|
mentioned by devs
That’s not exactly an official source so it’s no surprise when most in the community are unaware of it. That’s why having regular errata/FAQ updates are important and while I have always advocated for a sticky thread closed for commentary to be in the forums somewhere so that once they decide on a clarification, they can post it temporarily until they can get around to updating the FAQ/errata documents. Otherwise, you have topics like this that go on for page after page after...
Besides, I find the inconsistency of those rulings to be unsatisfying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shields are terrible later onSo far, I disagree. Just because there is an expectation that at higher levels you will acquire a sturdy shield or perhaps a special one with higher numerical values does not mean the shield rules are bad and need errata.
Well, I've been on discussion ever since the playtest. Back then we still had dents and shields still turned into dust at higher levels. That's the problem. Everyone that invest in shields have only one option at higher levels, sturdy shields. All features involving shields engage with shield block in some manner. There are shields specifically made for blocking that can't withstand level appropriated attacks and I'm not talking about gaining the broken condition, I'm talking about being completely destroyed. There's also the issue that special material shields only have hardness and HP as their benefits, but sometimes they cost dozens of times more than a sturdy shield of earlier levels and offer less Hardness and HP.
The only shields that a shield-focused character will have as option late game are Indestructible Shield (18th level RARE item that is inferior than a Major Sturdy shield) because it have good stats but doesn't even take damage (Disintegrate and destruction effects) and Reforging Shield (That has the same stats of a level 13 Sturdy Shield and cost twice as much).
Everyone that wants a "fix" on shields just want other non-sturdy shield to have extra HP to tank at least once and gain the broken condition. It's still strictly inferior than a Sturdy for blocking, but it offers the possibility to use it even once, it's a much more meaningful trade-off than the mandatory "choice" of the sturdy shield.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with "your shield breaks when you stop a mighty blow from a storm giant" kind of thing, but I feel like that loss should be an opportunity loss (i.e. you can't use your shield for a bit) rather than a financial loss (i.e. have to shell out for a new shield.)
I'd be interested in some options that make repairing shields in the 10 minute refractory period more feasible.
Quick Repair and Craft has been one of my skill increases with my shield builds. It allows for great way to recover my only options of a sturdy shield. If you're master you can repair it 6 times in 1 minute, legendary characters can repair it in combat, that's some amazing crafting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd like to see is the Barbarian Feat Cleave errated so that it doesn't count towards your multiple attack penalty.
Then it would be worth taking. It would also reduce the importance of Attack of Opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it be errated? The attack is still on your turn so MAP still applies.
The rules are clear enough. Clarity is not the reason. It needs to be errated so it is worth doing, or worth spending a feat to buy that ability. Currently it is not.
For a level 6 Barbarian feat it is a stand out as the worst option. All it really gives you normally is one extra attack at -10 on your turn for the cost of your reaction.
I'd also like to see another melee combatant that does not have attack of opportunity, and is competitive.
Why would it be errated? The attack is still on your turn so MAP still applies.The rules are clear enough. Clarity is not the reason. It needs to be errated so it is worth doing, or worth spending a feat to buy that ability. Currently it is not.
For a level 6 Barbarian feat it is a stand out as the worst option.
I'd also like to see a melee combatant that does not have attack of opportunity, and is competitive.
Hmmm yeah it does seem like it should avoid MAP or at the very least be at the same MAP as the first strike. As it’s written it’s kinda only valuable as a means to allow additional actions to move or intimidate.
It’s on the weaker side but idk that it’s terrible.
Edit: actually changed my mind, sudden charge cleave intimidating glare is a five action turn that a barb can pull off as a turn opener. That’s pretty potent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't like it" is not a qualifier for Errata, which is about fixing things.
It's not a bad feat, neither is it a must have, which is not a bad thing.
Its a waste of design space - that is a bad but not terrible thing
I just expect more.
OK another option would be to add a Cleave feat to the game that is worth taking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All "do something to two enemies who are standing next to each other" feats are useful, or useless basically based on "how often your GM leaves baddies adjacent."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All "do something to two enemies who are standing next to each other" feats are useful, or useless basically based on "how often your GM leaves baddies adjacent."
