need the class feature to be taken. This is in the rules text which show an intent that it wasn't always meant to be this way.
The one for new spell for spellcaster also implicitly say it since you can only use it for spells slower than your max level spell.
For what it's worth, I agree that the FCB thing was a change and have said that I think so before when someone asked me about it, and my group (and other PFS players I knew) had been playing that you could take it right away except for in the examples Talonhawke cites until the PFS FAQ that also said it was design intent (I wasn't at the company yet by that time).
Thanks, Mark. Do you know if there's any errata about the APG to reflect this, or is this just meant as something for people playing OA games?
For what it's worth, I agree that the FCB thing was a change and have said that I think so before when someone asked me about it, and I and my group (and other PFS players I knew) had been playing that you could take it right away except for in the examples Talonhawke cites until the PFS FAQ that also said it was design intent (I wasn't at the company yet by that time).Thanks, Mark. Do you know if there's any errata about the APG to reflect this, or is this just meant as something for people playing OA games?
I'm certain that the APG has not received a new set of errata after the release of OA (and I believe no new errata since the PFS FAQ either, but less certain since I'm more familiar with exactly which errata happened after I got here).
The problem I have with it is not the errata itself, but the source.
This is an excellent candidate for an FAQ or APG errata. Putting it in OA is a horrible place. If I want to PFS, and I have the CRB, APG, and FAQ, I don't have all the rules that interact with my character.
At least you'll get the fun experience of a PFS table telling you did it wrong. I've had a couple of those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While not obvious, this issue is covered by the class feature FAQ.The problem I have with it is not the errata itself, but the source.
This is an excellent candidate for an FAQ or APG errata. Putting it in OA is a horrible place. If I want to PFS, and I have the CRB, APG, and FAQ, I don't have all the rules that interact with my character.
Had there been language about requiring the class feature to take the FCB, you would be right. Too bad there was no such language for years before OA, along with many examples showing it working without requiring the feature.
OA contradicts the rule as originally written.
/cevah
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I feel sorry for the Design Team. In the time that I've frequented the boards I've seen them use the following approaches to implement rules changes.
(1) Put it in a FAQ so that everyone gets the information right away. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that FAQs aren't the place for rules changes and it's not fair.
(2) Wait until the book with the original rules gets reprinted. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that they waited too long to make the changes and it's not fair.
(3) Split the difference by printing the changes in the next available rules book. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that this is stealth errata and it's not fair.
To be clear, I've often been one of the people complaining about unfairness. But stepping back a bit it does seem like any choice that they make ends up with the same result with different justifications.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of this stems from the fact that 2.) is only an issue for a really dumb reason. They could just issue an errata page whenever, but they CHOOSE to wait until it's time for another printing to do so.
Which means things can be working fine for 5 years and they suddenly invalidate hundreds of characters by nuking any reasonably strong option in the book into worthless dreck.
The latter half would be still bad, but far easier to swallow if it happened near instantly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Some FAQs *do* specify they are provisional rules changes which will be printed in next edition. Nobody complains about those because it is clear and helpful, both immediately useful and the correct long term solution.
2) Reprinting original rules book is ideal fix for errata / rules changes, but FAQs *can* give an early heads up until print run is ready (see 1)
3) Newer rules can be more explicit/explanatory than earlier products about corner cases, but again that doesn't interfere with a FAQ explaining issue to broader audience than just users of new product, nor with original rule product ALSO being updated when reprinted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of this stems from the fact that 2.) is only an issue for a really dumb reason. They could just issue an errata page whenever, but they CHOOSE to wait until it's time for another printing to do so.
Which means things can be working fine for 5 years and they suddenly invalidate hundreds of characters by nuking any reasonably strong option in the book into worthless dreck.
The latter half would be still bad, but far easier to swallow if it happened near instantly.
Yes, I have found that very frustrating myself. I would much prefer to know about rules changes as soon as possible so that I don't get invested in characters that will be wiped out by the changes. But on the boards I have run across many people who prefer to have the rules changes delayed by the current process so that they can use the current rules as long as possible.
So even if they 'fixed' the process to your satisfaction, I'm convinced that they would still get thread after thread filled with other people complaining about how that process was unfair.
1) Some FAQs *do* specify they are provisional rules changes which will be printed in next edition. Nobody complains about those because it is clear and helpful, both immediately useful and the correct long term solution.
2) Reprinting original rules book is ideal fix for errata / rules changes, but FAQs *can* give an early heads up until print run is ready (see 1)
3) Newer rules can be more explicit/explanatory than earlier products about corner cases, but again that doesn't interfere with a FAQ explaining issue to broader audience than just users of new product, nor with original rule product ALSO being updated when reprinted.
