Pathfinder Ultimate Equipment Errata [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 02:22 AM

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

So I'll explain. No there is too much. I'll sum up.

When you make a bunch of fecal matter, and one gem, people are going to use the gem.And this, this Errata, They didn't make gems out of turds. They made turds out of gems.

Okay, now the longer version.

You see, the cookie cutter effect, where everything is the same, happens when there aren't really that good of options in the first place. I've gone through some of these things to make some high powered characters before. Characters that are not for want of money, that could buy anything they wanted. And lemme tell you, some slots are so bad, that I couldn't buy any items in that slot.

I mean lets just look at Wrist slots. (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrous.aspx?FinalSlot=Wrist)

Tell me what you'd buy in there if you had unlimited money. Well if you're not wearing armor, you'd probably go for braces of armor, because well, Logic would tell us that we should go for the top most costing items right?

Bracers of the Shield Mates (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Bracers%20of%2 0the%20Shield%20Mates) requries two people wear them for a +2 shield bonus. IF you happen to have mythic power then it might get a little more useful, but not by too much in all honestly.

Thorned Manacles (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Thorned%20Mana cles) Well you certainly don't want this item do you? At least not for your wrist slot, unless you're like some sort of pain taster I guess

Guantlets of Skill at Arms (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Gauntlets%20of %20Skill%20at%20Arms) Well if you're a fighter, this totally sounds like what you need right? Until you look at the description and get a +1 with elf weapons. Though if you did use an elven priestess with body bludgeon you might be able to claim the items bonus.

Anchoring Bracers (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Anchoring%20Br acers) Finally! Here is an item. Though unlike Armored Bracers which help you do a very important thing.. (Not Die) this one makes it much easier for you to die as it keeps you right up in the enemies face. But maybe you don't need the bracers of armor, so these could be useful. Course to use them you do have be good at making Combat Maneuver Checks.

Dimensional Shackles (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Dimensional%20 Shackles) And now we're back to things that are totally garbage for your wrist slot. Unless you like not being able to teleport.

Swallowtail Bracers (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Swallowtail%20 Bracers) Its like a luckstone for your arms. So in that regard its pretty good, unless you know, you have the cheaper item called the luck stone. Though you do have the ability to a few more things if you just happen to pick the right god.

My basic point there, is just going through all those wrist slots already, there is several that are not only unusable but are detrimental for a wrist slot item. (Now if you're a slaver, those ones are an entirely different matter)

Making items unusable, expensive piles of garbage, just is going to make people only have to pick the one or two good items that are left, thus increasing the amount of cookie cutter.

Florian

2016-05-20, 03:47 AM

@Tris:

You´re not getting my argument and therefore don´t understand my critique on that, it seems.
Right now, we actually do have the problem that, if ranked, certain items (big six) have more overall use and other items push certain builds, meaning that the high synergy gain actually alter the class behavior.
That´s fun to experience but bad for overall balance.

Once you get aquatinted with the basics of System Mastery, you eligible choices drop to a mere handful and this is what I see as the root of the problem here.

Kurald Galain

2016-05-20, 03:47 AM

Lord_Gareth

2016-05-20, 03:52 AM

Once you get aquatinted with the basics of System Mastery, you eligible choices drop to a mere handful and this is what I see as the root of the problem here.

And what they've done instead of fixing that is removed the options that were actually nice to have. That's not a fix, that's just petulance.

Florian

2016-05-20, 03:58 AM

And what they've done instead of fixing that is removed the options that were actually nice to have. That's not a fix, that's just petulance.

Nah. The problem here is that we had long enough time to fool around with certain options and got used to seeing them as the Gold Standard without taking a closer look why they evolved into this.

Lord_Gareth

2016-05-20, 04:15 AM

Nah. The problem here is that we had long enough time to fool around with certain options and got used to seeing them as the Gold Standard without taking a closer look why they evolved into this.

Are you seriously attempting to tell me that folks with an interest in character building don't understand the options they're selecting? 'Cause that's what it sounds like and if that's the case, friend, I think you're about to be in for a Bad Time courtesy of this forum's particular obsession with mechanics, their roots, and their consequences.

Sayt

2016-05-20, 05:04 AM

Florian, respectfully, I disagree.

The Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier turned from a useful and viable magic item, into a +1 Ring of Protection on the head slot with a 3000gp once-ever-off crit/sneak attack negation. The nerf to this item hasn't drawn people away from the Big Six, it's created a new, worse alternative to it. Also, be sure never to by your Jingasa's second hand! What do I take instead of the Jingasa of the Fortunte soldier on most builds? ...nothing. If I'm building aSlayer set up for Two Weapon Feinting I might take mask of the stony demeanor, or Maiden's Hem on a Shatter Defenses build.

Jaunt Boots now do absolutely nothing You can spend a move action to move 15 feet, or slower. Note that despite this magic item requiring a conjuration (teleportation) spell to make, the movement inside it is not called out as being teleportative, so you're spending 7500gp to do something you could already do. They could have errataed it in to be teleportative movement, but they didn't.

The bracers of falcon's aim went from being a low-level alternative to lesser bracers of archery to being completely obsolete. On the other hand I don't entirely like the idea of replacing feats with magic items, so eh

Also, does anyone else find it funny that you have to wear the quickrunner's shirt and bracers of Falcon's Aim to bed, along with your belt and headband to get their full effects?

Kurald Galain

2016-05-20, 05:36 AM

Designing items is about creating choice.

For example, let's look at the shoulder slot. Pretty much all of my characters wear a Cloak of Resistance. And that is because, while a number of interesting shoulder items exist, it's pretty hard to compete with a +3 or more on all saving throws. So, we have a single item that overshadows a number of others. Nerfing or banning this item would increase choice.

Now let's look at the eyes slot. Pretty much all of my characters (eventually) wear Eyes of the Eagle. However, I find this item quite boring, and I don't want all of my characters to max out perception. I'm wearing this solely because I have 2500 gp left over and there is nothing else I can do with my eyes slot. If Eyes of the Eagle was nerfed or banned, I would simply forget that the eyes slot exists. Nerfing or banning this does not increase choice. Unless you want to argue that perception checks are overpowered, the only thing worth tweaking here is the price.

This also applies to the head slot, body slot, chest slot (why on earth is that separate from body in the first place?) and even my second ring slot. Basically, Pathfinder has way too many item slots, and no useful items to fill them with.

Cosi

2016-05-20, 06:53 AM

It seems to me that the easy solution to this problem is to just have all items in a given slot come with the appropriate +stat bonus. That way you don't have to worry about your cool new cloak competing with Cloaks of Resistance, and you don't have to worry about screwing up the math on character bonuses.

avr

2016-05-20, 07:01 AM

Basically, Pathfinder has way too many item slots, and no useful items to fill them with.
And really, not enough money on the standard WBL to fill out the item slots until late in the game. Once you've bought the big 6 you may not even have the cash for those eyes of the eagle, let alone anything more expensive.

Florian

2016-05-20, 07:27 AM

(Sorry for the slow and not very elaborate answers. I´m in the grip of my allergies right now and those are real hindrances)

It seems to me that the easy solution to this problem is to just have all items in a given slot come with the appropriate +stat bonus. That way you don't have to worry about your cool new cloak competing with Cloaks of Resistance, and you don't have to worry about screwing up the math on character bonuses.

The root cause rather is easy, formulaic answers compared to actual power.
Take a look at how ABP solves the big six issue. That is a very informative experience.

Florian, respectfully, I disagree.

I don´t find the 24 hours clause implausible, as it is centered on the slot and not actually wearing the item 24 hours. You won´t lose the boni provided by a Belt of Physical Perfection when taking a **** by unbuckling it to go to the loo.

What we´re looking at is trying to archive balance (per WBL) and that needs a holistic view at things.
Fate´s Favored is a thing and it means that any calculations not taking it into account will end up wrong.
As ist stands, a luck bonus is worth more than a deflection bonus but uses the same base calculation. That has proven to be wrong in the past, leading to a relatively cheap and reliable item that in all aspects proved to overachieve for its cost.

Kiton2

2016-05-20, 09:20 AM

Jaunt Boots now do absolutely nothing You can spend a move action to move 15 feet, or slower. Note that despite this magic item requiring a conjuration (teleportation) spell to make, the movement inside it is not called out as being teleportative, so you're spending 7500gp to do something you could already do. They could have errataed it in to be teleportative movement, but they didn't. This would have given teleport movement - even just 15 feet - to not-casters. Which would be "a nice thing".

The bracers of falcon's aim went from being a low-level alternative to lesser bracers of archery to being completely obsolete. You know EXACTLY why they went out of their way to dig up and nerf this one. Bracers of archery *ONLY* work with Bows. Falcon's aim can affect crossbows. And we've been told many times: crossbows not being worse than throwing water balloons is worse than every Hitler.