I do wish it was just adjacent to the barbarian, a wild swing like that sounds more thematic for a 6th Level character anyways and it makes the barbarian positioning relative to the creatures more impactful than the enemies positioning relative to each other, which puts the responsibility more on the player than the gm.
Edit: thematically I like “you can strike the next closest creature to the creature you felled that is also adjacent to you”
Why would it be errated? The attack is still on your turn so MAP still applies.The rules are clear enough. Clarity is not the reason. It needs to be errated so it is worth doing, or worth spending a feat to buy that ability. Currently it is not.
For a level 6 Barbarian feat it is a stand out as the worst option. All it really gives you normally is one extra attack at -10 on your turn for the cost of your reaction.
I'd also like to see another melee combatant that does not have attack of opportunity, and is competitive.
Why would it be -10 and not just -5?
Strike->Target A dies->Cleave Target B at -5 using reaction->Sudden Charge across the battlefield at Target C.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, going to vehemently disagree that it is a “waste of design space”.
It’s not broke, you don’t like it. Big difference.
Things can be broken in two ways: ridiculously powerful or mostly ineffective.
Cleave is broken.
|
Why would it be -10 and not just -5?
Strike->Target A dies->Cleave Target B at -5 using reaction->Sudden Charge across the battlefield at Target C.
Sure, but Sudden Charge would be at -10 in that scenario (for a total of -0, -5, -10). While the guy without Cleave would get a normal attack and then the Sudden Charge (for a total of -0, -5).
So, in terms of total attacks, all you gained was one at -10.
Why would it be -10 and not just -5?Strike->Target A dies->Cleave Target B at -5 using reaction->Sudden Charge across the battlefield at Target C.
Then your Sudden Charge is at -10 not -5.
So why do you ask? I assume you can work that out yourself and see that is is fairly equivalent. All you have gained is a very bad attack.
"I don't like it" is not a qualifier for Errata, which is about fixing things.
It's not a bad feat, neither is it a must have, which is not a bad thing.
Its a waste of design space - that is a bad but not terrible thing
I just expect more.
OK another option would be to add a Cleave feat to the game that is worth taking.
Cleave is a reaction attack, there is good reason to not make it exempt from MAP because it is an attack outside of the normal assortment of actions and can be procced during your own attack routine.
If you have concerns about it, use sweep weapons and agile weapons. There is actually a weapon with both. The hatchet, which means you take an effective -3 if you only attacked once before you cleaved.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have concerns about it, use sweep weapons and agile weapons. There is actually a weapon with both. The hatchet, which means you take an effective -3 if you only attacked once before you cleaved.
It's a Barbarian Feat...Agile weapons are thus a really bad idea. Sweep works, though.
Cleave is a reaction attack, there is good reason to not make it exempt from MAP because it is an attack outside of the normal assortment of actions and can be procced during your own attack routine.
Which is 100% the reason why it is a really bad idea. It interfers with your main attack sequence. It gets you another attack at -10 which is almost nothing. It is almost impossible to trigger it outside your turn.
The good reason you quote, is exactly what makes it useless.
If you have concerns about it, use sweep weapons and agile weapons. There is actually a weapon with both. The hatchet, which means you take an effective -3 if you only attacked once before you cleaved.
These weapons all have additional trade offs especially for a raging barbarian. Like how about doing full rage damage, and why aren't you using a weapon with a much bigger dice? You aren't really gaining anything much from these options here.
Cleave is of tiny benefit and a very poor feat.
The solution to "a feat is not as good as other feats available at the same level" is probably just "retraining is pretty easy."
If you have concerns about it, use sweep weapons and agile weapons. There is actually a weapon with both. The hatchet, which means you take an effective -3 if you only attacked once before you cleaved.It's a Barbarian Feat...Agile weapons are thus a really bad idea. Sweep works, though.
