|
Just because they're the GM doesn't mean that the rules all of a sudden cease existing or stop functioning, even if they do have the right to handwave said rules at their table.
Never said otherwise. When the ACG get nerfed, I asked my GM if I should retrain Divine Protection on my Oracle. He said not to worry about it considering how far in we were. The trickiest part was modifying HeroLab to have the correct stats since the errata was updated in the system. But adding an untyped bonus was way easiest than kludging in the original Scarred Witch Doctor my brother was playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, let's say that Paizo listened to all of the Caster-Martial debate threads, and decide that yeah, cookie-cutter wizard builds are a problem! They're too common and too powerful, at least in this example. So the change they decide to make to balance things on the next errata document is to have all Arcane spells require at least 2 full-round actions to cast (with Quicken Spell reducing a spell's casting time to 1 full-round action).
Would people be okay with that?
You don't see people in C/MD threads saying "Make Wizards useless!" They're saying "Make Martials better!" So proposing that Casters get nerfed (which, by the way, should have already happened by now) because it's "popular demand" is demonstrably false.
Besides that point, there are other, more appropriate fixes to apply. Such as by removing all 7th-9th level spells, and keeping those slots only for Metamagic spells, which considerably lowers a caster's power level, but doesn't absolutely invalidate their core mechanics.
though really the described nerf is a strawman.
I use spheres of power which nerfs a lot of magic stuff, however it also moves some magic that was bad back up to mainstream and also in general feels more fun than these huge lists of spells to keep track of.
Besides that point, there are other, more appropriate fixes to apply. Such as by removing all 7th-9th level spells, and keeping those slots only for Metamagic spells, which considerably lowers a caster's power level, but doesn't absolutely invalidate their core mechanics.
Most of the spells that actually need FAQ/Errata are lower level.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has cropped up a lot in this thread so I have to ask, how many people are seriously spending 20-40/30-60 dollars just for one feat?
I've heard that people used to spend $40-$60 just for access to blood money. It was one of the most contentious points of the PFS ban.
Most of the spells that actually need FAQ/Errata are lower level.
Besides that point, there are other, more appropriate fixes to apply. Such as by removing all 7th-9th level spells, and keeping those slots only for Metamagic spells, which considerably lowers a caster's power level, but doesn't absolutely invalidate their core mechanics.
You mean things like Charm Person and Acid Splash? I mean, sure, some of them do (like Acid Splash did, and it just got one), but others is just a matter of GMs being willing to go over and read the rules with the player(s), and establishing what the player can and can't do with the spell, as is the case with Charm Person. Certain GMs, who are basically bullied or tricked by their powergaming players to empower a spell to do much more than what it says, or what it was intended to do, is not really something that's FAQ/Errata worthy, because there's a much worse problem at hand than unclear or inconsistent rules.
In truth, that's just a matter of GMs growing a pair, learning to tell a player "No, that's not how it was intended to work by the rules, and certainly not how it works at my table," and accepting that he may have to knock his players down a peg or two, just to assert that one who wishes to game at his table would need to have the decency to not to pull a fast one on him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has cropped up a lot in this thread so I have to ask, how many people are seriously spending 20-40/30-60 dollars just for one feat?
If it changes your entire build, it can be a powerful incentive.
The point is: you cannot buy all books, so maybe if you can't decide, a feat that you really need might be the deciding factor.That's what makes it so bad when that same feat is the one that gets disabled.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which, of course, is not what the post I was responding to was implying.I think you misunderstand PFS. You don't get to apply house rules for PFS.You do if you play PFS scenarios in home games.
There was no implication of applying house rules to PFS. Pathfinder Society games ARE house rules -- specifically, the house rules Paizo set up for those games to make them work easier in the time permitted across hundreds of tables. Hopefully that clears up any misconception.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can only see it being a good choice if characters tend to die a lot in the first couple of levels in your campaigns.Unless your campaigns have a house rule were characters get double/triple starting health or you only put them against monsters under APL, they are likely to drop unconcious from two average longsword hits.