Most of these changes were vindictively deliberate and anti-choice.
I mean for ***k's sake; Mundane armors had their prices jacked massively up, Courageous utterly gone, Feather-Step Slippers? Really? Tremor boots???

Magentawolf

2016-05-20, 09:23 AM

Also, I just noticed there's a mithral waffle iron on the equipment list. WTF? :smallbiggrin:

Hey, those cast-iron waffle irons are heavy!

Also, most of these changes make me weep. Sigh.

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 09:25 AM

System Mastery doesn't create or remove choices. Choices add and remove choices.

System Mastery just allows you to understand what the system expects of you, and to avoid traps. Lack of System Mastery isn't going to alter the Style Stealing Vambracers into an item you'd want to actually wear on your wrist slot. Its still an option, one that still cuts your hand off.

The system also assumes that you will have a certain number of bonuses. You're expected to have a certain amount of bonuses to your saving throws, a certain amount of AC, DC to abilities, attack bonus, etc as you level up to deal with the appropriate challenges for your CR The sort of Common Magic Item abilities.

Not having items that get you up there, will result in you having a harder and harder time with completely the appropriate challenges you face. Your system mastery doesn't change this either.

What would create more options, allowing people to use items they haven't used before while not being below the estimated power level is doing things that change up either what the system expects you to have, or pulling a page from Wizards, who, when they released the Magic Item Compendium, created the ability to put those common effects on any item.

So now you could have a +resistance bonus to saving throws bladed cape, or whatever other cape item there is, beyond being limited to cloak of resistance or Paldrons for Fort and other similar options, while attempting to remain effective for the system's challenges.

Psyren

2016-05-20, 09:55 AM

Looks like the PFSRD is already incorporating the errata.

When you make a bunch of fecal matter, and one gem, people are going to use the gem.And this, this Errata, They didn't make gems out of turds. They made turds out of gems.

Part of the issue is that we were using the items in ways they evidently didn't intend. Carting around an entire laundry hamper of spare Quickrunner's Shirts you could change into after every fight just wasn't something they wanted people doing, yet I've seen handbooks recommend it more than once. Now, we can certainly debate whether the fighter needing to hit up a laundromat every time he got to town was really breaking anything or not, but the simple fact is that "unintended" is as valid a reason to nerf something as "abusive."

I mean lets just look at Wrist slots. (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWondrous.aspx?FinalSlot=Wrist)

Tell me what you'd buy in there if you had unlimited money. Well if you're not wearing armor, you'd probably go for braces of armor, because well, Logic would tell us that we should go for the top most costing items right?

Yes, Sturgeon's Law applies to most things in this game. There are still plenty of useful wrists you didn't mention though. Any caster or gish can benefit from Spellguard Bracers for instance, and any skillmonkey can use Bracers of Steadiness. Yeah, an armor-wearing martial class who doesn't fall into one of the previous two categories (and also isn't a paladin or cavalier) has fewer options here, but there are plenty more slots they can look into filling in the meantime.

Designing items is about creating choice.

For example, let's look at the shoulder slot. Pretty much all of my characters wear a Cloak of Resistance. And that is because, while a number of interesting shoulder items exist, it's pretty hard to compete with a +3 or more on all saving throws. So, we have a single item that overshadows a number of others. Nerfing or banning this item would increase choice.

Now let's look at the eyes slot. Pretty much all of my characters (eventually) wear Eyes of the Eagle. However, I find this item quite boring, and I don't want all of my characters to max out perception. I'm wearing this solely because I have 2500 gp left over and there is nothing else I can do with my eyes slot. If Eyes of the Eagle was nerfed or banned, I would simply forget that the eyes slot exists. Nerfing or banning this does not increase choice. Unless you want to argue that perception checks are overpowered, the only thing worth tweaking here is the price.

This also applies to the head slot, body slot, chest slot (why on earth is that separate from body in the first place?) and even my second ring slot. Basically, Pathfinder has way too many item slots, and no useful items to fill them with.

They've addressed this problem - Innate Item Bonuses (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/magic/innateItemBonuses.html) from Unchained let you keep the Big Six without losing any of the more fun/quirky/situational items that could have taken up those slots. You can also just use the "Improving Items" rules from core to add Big Six properties to your chosen quirky item or vice-versa, like a Barbarian paying to get Belt of Physical Perfection added to their Cord of Stubborn Resolve.

In short, it's the best of both worlds - GMs who want there to be a tradeoff are supported, and those who want to let their players freely combine things to keep them interesting also have a defined way to do that.

Most of these changes were vindictively deliberate and anti-choice.
I mean for ***k's sake; Mundane armors had their prices jacked massively up, Courageous utterly gone, Feather-Step Slippers? Really? Tremor boots???

Again, Courageous has been gone for months now. This shouldn't have been a shock to anyone.

Lord_Gareth

2016-05-20, 10:04 AM

Now, we can certainly debate whether the fighter needing to hit up a laundromat every time he got to town was really breaking anything or not, but the simple fact is that "unintended" is as valid a reason to nerf something as "abusive."

No, it really isn't. Nerfs are a balance change, just like buffs are. You do them for reasons of the game's health. "I didn't intend this, but it seems fine," means you leave it alone. Obviously it's Paizo's product and they can do whatever they like with it, but that doesn't make it legitimate, just permissible.

They've addressed this problem - Innate Item Bonuses (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/magic/innateItemBonuses.html) from Unchained let you keep the Big Six without losing any of the more fun/quirky/situational items that could have taken up those slots.

Which would be great if they actually did that. The innate item bonuses, like VoP in 3.5, suffer from a bad case of someone not doing the math correctly.

Florian

2016-05-20, 10:11 AM

No, it really isn't. Nerfs are a balance change, just like buffs are. You do them for reasons of the game's health. "I didn't intend this, but it seems fine," means you leave it alone. Obviously it's Paizo's product and they can do whatever they like with it, but that doesn't make it legitimate, just permissible.

Get over it. When the only way you can break certain limits is by abusing the rules, something is basically wrong. Part of the topic is how casters are handled in TO discussion, something that doesn´t happen outside of a TO environment.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-20, 10:11 AM

I'm really tempted to create a database of Errata, with the pre & post options as well as my personal recommendations on what to do as an alternative. I've had multiple fun elements to builds scrapped over the past year due to Paizo's odd ideas regarding "Balance".

I think the only item that needed some balancing were the Bracers of Falcon's Aim, and really those just needed a price increase. The spell itself should probably be bumped to 2nd or 3rd level too for non-Rangers along with a rule that wands assume the highest possible spell-level. As it is, players will just buy up wands for the effect. Four wands will cost 3,000 gold and last for 200 combat encounters, that's likely to be sufficient for most of a player's career. The difference now is that you've added the inconvenience of spending your first round buffing.

As for the overall problem with magic items, its the same problem with anything in a 3.5 system. You have a small handful of amazing options, a slightly larger set of good items and a giant collection of bad options, some of which occasionally have odd interactions with other options to produce interesting results.

9mm

2016-05-20, 10:14 AM

Lord_Gareth

2016-05-20, 10:18 AM

Get over it.

Really? That's where you want to go with this? I play - and design for - this game as well. Paizo's decisions potentially affect my players, both current and new, and have to be accounted for in my work and designs. Errata, good or bad, sets a precedent that will then need to be addressed somehow when I work in the future. But, please, continue to condescend me.

When the only way you can break certain limits is by abusing the rules, something is basically wrong. Part of the topic is how casters are handled in TO discussion, something that doesn´t happen outside of a TO environment.

I'm sorry, what abuses are we talking about that warranted any of these nerfs? Abuse generally falls under the umbrella of things that are unhealthy for the game and thus warrant an eye and a nerf - y'know, the sort of things you run a playtest to prevent? None of the nerfed items were being abused and the end result of the uses they were being put to wasn't damaging the expectations built into the system (as defined by challenges by level).

Florian

2016-05-20, 10:18 AM

No we know why they evolved to this: the PDT have been, are, and likely always will be, **** at their jobs.

What do you expect? The powers that be are no different from us informed people in any way, maybe better at writing stuff, worse at figuring out synergies.

Elricaltovilla

2016-05-20, 10:18 AM

Florian

2016-05-20, 10:25 AM

Really? That's where you want to go with this? I play - and design for - this game as well. Paizo's decisions potentially affect my players, both current and new, and have to be accounted for in my work and designs. Errata, good or bad, sets a precedent that will then need to be addressed somehow when I work in the future. But, please, continue to condescend me.

I'm sorry, what abuses are we talking about that warranted any of these nerfs? Abuse generally falls under the umbrella of things that are unhealthy for the game and thus warrant an eye and a nerf - y'know, the sort of things you run a playtest to prevent? None of the nerfed items were being abused and the end result of the uses they were being put to wasn't damaging the expectations built into the system (as defined by challenges by level).