You only lose half your rage damage bonus, not entirely terrible if your instinct gives you a notably large bonus, and you are potentially hitting an opponent you would not have hit at all, so the loss of damage somewhat makes up for itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You only lose half your rage damage bonus, not entirely terrible if your instinct gives you a notably large bonus, and you are potentially hitting an opponent you would not have hit at all, so the loss of damage somewhat makes up for itself.
Well, first, the highest damage Agile weapon that also has Sweep is the hatchet, which is a d6 weapon, so that's not great for a Barbarian in lots of ways.
And in terms of Rage it's eventually -6 to -9 damage per attack (which is what this amounts to at high levels, it's always at least -1 and at least -3 by 7th), including on the first one, which is eminently not worth it.
For some quick math, at, say, 10th level Fury Barbarian (to make the damage differential as low as possible) using a scourge is doing 2d6+10 for a DPR of 26.35 at three attacks, and 5.95 per attack thereafter, while their equivalent with a battleaxe (to keep it to one-handed weapons) is doing 2d8+13 for a DPR of 30.8 on three attacks, and another 5.5 per attack thereafter. The hatchet literally never catches up
And that's stacking things as much in the hatchet's favor as possible, with every other Instinct doing even better with the battleaxe, and that's not even mentioning the greataxe, of course. And it gets worse for the hatchet at high level.
You only lose half your rage damage bonus, not entirely terrible if your instinct gives you a notably large bonus, and you are potentially hitting an opponent you would not have hit at all, so the loss of damage somewhat makes up for itself.If you have concerns about it, use sweep weapons and agile weapons. There is actually a weapon with both. The hatchet, which means you take an effective -3 if you only attacked once before you cleaved.It's a Barbarian Feat...Agile weapons are thus a really bad idea. Sweep works, though.
I quote
Specialization AbilityIncrease the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6
The instinct bonus you are talking about is just the Rage bonus. It is all halved by agile. Halving a larger bonus is a worse idea not a better one.
|
We saw with the Alchemist update in the first errata that Paizo seem willing to also use them like "patch notes", something I am 200% down with.
Errata, even as a term, is inherently old media. We don't need to restrict game updates or balance changes like in ye old'en days.
The Alchemist changes were in replacing something that actually didn't work (Mutagenist 1st level feature) with the intended unarmed rules, with something that did.
The goodberry change though, I'll give you.
You only lose half your rage damage bonus, not entirely terrible if your instinct gives you a notably large bonus, and you are potentially hitting an opponent you would not have hit at all, so the loss of damage somewhat makes up for itself.
I quote
Specialization Ability
Increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6
The instinct bonus you are talking about is just the Rage bonus. It is all halved by agile. Halving a larger bonus is a worse idea not a better one.
Oh no, I knew that. I should probably see about how the numbers pan out to sheer damage output to accuracy if you are really pushing the values to be as high as possible. I suspect the damage difference might not be too bad if you consider the likelihood of landing more than the first blow with a nonagile weapon to be pretty unlikely with a -10.
But that's probably something worth it's own thread methinks.
|
|
Oh no, I knew that. I should probably see about how the numbers pan out to sheer damage output to accuracy if you are really pushing the values to be as high as possible. I suspect the damage difference might not be too bad if you consider the likelihood of landing more than the first blow with a nonagile weapon to be pretty unlikely with a -10.
I did the math above. A battleaxe is just flatly better than a hatchet for a Barbarian's DPR. By a fair bit, and it's an escalating amount as they level.
But that's probably something worth it's own thread methinks.
This, however, is fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PSA: If you had to move, activate rage/Demoralize/whatever, and attack, Cleave is an attack at -5 that you wouldn't normally have gotten. Alternately, if you move, Swipe and secure a kill, you can still get an extra attack at -10 out of it. (-9 with a sweep weapon)
There are uses for it, and since it's not literally nonfunctional, I'm not sure it's a good candidate for errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it be -10 and not just -5?
Strike->Target A dies->Cleave Target B at -5 using reaction->Sudden Charge across the battlefield at Target C.