Sorry, that I was unclear. I wasn't trying to say that the three approaches that I've seen used were mutually exclusive. One is usuallu followed by another.
Like you, I would prefer early online notices followed ultimately by changes to the rulebooks themselves. I also think that would also be a good general approach from an editing standpoint. Printing the changes online gives the community to poke holes in the wording and spot any the power imbalances (both high and low) before the changes are made to the printed version.
But my cynical side says that people would find reasons to complain about that approach too. That's basically how the SLA FAQs were used, and look at how that went over.
Sometimes I feel sorry for the Design Team. In the time that I've frequented the boards I've seen them use the following approaches to implement rules changes.
(1) Put it in a FAQ so that everyone gets the information right away. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that FAQs aren't the place for rules changes and it's not fair.
(2) Wait until the book with the original rules gets reprinted. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that they waited too long to make the changes and it's not fair.
(3) Split the difference by printing the changes in the next available rules book. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that this is stealth errata and it's not fair.
To be clear, I've often been one of the people complaining about unfairness. But stepping back a bit it does seem like any choice that they make ends up with the same result with different justifications.
I think you're right.
Personally, I don't think it matters much that there are many of us with disparate preferences (2 is my preference, FWIW but I can understand why people don't like that approach). I think it's only a problem when those preferences are stated with extreme negativity, or put forth with undue hostility towards those with differing views.
Sometimes I feel sorry for the Design Team. In the time that I've frequented the boards I've seen them use the following approaches to implement rules changes.
(1) Put it in a FAQ so that everyone gets the information right away. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that FAQs aren't the place for rules changes and it's not fair.
(2) Wait until the book with the original rules gets reprinted. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that they waited too long to make the changes and it's not fair.
(3) Split the difference by printing the changes in the next available rules book. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that this is stealth errata and it's not fair.
To be clear, I've often been one of the people complaining about unfairness. But stepping back a bit it does seem like any choice that they make ends up with the same result with different justifications.
I think you're right.
Personally, I don't think it matters much that there are many of us with disparate preferences (2 is my preference, FWIW but I can understand why people don't like that approach). I think it's only a problem when those preferences are stated with extreme negativity, or put forth with undue hostility towards those with differing views.
Yep there really is no right way to make everyone happy with it . Hell even if you managed to find a release method that had 100% acceptance you still would have massive threads debating the rulings every time.
Maybe paizo would start listening to its community as much as it used to again then.
Maybe paizo would start listening to its community as much as it used to again then.
Except the community doesn't have a singular voice. Unfortunately, as Paizo has grown, I would liken its growth to a shift from communism to capitalism. A prolonged, massively debated open beta ingratiated them to a LOT of people. Then, as the company picked up success, it went into full-on "make the widgets" mode stamping out products at a consistent rate. We'll never have another open beta or discussion around a product like we did with the CRB again, not for Pathfinder anyway. They're simply not the company they started as.
Indeed, evolution and growth.
Indeed, evolution and growth.
That's a bit oversimplified. What you said as a positive connotation when there's clearly been a detrimental effect on many people's perception and satisfaction with the company. So, no, that's not quite correct. Plus, it assumes that capitalism is inherently a good thing when, in fact, there are many flaws with it you just glossed over.
Of course, some people don't believe there was ever open discussion, even in the Beta. Just a marketing campaign.
That's a fair point.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Maybe paizo would start listening to its community as much as it used to again then.
I think they listen just fine, it's just that some number would rather see the product go in one direction and Paizo look at another. One could argue more customers are happy with the direction or at least not unhappy. So as long as 50% or more are happy or content, they are going in a positive direction.
And yet the continue to waste word count or, in this case, make options too weak to build for(like Halfling Kineticist). How strangely positive.
I think they listen just fine, it's just that some number would rather see the product go in one direction and Paizo look at another. One could argue more customers are happy with the direction or at least not unhappy. So as long as 50% or more are happy or content, they are going in a positive direction.
I'm showing my protest by only buying PDFs. For all the delays in errata that gets waved around here at that sort of thing, I'm not sure I care. As I've said before, I'm coming to strongly prefer Paizo's 1st editions of books.
In view of the new evidence provided by Mark, at what level can a human kineticist apply the AFBC?
Extra Wild Talent
You gain an additional wild talent.Prerequisite: Kineticist level 6th.
Benefit: You gain a wild talent that's at least 2 levels lower than the highest-level wild talent you can currently use. You can select an infusion or a non-infusion wild talent, but not a blast or defense wild talent. If you have the expanded element class feature, you can select a wild talent from any of your elements that's at least 2 levels lower than the highest-level wild talent from your primary element that you can currently use.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time, you must choose a different wild talent.