I play this game and design stuff for it, too, mainly modules, encounters and scenarios. Unlike you, I mostly deal with a localized version that is published later but includes the FAQ and Errata up to that point, meaning my first "contact" with the material is an entirely different one that most english speakers might have. (Your second printing is my first printing)
I´m quite often pretty much surprised what those differences are if you don´t know what things have been "nerfed" from. Do think about that for a while.

Edit: I´m actually a bit surprised by your reaction. You of all people should know how good rules come to be: 30% Author, 30% Editor, 30% Feedback.

Psyren

2016-05-20, 10:30 AM

"I didn't intend this, but it seems fine," means you leave it alone. Obviously it's Paizo's product and they can do whatever they like with it, but that doesn't make it legitimate, just permissible.

It certainly can mean leaving it alone. But in the end, that is their decision to make about their product, and individual GMs have the tools they need to override any errata they want.

One thing I will say against them is that they are moving away from a practice I quite liked,which was "pre-detonating" changes like these via FAQ, giving the base a chance to weigh in before the next print run. I saw more people agreeing with the Courageous nerf than not, for instance. But the changes themselves, I'm not as concerned with.

Which would be great if they actually did that. The innate item bonuses, like VoP in 3.5, suffer from a bad case of someone not doing the math correctly.

It seems fine to me - if you want to add a +2 deflection bonus to your Ring of Ki Mastery, you bump the price tag up by +8000 gp, just as if you were buying a separate ring of protection +2, only under IIB the final product takes up just one slot so you have another ring you can get. To boost the deflection bonus higher, just keep adding non-deflection properties to it, like Mind Shielding to get it to +3. There's even a rule to let you avoid having to pay the deflection increase on your second ring.

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 10:36 AM

Part of the issue is that we were using the items in ways they evidently didn't intend. Carting around an entire laundry hamper of spare Quickrunner's Shirts you could change into after every fight just wasn't something they wanted people doing, yet I've seen handbooks recommend it more than once. Now, we can certainly debate whether the fighter needing to hit up a laundromat every time he got to town was really breaking anything or not, but the simple fact is that "unintended" is as valid a reason to nerf something as "abusive."

Its understandable with that one, sure, that they would limit it to the 24 hour thing. The second nerf however to it, is that really needed?

But things like Tremor Boots going from 20 feet to 5 feet, the Reconisiance Gloves going from 15 to 5 feet, and from 10 minutes to 1 minute and requiring the 24 hour so you can use it that one minute. Brawler Enhancement going from +1 to +3 etc.

Yes, Sturgeon's Law applies to most things in this game. There are still plenty of useful wrists you didn't mention though. Any caster or gish can benefit from Spellguard Bracers for instance, and any skillmonkey can use Bracers of Steadiness. Yeah, an armor-wearing martial class who doesn't fall into one of the previous two categories (and also isn't a paladin or cavalier) has fewer options here, but there are plenty more slots they can look into filling in the meantime.

The Bracers of Steadiness isn't something that Any skill monkey can use. First it requires that has to be a skill check that relies on their arms and hands. Which limits it to Crafting Checks, Disable Device Checks, and Perform Instrument Checks as far as I can see. Now you have to take 20, increasing your time by 20x and has to be eligible for that. Then its just a +5 competence bonus, which tends to be the bonus that most items give you.

with my character who had unlimited amounts of funds, I eventually settled down for a wrist bracer that I only used because of the fact it could keep my ioun stones from being snatched

The Spellguard is good if you like trying to kill yourself. (Being in Melee as that concentration bonus is only for casting defensively and you're a spell caster. And now you're not getting AC bonuses from bracers of armor)

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-20, 10:57 AM

The solution to the problem of Sturgeon's Law is not to take the 10% of worthwhile material and make it as crappy as the other 90%. The solution is to find stuff in the 90% pile and figure out a way to move it into the 10% pile.

This errata is basically an exercise in the Tall Poppy Syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome). Options that are good are punished for being good because (I suspect) it's less work to make the good options bad than it is to make the bad options good.

That's actually a debate I had with MMO Designers back when I played & beta tested those games. Players will always want more power, but if you only provide Buffs then eventually the baseline power of everything starts to get unwieldy. Good developers will change things in multiple ways, and they will build in multiple ways to tweak balance in their games. The problem Paizo faces is that they're trying to provide a concept of balance to a game system that wasn't create with it in mind while also working on very aggressive release schedules.

Additionally, the nature of PFS (which is a strong profit center) requires some balancing among classes for the canned scenarios to work. Optimally (for the customers) we would simply have two rule sets, but that's a massive commitment of resources for Paizo and would cut into their profitability significantly. So rule changes to stamp down some of the abuses that crop up in PFS will affect those of us who avoid it.

Kiton2

2016-05-20, 11:05 AM

Elricaltovilla

2016-05-20, 11:09 AM

That's actually a debate I had with MMO Designers back when I played & beta tested those games. Players will always want more power, but if you only provide Buffs then eventually the baseline power of everything starts to get unwieldy. Good developers will change things in multiple ways, and they will build in multiple ways to tweak balance in their games. The problem Paizo faces is that they're trying to provide a concept of balance to a game system that wasn't create with it in mind while also working on very aggressive release schedules.

Additionally, the nature of PFS (which is a strong profit center) requires some balancing among classes for the canned scenarios to work. Optimally (for the customers) we would simply have two rule sets, but that's a massive commitment of resources for Paizo and would cut into their profitability significantly. So rule changes to stamp down some of the abuses that crop up in PFS will affect those of us who avoid it.

I don't see it as an issue of players wanting more power. Because (hypothetically speaking) no one is taking the bad options anyway, especially in an MMO, they may as well not exist for purposes of balance concerns. Chaff abilities receive complaints because there's the implicit assumption that players are expected to use them, but a lot of the time the complaints are framed in the opposite fashion (i.e. X is seeing too much use as opposed to A through W are never used because they are subpar options or even actively harmful). Which creates the impression that X is the problem instead of A-W.

I'm not really interested in the discussion anyway though. I've said my piece and it isn't going to do anything to convince Paizo to change their stance and I'm fortunate enough to have a friend with a print copy of the book so that I can get the pre-errata versions of the items that I feel were changed without warrant. I just wish I didn't have to add to my ever growing list of house rules.

Psyren

2016-05-20, 11:18 AM

The Bracers of Steadiness isn't something that Any skill monkey can use. First it requires that has to be a skill check that relies on their arms and hands. Which limits it to Crafting Checks, Disable Device Checks, and Perform Instrument Checks as far as I can see. Now you have to take 20, increasing your time by 20x and has to be eligible for that. Then its just a +5 competence bonus, which tends to be the bonus that most items give you.

1) You forgot Disguise, Heal, and Sleight of Hand - but Disable is enough on its own, it's the main reason to bring a skillmonkey along in the first place. And yes, taking 20 is often used for Disable.

2) You're right, competence bonuses can come from other slots - but now you can free up those slots for something else. As you yourself noted, other slots have more valuable options than wrists do.

The Spellguard is good if you like trying to kill yourself. (Being in Melee as that concentration bonus is only for casting defensively and you're a spell caster. And now you're not getting AC bonuses from bracers of armor)

If you're an armored caster like a Magus, Summoner, Warpriest, or Bard (to name just a few), you're not wearing Bracers of Armor anyway, so that's a moot point. And ending up in melee is not always something the caster can control, so having an item to help them avoid wasting actions is still good.

There is little reason for a Magus (for example) to wear anything else in this slot.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-20, 11:25 AM

I'm not really interested in the discussion anyway though. I've said my piece and it isn't going to do anything to convince Paizo to change their stance and I'm fortunate enough to have a friend with a print copy of the book so that I can get the pre-errata versions of the items that I feel were changed without warrant. I just wish I didn't have to add to my ever growing list of house rules.

Mine got so large already that I've started just creating my own system instead. I'm lucky in that I've saved my PDFs on my desktop, so I've got most of the rules without the errata. My players and GMs and I are being very selective of which errata we employ.

Florian

2016-05-20, 11:33 AM

Cosi

2016-05-20, 11:34 AM

The root cause rather is easy, formulaic answers compared to actual power.
Take a look at how ABP solves the big six issue. That is a very informative experience.

And ABP would be? Google gives me presumably unhelpful answers like "American Board of Pediatrics" and "AdBlock Plus".

In short, it's the best of both worlds - GMs who want there to be a tradeoff are supported, and those who want to let their players freely combine things to keep them interesting also have a defined way to do that.

Does anyone else think this attitude is kind of ****ty? The DM is one of five people at the table. If you're keeping him happy, but screwing over the players, I don't think you're doing your job as a designer.

