When do you think they will fix the 'Replaces Fighter Bonus Feat Level 3' and all that for the Fighter Archetype in Legacy of Dragons? Anyone else feel like this was rushed out without playtesting or thinking?
"Replaces Fighter Bonus Feat Level 2" or "Replaces Fighter Bonus Feat Level 4."
And what, pray tell, would you have them fix it with hmm?
I believe OP is referring to how a Fighter doesn't get a bonus feat at 3rd level, so the archetype can't replace something that doesn't exist. Presumedly it was meant for either the 2nd level or 4th level bonus feat.
There are a few errors that are like that, that either completely ignore other material rules or replace something that doesn't exist.
Like what Azten and Cuenta said, replacing fighter feats of even levels instead of odd levels.
Do you know how quickly they fix these books? If ever?
|
And what, pray tell, would you have them fix it with hmm?I believe OP is referring to how a Fighter doesn't get a bonus feat at 3rd level, so the archetype can't replace something that doesn't exist. Presumedly it was meant for either the 2nd level or 4th level bonus feat.
Or perhaps they meant that it replaces their third bonus feat. My point either way is that it is rather rude to be demanding a 'fix' for something when they aren't even willing to offer a suggestion for what that 'fix' should be. Not even to mention how rude the last part of the OP was.
Rude, perhaps, but with a ring of truth to it. Paizo is rushing out books and making more and more mistakes because of it. Add in that they rarely truly listen to playtests(and that, if Starfinder is any indication, they aren't doing public playtests anymore) and you have a recipe for disaster.
And that's just in the hardback book line.
This ability replaces the bonus feat gained at 3rd level.
They pretty blatantly said "3rd level" and not "3rd bonus feat". Just saying.
Sorry, I hadn't meant to sound rude. Just a spark of innocent begrudge with the last few purchased books having underpowered or underplaytested material. Don't get me wrong, Pathfinder is great and all, but when you don't even proof read your material, something needs to be re-evaluated.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rude, perhaps, but with a ring of truth to it. Paizo is rushing out books and making more and more mistakes because of it. Add in that they rarely truly listen to playtests(and that, if Starfinder is any indication, they aren't doing public playtests anymore) and you have a recipe for disaster.
And that's just in the hardback book line.
Sorry but I have to disagree with you there. And there is never a reason to be rude.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The softcover lines seldom get full errata, but they may get fixes in PFS campaign clarifications for obvious glitches. Such as
The dragonheir scion gains fearful might at 2nd level. She gains draconic strike and draconic presence at 4th level and 6th level, respectively, replacing the fighter bonus feats she would normally gain at these levels.
you gain DR/ piercing and slashing.
Oh my god that is broken. Quick, who do I report this bug to?!
Kidding - I hardly doubt 2 DR/Pierce and Slash is broken. Does anyone know any weapons that deal Piercing and Slashing damage at the same time? (As per "or" and "and" rules, as written, it needs to deal both to deal damage).
The hurlbat from ranged tactics toolbox does P and S IIRC.
The hurlbat from ranged tactics toolbox does P and S IIRC.
touché - and with that I go to bed. Thanks for the conversion.
Also, any claw or bite natural attack will pierce that DR.
they only do errata when they go to print again. So if everyone buys all of these we maybe can get an errata.
|
|
This isn't really rude though, it's pointing out actual problems, like miswritten abilities, an alchemist archetype that literally just makes the class worse, and drake companions that have been proven to be weaker than vultures and yet require tons of class features just to take.Sorry but I have to disagree with you there. And there is never a reason to be rude.Rude, perhaps, but with a ring of truth to it. Paizo is rushing out books and making more and more mistakes because of it. Add in that they rarely truly listen to playtests(and that, if Starfinder is any indication, they aren't doing public playtests anymore) and you have a recipe for disaster.
And that's just in the hardback book line.
Your dislike of a class feature does not make it a miswritten ability.
they only do errata when they go to print again. So if everyone buys all of these we maybe can get an errata.
This seems like an odd way to motivate them to fix things. If anything, doesn't it mean that they would have more incentive to introduce mistakes that require errata intentionally, for the sake of promoting their first printing to sell out sooner before they fix what they could have done in the first place?
Just realized that not even PFS clarifications are immune:
Page 22—A drake rider gains skill points as indicated in the skills section on page 22, not as indicated in the table on page 23. Drakes that do not raise their intelligence scores gain 3 hit points per HD.
Fixing their skill points from 3 per level of the character to 3 per level of the drake makes sense. But inadvertently reducing drakes from the 6.5+CON HP per level down to 3+CON unless you increase Intelligence is a pretty bad thing to instate for PFS, when you meant to write skill points.