Kineticist: Gain 1/6 of an Extra Wild Talent feat.
You can start from level 1 or need to wait to level 6?
Is that another "said in PFS" thing?
In view of the new evidence provided by Mark, at what level can a human kineticist apply the AFBC?
Extra Wild Talent
You gain an additional wild talent.Prerequisite: Kineticist level 6th.
Benefit: You gain a wild talent that's at least 2 levels lower than the highest-level wild talent you can currently use. You can select an infusion or a non-infusion wild talent, but not a blast or defense wild talent. If you have the expanded element class feature, you can select a wild talent from any of your elements that's at least 2 levels lower than the highest-level wild talent from your primary element that you can currently use.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time, you must choose a different wild talent.Kineticist: Gain 1/6 of an Extra Wild Talent feat.You can start from level 1 or need to wait to level 6?
As far as I can tell, this particular scenario isn't really affected by the FAQ. The verbiage makes it clear that you gain the feat. You don't need to have had it already.
But can you gain something even partially without the prerequisite?
This is exactly what I'm questioning myself and why I ask it here. So if anyone can provide evidence of how this case applies that would be great.
|
If you wanted an example of something that one character (In PFS, indecently) that can get something before she has the ability, my Sylph is able to put skill points into flying well before she could fly because she uses the skill in place of acrobatics when jumping. This is the first feat I took from the start.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I feel sorry for the Design Team. In the time that I've frequented the boards I've seen them use the following approaches to implement rules changes.
(1) Put it in a FAQ so that everyone gets the information right away. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that FAQs aren't the place for rules changes and it's not fair.
(2) Wait until the book with the original rules gets reprinted. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that they waited too long to make the changes and it's not fair.
(3) Split the difference by printing the changes in the next available rules book. Then the boards fill up with posts complaining that this is stealth errata and it's not fair.
To be clear, I've often been one of the people complaining about unfairness. But stepping back a bit it does seem like any choice that they make ends up with the same result with different justifications.
Honestly I'd be fine with most if it. The biggest issue I have is just how inconsistent it is: We have FAQs, errata, updates in new books, PFS clarifications and statements of developer intent on the forums and it's very hard to balance and keep track of them all. That's a lot of places to check if you want to keep up to date on the rules and not all of them are easy to find or updated with any regularity.
FAQs and Errata are great, but FAQs can be a pain to sift through (and also confusing for new players because who expects the FAQ section to contain rules changes?) and errata is tied to reprintings so often we have a product left for years with glaring issues the developers just won't touch because it's not errata time.
Also for some reason Paizo's decided that a solid half (maybe more honestly) of Pathfinder's material doesn't qualify for FAQs or errata at all, so even with those restrictions a big chunk of the game's content will never get updates or fixes.
Also sometimes errata doesn't get put in the errata files so you have to hunt through the reprintings to see what got changed. That's frustrating too.
Updates in new books are helpful, primarily because they serve as a good way to cover for Paizo's self imposed restrictions on errata and FAQs (thin praise, since those restrictions don't need to exist anyways). The problem with them is generally a matter of where you want to look. If I'm digging up rules on how alternate classes or FCBs work, I'm going to look in the books they came from before I think to look in newer books on the off-chance they've changed how they function. Can you really blame someone for not thinking to look in the ACG for rules on how to adjudicate a Samurai or in OA to figure out FCBs?
Statements of developer intent are cool because you can (if you're lucky) get them quickly and straight from the source. Even better, often times the designer sticks around which means follow up questions can get answered too, as opposed to errata which rarely gets much explanation or FAQs where you might have to wait another week for the FAQ to get an FAQ. They also kind of suck because they're technically nonbinding and, again, they're hard to find. You're either in the right thread at the right time, get linked to it later, or never hear about it at all.
Which leaves PFS clarifications, which I honestly think are by far the best here. PFS posts its stuff up FAST and isn't afraid to cover every flavor of Pathfinder material. The trouble with them, of course, is that they're essentially just the house-rules of the PFS master GM. They're non-binding and you have to sift through what's PFS specific alterations for the sake of their games and what's good, solid rules updates. Also the same problem as the FAQ, why would someone check a PFS document for their home games if they don't already know about it?
Now part of it is a growth thing. It's hard to make quick, concise clarifications and changes when you have a whole team of people that need to collaborate on an answer and a constantly changing meta-game that means original writer intent doesn't always mesh with the way things have developed over time, nevermind changing designer opinions that make something acceptable one year and problematic the next or vice versa, but still, Paizo would really benefit from finding some way to centralize this information and deliver it more efficiently, in my opinion.