I'm really tempted to create a database of Errata, with the pre & post options as well as my personal recommendations on what to do as an alternative. I've had multiple fun elements to builds scrapped over the past year due to Paizo's odd ideas regarding "Balance".

I've occasionally considering playing 3e Ultimate Edition. 3.0, 3.5, Dragon, PF, and DPP content, use whichever version 's want where things conflict, including pre/post errata. That would be fun.

As for the overall problem with magic items, its the same problem with anything in a 3.5 system. You have a small handful of amazing options, a slightly larger set of good items and a giant collection of bad options, some of which occasionally have odd interactions with other options to produce interesting results.

It's not (just) that. A lot of the crap items actually cost more than the good ones. A Cloak of the Bat will run you 26,000 GP, whereas the generally preferred Cloak of Resistance +5 comes in at only 25,000 GP. That's screwy.

Look at what was nerfed. It's not exactly metamagic rods, here. If one were to try to bring the 10% down to the other 90%, why in nine hells were reconaissance gloves double-nerfed? The jiangsa of the uh, one-time-deflecting soldier (fortunate? it's not even a luck bonus anymore!) and yet no one's doing nothing about those rods!

Are metamagic rods seriously that big of a deal? They never seemed that bad to me, unless there was some serious change I didn't know about. Although I suppose the fact that casters don't blow gold on four kinds of plussed items and hence can buy them sooner might be an issue.

Manyasone

2016-05-20, 11:36 AM

@Cosi ABP stands for Automatic Bonus Progression. Pathfinder Unchained system. It's what I'll be using after my current campaign ends

Kiton2

2016-05-20, 11:38 AM

"There's nothing else even remotely useful in this slot so this one that everyone picks by default must be OP and needs the nerf" is depressing.
That aside though:

1) You forgot Disguise, Heal, and Sleight of Hand - but Disable is enough on its own, it's the main reason to bring a skillmonkey along in the first place. And yes, taking 20 is often used for Disable

If there's penalties for failing, you cannot. Other than practicing with locks in the comfort of your own home, there's no way you can take 20 on Disable Device when it matters in any way. Most especially not for traps.

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 11:40 AM

Look at what was nerfed. It's not exactly metamagic rods, here. If one were to try to bring the 10% down to the other 90%, why in nine hells were reconaissance gloves double-nerfed? The jiangsa of the uh, one-time-deflecting soldier (fortunate? it's not even a luck bonus anymore!) and yet no one's doing nothing about those rods!

The gloves are one of the ones I'm particularly against myself. Same with the Boots of Tremor Sense and the feather step slippers.

I'm actually surprised that the Feather step slippers didn't get the 24 hour activation hammer. I wouldn't be surprised to see that popping up on many more magic items. Same thing with the Ring of Revolution and it barring UMD. Granted, that particular one is a bit wonky for certain if you were like just a rogue without any oracle stuff.

Florian

2016-05-20, 11:46 AM

And ABP would be? Google gives me presumably unhelpful answers like "American Board of Pediatrics" and "AdBlock Plus".

Really? Weird!

ABP is Automatic Bonus Progression, found in Pathfinder Unchained.
In short, using that system cuts WBL by half, gets rid of the big six and distributes the boni analog to the regular class progression.

Tuvarkz

2016-05-20, 11:47 AM

That's actually a debate I had with MMO Designers back when I played & beta tested those games. Players will always want more power, but if you only provide Buffs then eventually the baseline power of everything starts to get unwieldy. Good developers will change things in multiple ways, and they will build in multiple ways to tweak balance in their games. The problem Paizo faces is that they're trying to provide a concept of balance to a game system that wasn't create with it in mind while also working on very aggressive release schedules.

Additionally, the nature of PFS (which is a strong profit center) requires some balancing among classes for the canned scenarios to work. Optimally (for the customers) we would simply have two rule sets, but that's a massive commitment of resources for Paizo and would cut into their profitability significantly. So rule changes to stamp down some of the abuses that crop up in PFS will affect those of us who avoid it.

Except that PFS scenario encounters are designed to be hideously easy and that as is now, paizo classes remain overall more on the far too strong, above the curve or below the curve categories rather than balanced. Most of this errata seems to be balanced around low-optimization games with people that have little to no system mastery (To the point where so many trap choices are picked that often a fullcaster might actually be not gamebreaking).
This would be like balancing DotA2 around 1-3k mmr pub matches or balancing WoW around LFR.

Florian

2016-05-20, 11:53 AM

@Tuvarkz:

At that point, we´re talking about design paradigms.
Most published stuff is "easy mode" once you have entered system mastery. There is a marked difference between RAI and RAW here and this discussion showcases it.

AnonymousPepper

2016-05-20, 11:57 AM

From what I'm seeing here, I'll simply be telling my players, once I come off hiatus, to ignore the UE errata. Because it's my right as a GM to pull a Nick Fury if I so choose - and I think all of you should remember you have that power too. >_>

http://media.tumblr.com/470626d9e77c69113ec642ae17b3659f/tumblr_inline_mq27sppJvR1qz4rgp.gif

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-20, 11:58 AM

Thank you. It felt good reading that.

Thanks for the compliment.

Ninjaxenomorph

2016-05-20, 12:00 PM

Most of the non-magical errata is all right. Fixed some stuff that was bothering me in the past. One thing I don't get, though: why do the shields have two prices listed?

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-20, 12:08 PM

Except that PFS scenario encounters are designed to be hideously easy and that as is now, paizo classes remain overall more on the far too strong, above the curve or below the curve categories rather than balanced. Most of this errata seems to be balanced around low-optimization games with people that have little to no system mastery (To the point where so many trap choices are picked that often a fullcaster might actually be not gamebreaking).
This would be like balancing DotA2 around 1-3k mmr pub matches or balancing WoW around LFR.

Well... modern WoW certainly does balance at a lower skill cap. Even historically they never bothered with proper balance for high-end raiding as they knew the "hardcore" crowd would just switch out alts to stay competitive. Likewise, Paizo doesn't (and shouldn't) balance around the builds created by high-end optimizers (us) as we're a minority of the player basis. Instead they're balancing around the builds we come up which become popular, and therefore common place. Remember that the APs are assuming a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric party with minimal optimization. Bring in your optimized Oradin, Magus, Zen Archer and Summoner and you can blow through most of the encounters as written.

Kiton2

2016-05-20, 12:10 PM

Except for Shaman. Just to be mediocre, "middle of the pack" in the best of patches, they have to play top-level. And then in PvP, well...

Legion is gonna suuuuuck (yes, the number passes haven't been done. For everybody else that is. Ele/Enh generally don't get one at all, except possibly a few more nerfs.), bye bye utility, hybrid tax still there!

Psyren

2016-05-20, 12:19 PM

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if PFS was the driving force behind many of these. It doesn't bother me.

If there's penalties for failing, you cannot. Other than practicing with locks in the comfort of your own home, there's no way you can take 20 on Disable Device when it matters in any way. Most especially not for traps.

Why does it have to be "in the comfort of your own home?" If you have all night to break into the bank vault, and taking 20 only costs you half an hour, why wouldn't you? It's likely to be quieter than bashing your way in, and 25 + modifier is going to beat most of them.

Kiton2

2016-05-20, 12:26 PM

Psyren

2016-05-20, 12:30 PM

Taking 20 involves "rolling enough times to succeed".
This is why there's a restriction: If failure (flat-out or by a certain margin like with traps) or multiple failures would cause it to jam, trigger an alarm, or otherwise have any kind of consequence, you simply cannot take 20. You have to roll normally for every time and try your luck.

Disable Device is used to open locks in PF, and you can explicitly take 20. I agree with you on traps, though I seem to recall there's a way to take 20 on traps too.

Also - Escape Artist also lets you take 20, and arguably uses your hands.

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 12:33 PM

1) You forgot Disguise, Heal, and Sleight of Hand - but Disable is enough on its own, it's the main reason to bring a skillmonkey along in the first place. And yes, taking 20 is often used for Disable.

2) You're right, competence bonuses can come from other slots - but now you can free up those slots for something else. As you yourself noted, other slots have more valuable options than wrists do.

As Kiton2 pointed out, though slightly off, As you could use take20 on disable device to unlock locks in dungeons too.

Heal Checks would become 20 standard actions, 200 minutes or 20 hours long. The first of which would likely have the person your trying to stabilize bleed out before you finished your check. Of course you may need to see some proof that you are not a good healer

Disguise is a maybe. It would only work if you're using a disguise kit to create a disguise, and not a magic effect. And even then its a bit iffy with its ability to retry.

Other slots might be more valuable, but the ones that give the same bonus often do more, with less restrictions.

I suppose if you can BS your way through how you're using your hands, you could make almost anything give you the bonus with a take 20. So Possibly Bards could make a knowledge check, by referencing a book of brial.