Even worse, since this is PFS, they have to use the dramatically lowered hit points, since the campaign clarifications supercede pretty much everything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says the gain those hit points if they don't raise their Int, so that could be interpreted as 3 more hit points per level, at the expense of some Int.
That actually kinda makes it worse. Now there's table variance involved on if it means 3 per HD or 9.5 per HD, so the same drake of the same player might end up with nearly three times the hit points sitting at one table as they might at another.
(Also, I additionally noticed that it says the drake rider gets the skill point clarifications, so... this particular clarification is just all in all broken.)
I just figure, if you have systems designed especially to combat mistakes in writing, those systems should probably have more attention paid to their writing than the content they're trying to fix.
I just hope they FAQ or Errata some of the icky stuff. Like what Saethori pointed out, the Dragon's Alchemist are a direct nerf. The ONLY thing they get is that they don't take Penalties. But honestly, what you loss in place of that not taking -2 to INT really hurts to much for it to be worth it.
Fighter class, on top of being flat out written wrong, feels like a sorry excuse to make a Martial class use Arcane Strike (+1 only ever for a swift action because you never gain caster levels). The extra 1d4 damage is kind of nice though.
Cavalier and Paladin Archetypes - Can I burn this book now? Honestly... If dragons started out small, then maybe it be worth it. But as of right now, it is better to play Summoner and pretend to be a dragon rider, because Drakerider sucks.
p.s.: Drakes are nothing more than watered down weaker Eidolons
p.p.s: Has anyone found out the point behind the Witch Archetype? Trade a Familiar for a hoard of treasure that gives you no bonuses?
Because that's one of the ways they make money from PFS.
|
|
My point either way is that it is rather rude to be demanding a 'fix' for something when they aren't even willing to offer a suggestion for what that 'fix' should be.The OP is not being paid to write rules. The OP is paying Paizo to do that. If you already know what you think the rules "should" be, then you have no reason whatsoever to pay Paizo one dime--just play your game with your rules. If you're on this forum at all, though, it's because you lack either the time, skills, or desire to write your own game, and so are willing to pay someone else for a game they wrote.
Of course, buying someone else's game is only worthwhile if that person did their job in the first place. Which, in this particular case, Paizo didn't.
typos happen in all books, not just Paizo's.
This will never be fixed - and neither will anything else in the soft covers. Its a shame, really, because the splat books are where the most interesting niche characters typically originate, and they are riddled with the worst written rules in the game.
Oh how I wish they'd simply stop printing the splatbooks, and release them as PDF only... so fixes like this would be easy, and might actually get done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This will never be fixed - and neither will anything else in the soft covers. Its a shame, really, because the splat books are where the most interesting niche characters typically originate, and they are riddled with the worst written rules in the game.
Not necessarily...IIRC quite a few options from the softcovers get incorporated into hardcover books in some form or another.
And we saw how well that worked out for fencing grace...
typos happen in all books, not just Paizo's.My point either way is that it is rather rude to be demanding a 'fix' for something when they aren't even willing to offer a suggestion for what that 'fix' should be.The OP is not being paid to write rules. The OP is paying Paizo to do that. If you already know what you think the rules "should" be, then you have no reason whatsoever to pay Paizo one dime--just play your game with your rules. If you're on this forum at all, though, it's because you lack either the time, skills, or desire to write your own game, and so are willing to pay someone else for a game they wrote.
Of course, buying someone else's game is only worthwhile if that person did their job in the first place. Which, in this particular case, Paizo didn't.
Typos are one thing. It's another when said typo results in an archetype being unplayable as written.
|
|
Typos are one thing. It's another when said typo results in an archetype being unplayable as written.typos happen in all books, not just Paizo's.My point either way is that it is rather rude to be demanding a 'fix' for something when they aren't even willing to offer a suggestion for what that 'fix' should be.The OP is not being paid to write rules. The OP is paying Paizo to do that. If you already know what you think the rules "should" be, then you have no reason whatsoever to pay Paizo one dime--just play your game with your rules. If you're on this forum at all, though, it's because you lack either the time, skills, or desire to write your own game, and so are willing to pay someone else for a game they wrote.
Of course, buying someone else's game is only worthwhile if that person did their job in the first place. Which, in this particular case, Paizo didn't.
Strictly as written yes, but common sense (as the Clarifications Document shows) makes it work just fine.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly as written yes, but common sense (as the Clarifications Document shows) makes it work just fine.Typos are one thing. It's another when said typo results in an archetype being unplayable as written.typos happen in all books, not just Paizo's.My point either way is that it is rather rude to be demanding a 'fix' for something when they aren't even willing to offer a suggestion for what that 'fix' should be.The OP is not being paid to write rules. The OP is paying Paizo to do that. If you already know what you think the rules "should" be, then you have no reason whatsoever to pay Paizo one dime--just play your game with your rules. If you're on this forum at all, though, it's because you lack either the time, skills, or desire to write your own game, and so are willing to pay someone else for a game they wrote.
