|
My only problem with Bladed Dash is that it's better than Spring Attack, which requires a lot more resources in character creation to bring online.
I also have a problem with Greater Bladed Dash being something no martial can do ever no matter how many feats or class features they invest.
No martial can fireball either. What's your point.
|
Introduced to pathfinder.And again you’re wrong, these arguments existed before PFS.
Homegame variation are less problematic, as they are expected to be possibly different. PFS should have the same set of rules, as it is an "organised play". This is why there are often judges or referees in other form of organised play.
There are judges and referees, the GMs.
No martial can fireball either. What's your point.My only problem with Bladed Dash is that it's better than Spring Attack, which requires a lot more resources in character creation to bring online.
I also have a problem with Greater Bladed Dash being something no martial can do ever no matter how many feats or class features they invest.
My point is that bladed dash, a pretty obviously martial maneuver, is only a spell and not something a martial can do.
Would you find it weird if detect magic was only available as an ability locked behind a feat with a prerequisite of "no ability to cast spells"?
What actually bothers me is how reluctant Paizo is to correct these issues when they are discovered. I know it may not be “fun” for them to go back over old works.It's not about "fun". But what is a better use for a Paizo employee's time (which is finite)- going back and "fixing" old things, or making new things?
I mean, economically Paizo doesn't make any more money if they spend weeks doing errata and FAQs, but more to the point where it doesn't really make the game better to "fix" things that a GM could easily just make it work like it's supposed to (and many are doing without knowing there even is an issue.)
A question that is only interesting to people on the forums is not really a "Frequently Asked" one.
Not entirely true. There are several times I have restrained myself from buying Paizo's stuff because of their poor quality control.
Moreover, caring about previous mistakes and confusions would put them in better practice to not make more mistakes and confusions in future projects.
But really, we aren’t talking about a monumental amount of work here. Make someone the rules manager. And have that person spend a couple hours a week working on these. Then the main staff just needs to spend a couple minutes reading over the new clarifications to ok the decision. This does not need to be time intensive or expensive. It’s nothing like the time required to write a new book.
But really, we aren’t talking about a monumental amount of work here. Make someone the rules manager. And have that person spend a couple hours a week working on these. Then the main staff just needs to spend a couple minutes reading over the new clarifications to ok the decision. This does not need to be time intensive or expensive. It’s nothing like the time required to write a new book.
Hrm. A single working hour can quickly cost 50$ or more, if you look at the salary and the office costs (building rent, electricity, heating / cooling, furniture decay, writing material etc.). Go with 3 hours a week and you end up with like 13 hours per month, respective 650$.
If 6 other people spend half an hour each week looking over your work, asking questions and discussing, that's another three working hours, so you end up with 650$ more.
Now add taxes on top, and you are at (very roughly) 2000$ that this work should be worth every month, to break even. So 40 people would have to buy a hardcover just because of these FAQ, or 200 people would have to buy a PDF for the same reason. Per month.
On top of this Paizo needs to make at least some profit to keep going, and there are other work packages competing with this one.
-------------
Don't get me wrong: I would like to see such things settled. But if we want it to happen, we should look into alternatives. For example some forumites could make up rulings together and ask for the "officially approved" stamp by Paizo. Even without that stamp, there would be some value to a collection of rule clarifications that could easily be linked.
I've been considering creating a website for games where FAQ questions could be asked, catalogued, answered and voted on. But first, that's rather complicated, so I'd like more time to stew on the mechanics. And second, I don't have that kind of free time available right now. But it might be something to do during the upcoming apocalypse.
For a while, I'd been waiting for Archives of Nethys to put out that API he'd once mentioned. But it's looking like that won't happen. Lately, I've been thinking that such a site shouldn't be PF1 only though. There are lots of games with lots of questions like these.
That could be interesting, or weird. Popular decisions aren't always that great. There's also the issue of balance within the context of play style to consider.
It sounds better than nothing though.
I think making a pass through similar spells and abilities, combining them, and creating tiers within them, would be a good step toward clearing up some rules debates. Taking the increasing utility by caster level effect found in some spells, and applying that to feats, would make it clearer where certain balance points are meant to be. It wouldn't hurt to also combine similar spells into a single spell with caster level based effects. We don't really need as many water to wine spells as we have, tiny hut spells don't all need their own entry, and so on.
It does seem that there are so many rules issues in Pathfinder 1st edition that "make an entirely new edition" is less work than addressing all of them.
It does seem that there are so many rules issues in Pathfinder 1st edition that "make an entirely new edition" is less work than addressing all of them.
But if you're not willing to do a better job of not creating your own problems with your new edition... then you are actually just making a new mess that you will never clean up... just like your first edition, and probably your third edition, too, unless you're willing to stick to a standard operating procedure that is consistent throughout.
I seen that someone already brought up blatant verbiage problems in a PF2 spell description... as if Paizo literally learned nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs addressed this recently. He said the reason that many things aren't FAQ'ed or clarified is because the rules/abilities/spells are meant to be guidelines, not hard rules. They knew that House Rules are a thing, and wanted each table to have their own variation of the game, because the story is what's important, not following the rules to the letter.
In this instance, he's right. Paizo's rules design team isn't the Supreme Court of Roleplayinglandia--they're just folks like us who managed to make a career out of doing what they love. Find what works for your table and play the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem Paizo's reticence to FAQing the heck out of the PF2 releases is in part to train people to not rely on a legalistic reading of the rulebook language.
Like the answer to "does this work like it's supposed to, in case of X?" should generally be "yes".
We mostly need answers in cases of "I don't know what this does/I don't know how to run this ability" not "does this work like it's supposed to."
Like a notoriously thorny argument in PF1 was how Shielded Gauntlet Master implied that gauntlets could be enchanged by weapons, when it wasn't unclear that they could be. But it's trivial for the GM to just say, so that Shielded Gauntlet Master works like it's supposed to, so they can in this case.
It does seem Paizo's reticence to FAQing the heck out of the PF2 releases is in part to train people to not rely on a legalistic reading of the rulebook language.
As opposed to paizo's FAQing which usually went against the legalistic ruling?