If you're an armored caster like a Magus, Summoner, Warpriest, or Bard (to name just a few), you're not wearing Bracers of Armor anyway, so that's a moot point. And ending up in melee is not always something the caster can control, so having an item to help them avoid wasting actions is still good.

There is little reason for a Magus (for example) to wear anything else in this slot.

Which switches out Bracers of Armor with Spellguard Bracers. Mind you in my example I only started from the most expensive and started working my way down. Many of the most expensive items items are pretty much crap, as they're clearly designed with the intent of not having the player wear them, but to put them on people you want to hurt.

And I'm not saying that there isn't good wrist items. Or that Bracers of Armor is one size fit all. Not in the slightest. For many of my low Will save characters, I'll try to get the Seducer's Bane. More diplomatic characters go for the Merchant Bangles. But rather I'm going in about options that appear to be options, but really are just traps

Psyren

2016-05-20, 12:40 PM

It's not BS if it's true. Disguise uses your hands (unless you're smashing your face into the makeup kit?), Escape Artist uses your hands (otherwise they'd remain restrained) etc.

Which switches out Bracers of Armor with Spellguard Bracers.

As I previously stated, you can't use the former with armor anyway, so you're losing nothing. There's no tradeoff.

And I'm not saying that there isn't good wrist items. Or that Bracers of Armor is one size fit all. Not in the slightest. For many of my low Will save characters, I'll try to get the Seducer's Bane. More diplomatic characters go for the Merchant Bangles. But rather I'm going in about options that appear to be options, but really are just traps

You're not going to have every slot full at level 10 regardless. Just fill the more vital ones first, like you'd have done anyway.

Florian

2016-05-20, 12:44 PM

Thanks for the compliment.

Anonymus criticism is easy. Praise is hard. We all should get used to doing both.

Well... modern WoW certainly does balance at a lower skill cap. Even historically they never bothered with proper balance for high-end raiding as they knew the "hardcore" crowd would just switch out alts to stay competitive. Likewise, Paizo doesn't (and shouldn't) balance around the builds created by high-end optimizers (us) as we're a minority of the player basis. Instead they're balancing around the builds we come up which become popular, and therefore common place. Remember that the APs are assuming a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric party with minimal optimization. Bring in your optimized Oradin, Magus, Zen Archer and Summoner and you can blow through most of the encounters as written.

You´re absolutely right.
Incidentally, during my WoW stint, I was member of a leading guild, therefore reaching certain heights was rather easy to accomplish.
Once you reach a certain point of system mastery, all else will become moot.

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 01:03 PM

It's not BS if it's true. Disguise uses your hands (unless you're smashing your face into the makeup kit?), Escape Artist uses your hands (otherwise they'd remain restrained) etc.

It is BS in some manners. You could potentially attempt to use any skill check with the item by coming up with some way that it uses your hands. Like a bard referencing braille books to gain a bonus on knowledge checks. The thing that kills it really is the additional limitation that it has to be something you can take 20 with.

Other items however tend to do about the same, but with less limitations.

As I previously stated, you can't use the former with armor anyway, so you're losing nothing. There's no tradeoff.

Not saying there is a trade off. Saying that if there is nothing else to use, then we're going into the whole "Cookie cutting" effect of everyone being the same, because there isn't any options.

Fenryr

2016-05-20, 01:17 PM

<rant>

Brawling +3 is dumb. +2 was more than enough.

Quick Runner's Shirt and 24 hours, I get it: it was very abusable. That's cool. But ending your turn? Lame. I mean, it might be possible to work 'round it most of the time but still lame.

</rant>

Oh, boy.

9mm

2016-05-20, 01:24 PM

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if PFS was the driving force behind many of these. It doesn't bother me.

Oh I'm sure it is, now we go back to after 7 years of the community telling Paizo not to balance around PFS, and my frustration grows.

Samalpetey

2016-05-20, 01:35 PM

Taking 20 involves "rolling enough times to succeed".
This is why there's a restriction: If failure (flat-out or by a certain margin like with traps) or multiple failures would cause it to jam, trigger an alarm, or otherwise have any kind of consequence, you simply cannot take 20. You have to roll normally for every time and try your luck.

Sure, so you can't take 20 on traps. Still works for lockpicking though, since jamming isn't a thing and triggering an alarm would be a trap on the lock, not an aspect of picking the lock. Disable the trap, then take 20 on the lock.

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 01:37 PM

Oh I'm sure it is, now we go back to after 7 years of the community telling Paizo not to balance around PFS, and my frustration grows.

No doubt that is what they make most of the errata around. Non-PFS campaigns can have GMs create their own Errata. Its like MMOs that balance around PVP and leave PVE in the dust.

digiman619

2016-05-20, 02:59 PM

Psyren

2016-05-20, 03:16 PM

Brawling is now +3?!?! Are they mad?!?! It's a +2 to unarmed attacks. Who other than Monks and the odd Magus/Warpriest was using this? We get that you decree that casters are the Lord High Masters of Pathfinder, but you're nerfing an option for primarily made for the Monk?!?! WHY?!?!

Actually, it was primarily made for Brawlers. Brawling can only be added to light armor, which monks can't wear. It can't be added to Bracers of Armor.

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 03:18 PM

Elricaltovilla

2016-05-20, 03:20 PM

Actually, it was primarily made for Brawlers. Brawling can only be added to light armor, which monks can't wear. It can't be added to Bracers of Armor.

That seems highly unlikely given that Ultimate Equipment (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Ultimate_Equipment) was released nearly two years before the Advanced Class Guide (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Advanced_Class_Guide).

BlackDragonKing

2016-05-20, 03:53 PM

That's actually a debate I had with MMO Designers back when I played & beta tested those games. Players will always want more power, but if you only provide Buffs then eventually the baseline power of everything starts to get unwieldy. Good developers will change things in multiple ways, and they will build in multiple ways to tweak balance in their games. The problem Paizo faces is that they're trying to provide a concept of balance to a game system that wasn't create with it in mind while also working on very aggressive release schedules.

Additionally, the nature of PFS (which is a strong profit center) requires some balancing among classes for the canned scenarios to work. Optimally (for the customers) we would simply have two rule sets, but that's a massive commitment of resources for Paizo and would cut into their profitability significantly. So rule changes to stamp down some of the abuses that crop up in PFS will affect those of us who avoid it.

This seems honestly rather disingenuous in terms of Pathfinder.

The Errata almost always come after fairly minor things while ignoring more glaring balance issues. I see fairly innocuous feats and magic items get heavily nerfed on a regular basis with these errata while spells I find INCREDIBLY disruptive to many games are untouched. I don't feel like these changes are improving game balance at all when an errata sweeps in and slaps many of my party brawler's toys out of his hands while the party arcanist gets a minor tweak to an exploit that wasn't really the reason that class was and still is overpowered and is otherwise ignored.

Of course, part of this problem is that the most disruptive spells that need tweaking are almost all CRB spells, and that's a major blind spot for the Dev team that still tends to hold to the erroneous assumption that the CRB is beyond reproach.

Psyren

2016-05-20, 04:33 PM

That seems highly unlikely given that Ultimate Equipment (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Ultimate_Equipment) was released nearly two years before the Advanced Class Guide (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Advanced_Class_Guide).

Granted, but my point stands - it couldn't have been aimed at monks given how explicitly they disallowed it for bracers of armor. So go with Unarmed Fighter or figure out something else.

squiggit

2016-05-20, 04:43 PM

That's actually a debate I had with MMO Designers back when I played & beta tested those games. Players will always want more power, but if you only provide Buffs then eventually the baseline power of everything starts to get unwieldy.
Sort of true. No one likes their favorite things getting nerfed.

But that doesn't change that nerfing something really good into something not worth buying is still not healthy for the game. Neither are leaving already bad options still not worth the print space they take up.

So yes, nerf things that are too good, but nerf them into something still reasonable and buff the things that are bad.

Additionally, the nature of PFS (which is a strong profit center) requires some balancing among classes for the canned scenarios to work. Optimally (for the customers) we would simply have two rule sets, but that's a massive commitment of resources for Paizo and would cut into their profitability significantly. So rule changes to stamp down some of the abuses that crop up in PFS will affect those of us who avoid it.
PFS already runs off of its own unique rules though. Making balance decisions for a platform that already makes its own balance decisions seems a bit redundant.

Well... modern WoW certainly does balance at a lower skill cap. Even historically they never bothered with proper balance for high-end

Not really. As long as balance has been a concern they've definitely been addressing both. In fact for a long time one of their mantras was that (non game defining) balance issues at low to moderate skill levels didn't matter because player variance is so much more significant, but the goal was always to design to accommodate for both. Most of the lines in the sand were drawn by players, not developers, because I guess people like scapegoating.