Sure, but Sudden Charge would be at -10 in that scenario (for a total of -0, -5, -10). While the guy without Cleave would get a normal attack and then the Sudden Charge (for a total of -0, -5).
So, in terms of total attacks, all you gained was one at -10.
This is all rather moot because you can’t sudden charge with Map since it has the open trait it’s always first
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We saw with the Alchemist update in the first errata that Paizo seem willing to also use them like "patch notes", something I am 200% down with.
Errata, even as a term, is inherently old media. We don't need to restrict game updates or balance changes like in ye old'en days.
The Alchemist changes were in replacing something that actually didn't work (Mutagenist 1st level feature) with the intended unarmed rules, with something that did.
The goodberry change though, I'll give you.
I was talking more about Mutagenic Flashback, which I believe was literally invented for the errata.
Goodberry got such a buff though!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was invented for the errata because the 1st level feature for mutagenists did literally nothing for your character though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, many of the alchemist buff were invented to cover for features that did nothing. I don't think those are strong reasons to believe that future Erratas will take more of a balance patch role - not saying it's totally impossible of course.
I hope the long wait is indicative of not only long amounts of evaluation but potentially more bold choices in errata. We’ll have to see.
Does anyone know if they source PFS tables for problems to ascertain likely targets of errata? Almost like a live playtest (not altogether different from measuring win rates of heroes/champions in moba style games).
I find the restriction that the enemies must be adjacent to each other much worse than the MAP. Great Cleave suffers even more, as it requires you to be fighting against some kind of weird conga line to have any effect.
Cleave and Great Cleave don't even come close to comparing to the other available Feats, especially as Levels 1,4, and 6 are crammed full of amazing Feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is an errata idea:
The snake animal companion has a Constrict power that requires it to have a grabbed creature.
However this is not possible for it to do. It is trained in Athletics so it wants to try to grapple Sadly it lacks the required hand to do this.
It also doesn't have the grab monster ability either.
Technically nothing wrong here. Nothing to clarify. But also totally useless.
Please Paizo fix it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is an errata idea:
The snake animal companion has a Constrict power that requires it to have a grabbed creature.
However this is not possible for it to do. It is trained in Athletics so it wants to try to grapple Sadly it lacks the required hand to do this.
It also doesn't have the grab monster ability either.
Technically nothing wrong here. Nothing to clarify. But also totally useless.
Please Paizo fix it.
In a similar vein, the vulture’s advanced benefit is a reaction. But ACs are minions and therefore can’t use reactions...
On cleave, there are animal forms that give you a decent primary attack, but secondary attacks that are agile. Nothing about the feat requires that the new attack be the same weapon. Even non-animal barbarians can carry a second weapon for making follow up attacks. Also a Flurry Ranger who has MC’d into Barbarian might enjoy the feat as well. It doesn’t seem like something that is totally useless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mutagenic flashback was invented exactly to replace something that did literally nothing (mutagenist pre-errata got no level 1 ability since everyone was getting the "unarmed=simple proficiency" that their level 1 ability was)We saw with the Alchemist update in the first errata that Paizo seem willing to also use them like "patch notes", something I am 200% down with.
Errata, even as a term, is inherently old media. We don't need to restrict game updates or balance changes like in ye old'en days.
The Alchemist changes were in replacing something that actually didn't work (Mutagenist 1st level feature) with the intended unarmed rules, with something that did.
The goodberry change though, I'll give you.
I was talking more about Mutagenic Flashback, which I believe was literally invented for the errata.
Goodberry got such a buff though!
True, but why it was invented is beside the point, the fact that they used an errata to introduce a wholly new ability in their first errata for the system shows that its not a sacred cow.
If Paizo want to rework, update, or add abilities using errata and expand the roll they have in the game, then I'd say that's a good thing.
If you can order the books, chances are you can read AoN. And if you can read AoN then you can keep up with the games errata.
If you can order the books, chances are you can read AoN. And if you can read AoN then you can keep up with the games errata.
Modern tabletop rpg should move towards wiki as the main way of releasing/updating content.