Otherwise, it is a complete waste. You can compare it to something like reactionary initiative (50% of a good feat improved initiative) or affinity of the elements (100% of an okay feat elemental focus) or magical knack. Traits are awesome.The traits you listed are also good candidates for bans. Specially reactionary on the hand of combat min-maxers (they always take it).
I would prefer tenfod that people take traits that grant class-skills to better fill mixing abilities in the group than something that grants +x static combat bonus.But the topic is already being missed here.
Again, I think that you need to read between the lines here. If they are so hung up on their wands of CLW, they are basically telling you, "Stop it! Make the enemies in the first few levels less deadly." Whether or not you want to listen to them (or if you want to listen to them and then ignore their input) is your call.
There are obviously much better traits to be had if you are not worrying about dying before level 3.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much enjoy and appreciate the current FAQ, Errata and Dev online feedback provided to the community.
Nowhere have I seen an RPG so well administered, and staff that care so much.
Frankly, I don't really think there's anything else out there that can even compare to Pathfinder RPG, at this time. Or ever was... since I started playing D&D in 1988... :)
Wait, what happened to acid splash?
You mean things like Charm Person and Acid Splash? I mean, sure, some of them do (like Acid Splash did, and it just got one),
something something ranged weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy and appreciate the efforts of the Paizo team and the errata/faq.
I also feel really sad that people think a 40/60 dollar book is useless because a feat was changed. As if all the efforts that went into making a book are nothing, and there's no value in it.
That's kind of depressing.
Is this really that surprising to you?
I mean lets evaluate really quickly what being useful means. To be useful something must be of use or something must be used. In any given book how much of the content is useful by that definition? Is it the whole book? Is it a few things? Is it just one page? For every person that definition will be different.
Now let's assume someone only ever wanted to use a single option from a $40 book and the only reason they bought the book at all was so they would be allowed to use it in Society play if you remove that option and they have no interest in the remaining content there is no value in the product for them. I don't really think of that as depressing outside of the fact that paizo used Society play to encourage the sale of the product then banned it thus harming their customer.
And at the end of the day there are so many useless options in every pathfinder book and so much frippery like art and descriptive text and what have you that while there is a great deal of content in every book a much smaller section of that content is useful on average.
On average for whom?
Ass you say, that definition will differ between people. People who play PFS make up a small subsection of those that buy the books, I'm willing to wager. An even smaller subsection would be people who only buy the books for one singular feat/item/what have you and find utterly no use from the rest of the book.
What is "useless" tends to differ widely. Some people actually enjoy frippery like art and descriptive text, finding that it enhances their game far more than a cold list of mechanical enhancements for a character.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a real eye-opener.
It also makes me glad that Im not involved in PFS because it seems to me (as I've said in other threads), it really seems to drive a lot of the RAW-or-else attitude toward the game. It really seems to stress people out, get them completely wound up, and sours attitudes, all of which is bad for everyone involved.
-Skeld
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On average for whom?
Ass you say, that definition will differ between people. People who play PFS make up a small subsection of those that buy the books, I'm willing to wager. An even smaller subsection would be people who only buy the books for one singular feat/item/what have you and find utterly no use from the rest of the book.
What is "useless" tends to differ widely. Some people actually enjoy frippery like art and descriptive text, finding that it enhances their game far more than a cold list of mechanical enhancements for a character.
On average for me obviously.
As far as frippery like art and descriptive text that's generally not that important because it doesn't do anything during the game.
Having a prettied up board and taking art assets to use during gameplay is good but it happens quite rarely and almost never for anything but the monster manual in my experience. Having the game tell you Half elves suffer from the blah blah blah never being at home among elves or humans doesn't mean anything until the GM uses it in the game and if he does he never needed the book to say that. So yeah I think that stuff is wasted space and what's more I think it encourages people to get too caught up on stuff that doesn't actually mean anything like people who want to take the Rogue class just because of the name and not because of the actual rules behind it. What's important for the story isn't some random stuff in the book it's the interaction between the player and the DM it's supposed to be a joint story we're not just reading the lord of the rings while rolling dice.