Seppo87

2016-05-20, 05:32 PM

Just a thought, I think I'm seeing a pattern here

1- A new powerful option appears, offering a lomg awaited alternative.
2- Players that want that option in pfs games will buy the new book.
3- Players are now satisfied and will no longer feel they lack valid choices.
4- Paizo nerfs the new option, restoring the original situations where a few options dominate over the others
5- Players now feel they don't have much choice and crave for new powerful options.
6- Back to 1

How many times did we go through "that new feat that will finally allow to add dex to damage with both weapons" ?

Three times!
One would expect they learned how to word the feat after the first time.
This is their job after all, they are supposed to be good at it.
It is unlikely that a team of payed professional would make the same mistake three times.

This is somewhat suspicious but I don't want to make assumpions so I'll stick with facts:
It doesn't matter why this is happening, this shouldn't be how you treat your customers.
People are paying for those options and by nerfing them after the fact does in fact reduce the value of the purchase, to the point most wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

As designers it should be their responsibility to prevent this from happening. If these mistakes are so common maybe they are not doing well enough.

Triskavanski

2016-05-20, 05:59 PM

Granted, but my point stands - it couldn't have been aimed at monks given how explicitly they disallowed it for bracers of armor. So go with Unarmed Fighter or figure out something else.

Could have been someone who didn't understand that Monks don't wear light armor. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen something created that didn't have an understanding of the rules. (Prone Shooter for example) They also did start creating a number of options in other classes to fight unarmed, so there wasn't much of a need to fix it.

PFS already runs off of its own unique rules though. Making balance decisions for a platform that already makes its own balance decisions seems a bit redundant.

Most of PFS unique rules is Ban or Allow. There is very little if any, tweak.

Faily

2016-05-20, 06:16 PM

Read the Errata.

Will have no effect on our playgroups whatsoever.

World keeps spinning.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-20, 06:34 PM

Even then I think +3 is a little out there. Kinda takes up a rather large amount of resources for at least, what seems to be a pretty small bonus +1 might be a little cheap though, I think I could agree with that assessment.

It's an offensive boost on an item slot that normally only gains defensive bonuses. A +1 Brawling set of armor will now cost 16,000 gold (plus the cost of the armor). A +3 weapon costs 18,000 for some context. A +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists is 8,000 while a +3 AoMF is 18,000. So the +1 AC, +2 Attack and Damage armor is priced about the same as a +3 weapon.

Granted, but my point stands - it couldn't have been aimed at monks given how explicitly they disallowed it for bracers of armor. So go with Unarmed Fighter or figure out something else.

It was probably intended for Unarmed Fighter. Rougue had some talents nodding towards Unarmed Strikes too. Sohei also came out in Ultimate Combat and the original FAQ states that it was intended to be able to Flurry while wearing light armor.

Shackel

2016-05-20, 07:47 PM

First Feral Combat Training now this atrocity on Brawling armor. Man, they just... really hate anyone trying to make unarmed combat work for them, aren't they? I'm unsure why they even call it errata anymore.

Zanos

2016-05-20, 08:06 PM

Seems mostly fine to me. Most of the things that were nerfed were must-haves on many characters, and were tremendously more powerful than other items in their cost bracket. I would have preferred cost changes to essentially gutting those items, though. Many of them will never see the light of day on a character again.

Courageous weapons were really stupid, especially for casters, though. Heroism + Greater Magic Weapon gave you a super high morale bonus to basically everything with that cheap property.

digiman619

2016-05-20, 10:49 PM

I must have read "can only be on light armor" as "can't be on medium or heavy armor" and thus viable for Bracers of Armor. My bad.

Psyren

2016-05-20, 11:21 PM

Could have been someone who didn't understand that Monks don't wear light armor. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen something created that didn't have an understanding of the rules. (Prone Shooter for example) They also did start creating a number of options in other classes to fight unarmed, so there wasn't much of a need to fix it.

Well, we can speculate until eternity who it was intended for, but as written, monks couldn't ever use it.

It was probably intended for Unarmed Fighter. Rougue had some talents nodding towards Unarmed Strikes too. Sohei also came out in Ultimate Combat and the original FAQ states that it was intended to be able to Flurry while wearing light armor.

Ninja was another light armor unarmed combatant.

First Feral Combat Training now this atrocity on Brawling armor. Man, they just... really hate anyone trying to make unarmed combat work for them, aren't they? I'm unsure why they even call it errata anymore.

Oh yeah, they can't stand it, which is why they made Pummeling Style and Dragon Style and Unchained Monk and reduced the AoMF cost and...

Necroticplague

2016-05-20, 11:34 PM

Oh yeah, they can't stand it, which is why they made Pummeling Style and Dragon Style and Unchained Monk and reduced the AoMF cost and...

Just to point out, Pummeling style was nerfed three time (to my living memory) and AoMF costs the exact same as a magic weapon, so that's not much of a reduction (unless you're comparing to the stupidly overpriced 3.5 version).

Psyren

2016-05-20, 11:38 PM

Just to point out, Pummeling style was nerfed three time (to my living memory) and AoMF costs the exact same as a magic weapon, so that's not much of a reduction (unless you're comparing to the stupidly overpriced 3.5 version).

1) And despite all those nerfs, they still kept the most important bit (i.e. pounce) which was the whole point of the chain. All the rest is salad dressing.
2) Of course I'm comparing to the original. A buff is a buff, even if taken for granted.

Anlashok

2016-05-20, 11:53 PM

2) Of course I'm comparing to the original. A buff is a buff, even if taken for granted.

It's a 20% cost reduction from the original CRB printing. It's not bad, but not great either. It's still double the price of a regular magic weapon. Which basically means TWF or go home if you want cost efficiency and it's still locked at a lesser enhancement bonus for, uh, reasons.

Seems mostly fine to me...Many of them will never see the light of day on a character again.
I don't know how anyone could consider that fine.

Psyren

2016-05-21, 12:24 AM

It's a 20% cost reduction from the original CRB printing. It's not bad, but not great either. It's still double the price of a regular magic weapon. Which basically means TWF or go home if you want cost efficiency and it's still locked at a lesser enhancement bonus for, uh, reasons.

The alternative is making it as cheap to enchant as a single weapon, while simultaneously neglecting the fact that flurry gives you all the attacks of the full GTWF line along with full strength (or dex!) to damage on every hit. Hopefully you can see why they wouldn't be too enthused about that.

Anlashok

2016-05-21, 12:29 AM

Well, U-Flurry doesn't give you as many attacks unless you burn a style strike and even then it's nonlethal.

But that aside, a lesser amulet that costs as much and explicitly doesn't work with TWF or flurry seems sensible too.

And regardless none of that really justifies the odd +5 cap.

Florian

2016-05-21, 12:33 AM

AoMF costs the exact same as a magic weapon, so that's not much of a reduction (unless you're comparing to the stupidly overpriced 3.5 version).

You overlook that you gain more mileage out of an AoMF the more natural attacks are enhanced by it. Some dedicated builds can have quite a number of natural weapons/attacks.

I don't know how anyone could consider that fine.

It´s fine as it opens up diversity. Take a look at most guides and build discussions, you´ll notice certain recurring trends on how to equip classes. What you did see on Barbarians, for example, was a Furious Courages Falchion, but never a, say, Frostbrand, just like you´ll find a Keen Scimitar on a Magus but never a Firetongue.

It´s a sad thing when bland but functional items are better than the more colorful specific items.

Anlashok

2016-05-21, 12:41 AM

Coidzor

2016-05-21, 01:08 AM

I don't get it.

It's a crappy knock-off version of attunement from 5e, which is how they limit the amount of magic items that a player can use at any given time in that system. Aside from a handful of usually very minor things, you only can have so many magic items, any others that you might have just can't be used until you swap one of your attuned item slots out for one of them.

It's bad to the point where I feel dumber for having read that was the best idea they could come up with in the 5 minutes it must have taken them to actually come up with that particular nerf, because any actual amount of thought would have lead to basically any other way of either limiting the ability to have a bunch of them and cycle out or changing the cost to reflect giving it a more competitive number of uses per day.

BlackDragonKing

2016-05-21, 01:09 AM

You overlook that you gain more mileage out of an AoMF the more natural attacks are enhanced by it. Some dedicated builds can have quite a number of natural weapons/attacks.

It´s fine as it opens up diversity. Take a look at most guides and build discussions, you´ll notice certain recurring trends on how to equip classes. What you did see on Barbarians, for example, was a Furious Courages Falchion, but never a, say, Frostbrand, just like you´ll find a Keen Scimitar on a Magus but never a Firetongue.

It´s a sad thing when bland but functional items are better than the more colorful specific items.

It's a feature of the game that the devs are explicitly not interested in addressing that some weapons are inherently better than others, particularly within certain specific fighting styles.