Of course, buying someone else's game is only worthwhile if that person did their job in the first place. Which, in this particular case, Paizo didn't.
As you know, Rysky, common sense isn't defined in the rules. Since it isn't RAW, it's not allowed in PFS.
I mean, if you're a GM in a home game, I guess you could try using common sense, but that's a houserule and some people don't use houserules.
-Skeld
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus one person's common sense is another's cheesy rules manipulation or heavy handed restriction.
I can't count the number of threads I've seen where someone will say "no sane GM would ever allow this" and then see them describe something that I don't think I've ever NOT seen in a game. Or describe something as an "obvious" or "common sense" houserule while I can't fathom how Pathfinder is even playable with rules like that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly as written yes, but common sense (as the Clarifications Document shows) makes it work just fine.Typos are one thing. It's another when said typo results in an archetype being unplayable as written.typos happen in all books, not just Paizo's.My point either way is that it is rather rude to be demanding a 'fix' for something when they aren't even willing to offer a suggestion for what that 'fix' should be.The OP is not being paid to write rules. The OP is paying Paizo to do that. If you already know what you think the rules "should" be, then you have no reason whatsoever to pay Paizo one dime--just play your game with your rules. If you're on this forum at all, though, it's because you lack either the time, skills, or desire to write your own game, and so are willing to pay someone else for a game they wrote.
Of course, buying someone else's game is only worthwhile if that person did their job in the first place. Which, in this particular case, Paizo didn't.As you know, Rysky, common sense isn't defined in the rules. Since it isn't RAW, it's not allowed in PFS.
I mean, if you're a GM in a home game, I guess you could try using common sense, but that's a houserule and some people don't use houserules.
-Skeld
I hate you sooooooooooooooo much right now.
Page 22—A drake rider gains skill points as indicated in the skills section on page 22, not as indicated in the table on page 23. Drakes that do not raise their intelligence scores gain 3 hit points per HD.
Is it just me, or did they also completely botch the "fix" for this too? How long do you think until they fix this? Gaining 3hp per level is excessively overpowered for a typo in their FAQs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As you know, Rysky, common sense isn't defined in the rules.Nor in the real world. Yes, Aristotle postulated the existence of a "common sense." Aristotle also believed the earth was the center of the universe, and that the universe was made up of four elements. Aristotle wasn't a scientist, and, as it turned out, a lot of his beliefs were wrong.
You might as well say "The rules are easy to use if you use your knowledge of a flat earth!"
It's complete BS. The fact that we still have people in the 21st century who believe in "Common Sense"/Geo-centrism/Flat Earth/that NASA faked the moon landings is depressing.
What feels like "common sense" to you is
a)Likely to be the opposite of what feels like "common sense" for other people, and
b)Has a good chance of being factually wrong.
Yawn. You appear to be taking my comments seriously or something.
-Skeld
As you know, Rysky, common sense isn't defined in the rules.Nor in the real world. Yes, Aristotle postulated the existence of a "common sense." Aristotle also believed the earth was the center of the universe, and that the universe was made up of four elements. Aristotle wasn't a scientist, and, as it turned out, a lot of his beliefs were wrong.
You might as well say "The rules are easy to use if you use your knowledge of a flat earth!"
It's complete BS. The fact that we still have people in the 21st century who believe in "Common Sense"/Geo-centrism/Flat Earth/that NASA faked the moon landings is depressing.
What feels like "common sense" to you is
a)Likely to be the opposite of what feels like "common sense" for other people, and
b)Has a good chance of being factually wrong.Yawn. You appear to be taking my comments seriously or something.
-Skeld
The next sentence is sarcastic.
The previous sentence is not sarcastic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your contributions to the conversation.
As you know, Rysky, common sense isn't defined in the rules.Nor in the real world. Yes, Aristotle postulated the existence of a "common sense." Aristotle also believed the earth was the center of the universe, and that the universe was made up of four elements. Aristotle wasn't a scientist, and, as it turned out, a lot of his beliefs were wrong.
You might as well say "The rules are easy to use if you use your knowledge of a flat earth!"
It's complete BS. The fact that we still have people in the 21st century who believe in "Common Sense"/Geo-centrism/Flat Earth/that NASA faked the moon landings is depressing.
What feels like "common sense" to you is
a)Likely to be the opposite of what feels like "common sense" for other people, and
b)Has a good chance of being factually wrong.Yawn. You appear to be taking my comments seriously or something.
-Skeld
I'm always happy to be of service. :D
-Skeld