Now not everyone buys a book for 1 feat but I've bought Weapon Masters Handbook for alternate fighter weapon/armor training options. I got unchained just for the unchained rogue. If they were to go to the Unchained book take unchained rogue and rip out dex to damage leaving it in a state where it wasn't good at doing what I want it to do, I'd feel like the book is useless to me. I'm not using...
It boils down to a simple conflict of attitude and opinion. The stuff you see as "wasted space" that "encourages people to get too caught up on stuff that doesn't actually mean anything" are the very things other people enjoy most (descriptive text that defines the game world).
Dismissing all the non-mechanical stuff as "generally not that important because it doesn't do anything during the game" isn't going to help sell your thesis to that segment of the community. The stuff your dismissing as unimportant is the stuff that makes Pathfinder a role playing game (story plus mechanics) as opposed to a board game (mechanics with no story).
-Skeld
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It boils down to a simple conflict of attitude and opinion. The stuff you see as "wasted space" that "encourages people to get too caught up on stuff that doesn't actually mean anything" are the very things other people enjoy most (descriptive text that defines the game world).
Dismissing all the non-mechanical stuff as "generally not that important because it doesn't do anything during the game" isn't going to help sell your thesis to that segment of the community. The stuff your dismissing as unimportant is the stuff that makes Pathfinder a role playing game (story plus mechanics) as opposed to a board game (mechanics with no story).
-Skeld
It might mean something to you, but for me and many others that stuff is maybe worth a single skim through out of mild curiosity. The "meat" of the book is the mechanical stuff. When an entire book only has a handful of options that are worth their opportunity cost, getting one of the few things you care about smacked by the faqratta nerf bat is antagonizing. When an entire book only has one option, especially if it is an expensive hardback, it is downright insulting.
Funnily enough though, I don't really blame Paizo's FAQ for this issue. I blame the fact that much of the content that Paizo puts out is dull, uninspiring, weak garbage (even most of it, in the case of feats and magic items), and the fact that outside of classes there are only a few worthwhile options in many books. Reading through a book for options is a depressing slog*. However, I am not surprised if people get upset that errata and FAQs kill the few things they actually like in a book.
*DSP stuff, while not amazing, is far, far better in this regard. I don't actually mind digging through a PoW book for options, because many of them are things that I could actually see my self using some time. I cannot say the same about many Paizo products
Paizo fosters that cynical view when they errata things as harshly and repeatedly like this. There is a bloody trail of books that they've released and later gutted. Often, it seems conveniently timed to entice people to buy newer books promising awesome options.
They're a business and they need to make money, but there is a dark pattern emerging, and some people have been talking about that pattern for a while and yet Paizo doesn't seem bothered to change that pattern.
Other than Ultimate Equipment what books have been gutted?
I am assuming that gutted means "made a lot less useful".
Before dismissing people that buy books for their content as deserving whatever treatment they get, please consider the following:
Back in the days of 3.5, the marketing team at WOTC decided D&D should work like Magic The Gathering:
Every booster pack has a lot of worthless options, and one Rare
Books were made like that so that if you wanted all the good options, you'd have to buy all the books.
(Of course, it was a time when you either bought the book or you couldn't access content, there were no internet databases)
This worked. Sales exploded. This was one of the main reasons D&D 3.5 became so popular in the first place.
Fact is, there is a significant portion of the market addicted to such business models.
Marketing teams know how things work and make choices to get results.
Now,
You might say you don't like people that fall for this kind of trick, perhaps you see them as unintelligent, uninteresting, or even weak.
This doesn't mean on purpos exploitation of their problems should be allowed, or tolerated even.
If it's done on purpose, it's malicious; no exceptions, no "but..."
Imagine: "why would you arrest a drug dealer, I don't feel sorry for people that take drugs"
I think this line od reasoning to be pointlessly cruel and somewhat obtuse.