It is impossible to make any weapon more appealing to how the Magus was designed than a 15-20 threat range weapon that can be used effectively one-handed without drastically altering some of the design assumptions of the game. It's the nature of the game that there is a best weapon to be using, and you are starting down a slippery slope that never ends if your reaction to people figuring out what that weapon is is to break that weapon and try to force them to use a worse one.

Because there will STILL be a best weapon, and then you'll have to break that, too. And the one after that.

It's like the Assassin PRC from the core rulebook. If you're playing a core-only game, it is the only way to get a death attack because the slayer and the ninja are not allowed. This does not make the Assassin a GOOD option, it's simply the ONLY option.

I don't like the notion of trying to fight that a metagame exists. It's a fight you'll never win, it's just one that will make the players feel quite irate the developers sabotage any option they think is doing too well in the name of forcing someone to do something different.

As far as the "more colorful" thing, the elemental enchants are usually ribbon abilities. They don't actually do a whole lot, because if something resists energy types at all then Flaming, Corrosive, Frost, and Shocking either barely do anything or don't do anything period. They're flashy but fairly useless, which means someone that is designing their own weapon will be looking for better things. The magus in particular doesn't need to be bothered about pretty ribbons on their sword because their sword can have any combination of abilities they want thanks to their arcane pool. So it makes a lot more sense for them to stick to a weapon that has useful "always on" abilities and then add the other stuff as they feel like it.

squiggit

2016-05-21, 01:11 AM

One interesting thing is that they don't use the same fix throughout the book. Quick Runner has attunement, but Conductive has a special clause that you can't benefit from its effect even if you change weapons instead.

While both are a bit hackish I sort of prefer the latter. Attunement feels kind of bad because you don't get to benefit from your magic item until the next day.

N. Jolly

2016-05-21, 01:13 AM

It´s fine as it opens up diversity. Take a look at most guides and build discussions, you´ll notice certain recurring trends on how to equip classes. What you did see on Barbarians, for example, was a Furious Courages Falchion, but never a, say, Frostbrand, just like you´ll find a Keen Scimitar on a Magus but never a Firetongue.

It´s a sad thing when bland but functional items are better than the more colorful specific items.

It really doesn't. A few points here:

1. The reason those pop up is because there's generally a 'best' item, that's what happens when you have multiple choices. And sure, in a good system, that best item will vary between different things to a small degree or be situationally the best (going with a TWF or VS warpriest are both pretty viable), and some times they're not (an alchemist's hand slot should be poisoner's gloves and their body slot should be sipping jacket). But if you remove those, they just move down the ladder to find the next best thing. Maybe (if we're lucky), the next best thing is more subjective than the one before it was, but in PF, that's rarely the case.

2. Most named items suck. They just do. Cold damage and fire damage are not good damage types to deal, no matter how cool the image of a sword dripping with frost or erupting with fire is. If you want 'flavorful' items to be picked up more, make them not trash instead of making them an option that's okay considering that everything else is garbage. When I'm picking something because everything is bad, and I want to be bad in a slightly different way, that's not good design.

3. Flavor's subjective, I could love my courageous greatsword way more than another flaming/frost sword, so that doesn't really help either.

Already on the Jingasa front, most people are probably just going to step slightly to the left, buy their buffering cap, and lament the lack of AC and Fate's Favored synergy if they were using it for crit negation, or just ignore the hat slot all together, which is honestly a decent idea for most characters since aside from some class specific items, the hat slot is trash.

I agree that the items in question should have been nerfed, but not from orbit.

Triskavanski

2016-05-21, 04:21 AM

Florian

2016-05-21, 04:44 AM

It really doesn't.

It does. Bear with me on this one as the answer will take me a while.

The problem, as I see it, is twofold.

Problem point one is that system mastery is a huge part of the appeal of the system and generates its own rewards.
We know things are not equal, therefore we aim to acquire the best solutions based on a cost-benefit ratio and that in itself is fine.

Problem point two is that the underlying calculations are divorced from actual benefits. By handling things like they are equal, the divide is actually deepened.

So, right now we have the situation that all things are considered equal, the paying for fluff is a losing proposition for anyone with enough brains to engage in system mastery.
We know at that point that a +2 keen scimitar is worth more than a +1 Fiery Burst one. Maybe we should give up on pretending the underlying math creates equal worth items?

Considering this, I actually like what they do over in Shadowrun, another very item-based RPG: "Cybernetic Sets" come with an in-build cost reduction instead of more linear cost-gains.

Tuvarkz

2016-05-21, 04:54 AM

Pretty much what NJolly stated. Destroying the functionality of a good number of items does not for choices make and cause people to not be 'Cookie cutter'. It causes people to switch from the Christmas cookie cutters to the summer cookie cutters.

The best you can ever really do in a game where people are allowed to make choices, is get it to a point where people will just mix all the different cookie cutters together. You'll still have a lot of garbage choices for sure (and I know to some people, if you don't select garbage or otherwise not really functional stuff, you're just using cookie cutters) But you'll have a lot more sideways options.

Kinda like when you go Wizard. You could make an abjuration wizard, Conjurer Wizard, divination wizard, an Enchanter Wizard, An Evoker Wizard, An illusionist Wizard, A Transmute Wizard, or a General Wizard.

All of which are pretty equal in terms of ability despite having different focuses. But if say, Divination was an option that no one ever chooses. While Evoker is an option everyone chooses. Blowing up Transmutation will not make people take Evoker less and divination more.

Eh, Evoker and some some degree Enchanter (Given how many high level enemies tend to pop up with mind-affecting immunity) are somewhat weaker Wizards (And generalist too), while Divination can get damnedly crazy. (Although then the Wizard remains incredibly strong)

But the issue is that martials are still subpar and you kill their better choice, that's not balance. For martials, the weaker choices are outright unusable. It's not that one choice is stronger than the rest, it's that sometimes it is the only viable choice. Thus, the better balance decision would be to make other choices viable too.

Kurald Galain

2016-05-21, 05:03 AM

If you're an armored caster like a Magus, Summoner, Warpriest, or Bard (to name just a few), you're not wearing Bracers of Armor anyway, so that's a moot point. And ending up in melee is not always something the caster can control, so having an item to help them avoid wasting actions is still good.

There is little reason for a Magus (for example) to wear anything else in this slot.

While it's true that (e.g.) a Magus doesn't have much else to wear in this slot, that doesn't make Spellguard Bracers a good item for them either. It's actually rather expensive (you do have other use for this money, after all) and given how concentration checks work, it isn't really needed on any partial caster. By the time you can afford it (after more important items like a magic weapon), your check is high enough that it's not needed.

It's a good example of a chaff item, really. As I wrote earlier, many character builds just don't have any use for the wrist item slot.

Triskavanski

2016-05-21, 05:35 AM

It does. Bear with me on this one as the answer will take me a while.

The problem, as I see it, is twofold.

Problem point one is that system mastery is a huge part of the appeal of the system and generates its own rewards.
We know things are not equal, therefore we aim to acquire the best solutions based on a cost-benefit ratio and that in itself is fine.

Problem point two is that the underlying calculations are divorced from actual benefits. By handling things like they are equal, the divide is actually deepened.

So, right now we have the situation that all things are considered equal, the paying for fluff is a losing proposition for anyone with enough brains to engage in system mastery.
We know at that point that a +2 keen scimitar is worth more than a +1 Fiery Burst one. Maybe we should give up on pretending the underlying math creates equal worth items?

Considering this, I actually like what they do over in Shadowrun, another very item-based RPG: "Cybernetic Sets" come with an in-build cost reduction instead of more linear cost-gains.

Shadowrun's Cybernetic Sets though are often an ignored item, particularly because of how much a person lights of up like a Christmas tree with RIFD scans.

They also tend to be restrictive, limiting ones ability to really do anything. But I'll give you this, Shadowrun does have one thing going for it, or rather one thing it doesn't have that is going for it.

You see a +1 Flaming Burst Scimitar becomes just a +1 Scimitar against anything immune to fire or with enough fire resistance that you'll never break through it anyways. With as common as creatures immune to fire as there are, and there is a lot of them, it becomes weakened rather often. While a +2 Keen Scimitar on the other hand rarely runs into something immune to crits. And its still a +2 Scimitar even then.

And you see, Shadowrun has less immune to damage type enemies. However very rarely will you see anyone with an understanding of initiative pick anything that does not get bonus initiative passes for their turn. You'll see hackers who understand hacking perform more sleaze actions, than brute force. You'll also see people rarely ever pick up exotic weapons, due to their difficulty of use compared to just picking up a normal pistol, rifle or the like. One exception to this is of course the Monofilimit whip.

You'll also see people who are serious about hacking, very rarely, if ever, pick up a technomancer. You'll generally see only noobs and pretentious people pick up Technomancer to try and out do deckers in hacking and riggers in rigging. They'll fight and struggle against total garbage trap a Technomancer is, and hope and pray for a buff. They will of course get annoyed when the decker gets several pages of new goodies and they get reprints of their abilities that are more clarified and used as 'errata' on some of their more powerful powers. And you'll see those technomancers rely a lot on their sprites.

But nerfing the Decker wouldn't ever make the technomancer a better choice. It'll stay the same, even if it becomes the only choice. As confusing and difficult to work with in death even as they are in life.

Florian

2016-05-21, 05:45 AM

@Kurald Galain:

With a game concerned about "balance" and "quality" and using that as a foundation for other integral things, like CR and LA, we do have a problem when option A is not equal to option B by a long shot.

@Tris:

Use your brain instead of knee-jerk reaction. I mentioned cyber-suits because they cost less than just following the basic math and be done with it.

Arkhios

2016-05-21, 05:47 AM

Granted, but my point stands - it couldn't have been aimed at monks given how explicitly they disallowed it for bracers of armor. So go with Unarmed Fighter or figure out something else.

well, actually... Sohei (monk archetype from advanced player's guide) allowed monks to wear light armor and still benefit from flurry. Granted, their unarmed strike damage stopped increasing beyond 4th level, but that's not a big deal. Dice results vary always more than flat bonuses.

Shackel

2016-05-21, 06:47 AM

Oh yeah, they can't stand it, which is why they made Pummeling Style and Dragon Style and Unchained Monk and reduced the AoMF cost and...

Pummeling Style has been nerfed numerous times and doesn't work with natural attacks, which keys into how AoMF is still inefficient if you're just using unarmed attacks(also that was changed 3 years ago). If you had natural attacks, sure it'd be efficient. Very efficient after even a second claw.

Unfortunately, Pummeling, flurrying, brawling, etc etc etc doesn't work with natural attacks. And neither does Feral Combat Training(in terms of damage). Guess you'll just have to grab Ascetic and a weapon to get monk damage.

Dragon Style is old and certainly seems to be clashing with their current philosophy, and unchained monk helped. Helped so much, in fact, they seem to want to make that your only real choice.

Psyren

2016-05-21, 11:13 AM

Pummeling Style has been nerfed numerous times and doesn't work with natural attacks, which keys into how AoMF is still inefficient if you're just using unarmed attacks(also that was changed 3 years ago). If you had natural attacks, sure it'd be efficient. Very efficient after even a second claw.

Unfortunately, Pummeling, flurrying, brawling, etc etc etc doesn't work with natural attacks. And neither does Feral Combat Training(in terms of damage). Guess you'll just have to grab Ascetic and a weapon to get monk damage.

And? You can't flurry with natural attacks in 3.5 either (nor for that matter add any properties to your AoMF), so what's your point?

Dragon Style is old and certainly seems to be clashing with their current philosophy, and unchained monk helped. Helped so much, in fact, they seem to want to make that your only real choice.

Actually regular monk is still stronger that uMonk at many things - better grapplers (Tetori), better at range (ZA), better with styles (MoMS), better pacifists (Lotus), better dex-based (Flowing), better Wis-based (Qinggong + Four Winds), etc. etc.

uMonk is better at Str-based non-grappling.

While it's true that (e.g.) a Magus doesn't have much else to wear in this slot, that doesn't make Spellguard Bracers a good item for them either. It's actually rather expensive (you do have other use for this money, after all) and given how concentration checks work, it isn't really needed on any partial caster. By the time you can afford it (after more important items like a magic weapon), your check is high enough that it's not needed.

Oh, I never said "take it over items you need more." But if the obsession is to fill every slot, it's better than nothing.

Anlashok

2016-05-21, 01:20 PM

Oh, I never said "take it over items you need more." But if the obsession is to fill every slot, it's better than nothing.

I know you're trying to be a bit snide here, but I don't think it's fair to call it an 'obsession' to point out that some magic item slots are literally just never worth slotting at all and that from a design perspective some of that is pretty questionable.

Florian

2016-05-21, 01:42 PM

I know you're trying to be a bit snide here, but I don't think it's fair to call it an 'obsession' to point out that some magic item slots are literally just never worth slotting at all and that from a design perspective some of that is pretty questionable.

I call that into question. Looking into multipliers only and disregarding the broadening of options simply is an issue that should be addressed.

Psyren

2016-05-21, 03:41 PM

I know you're trying to be a bit snide here, but I don't think it's fair to call it an 'obsession' to point out that some magic item slots are literally just never worth slotting at all and that from a design perspective some of that is pretty questionable.

But if you don't have enough wealth left over after you get the good stuff anyway, it's a moot point isn't it? Even if Magi had a stronger wrist choice, they wouldn't be able to afford it, so if you have freedom of item choice it might as well not be there. And if you don't have that freedom, it's still a moot point.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-21, 07:11 PM

But if you don't have enough wealth left over after you get the good stuff anyway, it's a moot point isn't it? Even if Magi had a stronger wrist choice, they wouldn't be able to afford it, so if you have freedom of item choice it might as well not be there. And if you don't have that freedom, it's still a moot point.

I'd argue that good design would have tempting options in various slots, where there are equivalent levels of benefit for picking either a hat or a wrist guard or a belt. If you're level 5 and there are 3-5 interesting options to pick up then as either a player or a GM you get a bit more variety to loot options. If you hit that level and there's only one thing you may possibly want its a bit more boring.

Now, I'm not saying that at every level every item slot should have comparable choices. But if you have item slots where all available choices are bad, or where there are only 1-2 possibly good items then I would ask why that item slot even exists.

Shackel

2016-05-21, 07:31 PM

And? You can't flurry with natural attacks in 3.5 either (nor for that matter add any properties to your AoMF), so what's your point?

Actually regular monk is still stronger that uMonk at many things - better grapplers (Tetori), better at range (ZA), better with styles (MoMS), better pacifists (Lotus), better dex-based (Flowing), better Wis-based (Qinggong + Four Winds), etc. etc.

uMonk is better at Str-based non-grappling.

The attitude there is only more humorous when it only adds to my point: unarmed is an increasingly bad fighting style unless you're a monk and then frankly just using a weapon saves you a lot of trouble. In fact, I genuinely wonder just what your point was in the first place, since the bottom half of my post was talking about how AoMF doesn't do much for a pure unarmed fighter, and trying to mix natural and unarmed got a lot of options nerfed and loses others altogether.

Also, I believeFeral Combat Training used to even let you flurry with the natural weapons selected. Not anymore.

Psyren

2016-05-21, 09:11 PM

I'd argue that good design would have tempting options in various slots, where there are equivalent levels of benefit for picking either a hat or a wrist guard or a belt. If you're level 5 and there are 3-5 interesting options to pick up then as either a player or a GM you get a bit more variety to loot options. If you hit that level and there's only one thing you may possibly want its a bit more boring.

Now, I'm not saying that at every level every item slot should have comparable choices. But if you have item slots where all available choices are bad, or where there are only 1-2 possibly good items then I would ask why that item slot even exists.

Because not every class prioritizes the same item slots. Wrists are a great slot for unarmored classes like witches and monks that need to get their AC there. The Armor slot meanwhile is not great for them. Similarly, the Shield slot is generally ignored by archers etc.

The attitude there is only more humorous when it only adds to my point: unarmed is an increasingly bad fighting style unless you're a monk and then frankly just using a weapon saves you a lot of trouble. In fact, I genuinely wonder just what your point was in the first place, since the bottom half of my post was talking about how AoMF doesn't do much for a pure unarmed fighter, and trying to mix natural and unarmed got a lot of options nerfed and loses others altogether.

Also, I believeFeral Combat Training used to even let you flurry with the natural weapons selected. Not anymore.

What? FCT still lets you do that. I just fail to see why you'd want to, because you don't get additional attacks added to your flurry, and your fists are perfectly deadly enough on their own.

And yeah, unarmed is generally a bad idea for non-monks and non-brawlers (and for archetypes/options that don't aim to emulate same.) That's.... kind of the whole point.

Shackel

2016-05-21, 09:34 PM

What? FCT still lets you do that. I just fail to see why you'd want to, because you don't get additional attacks added to your flurry, and your fists are perfectly deadly enough on their own.

And yeah, unarmed is generally a bad idea for non-monks and non-brawlers (and for archetypes/options that don't aim to emulate same.) That's.... kind of the whole point.

Just checked it, thank goodness that's still in there. I thought the flurry was just in the general "abilities/feats that need UA apply to that weapon".

Even so, I don't understand why they would go out of their way to purposefully make anyone else trying to focus unarmed have a bad time. Even Brawlers get whacked with the bat with the Brawling armor nerf, hence my note that it feels like you're being forced into monk. Well, you can use UAs with the Fighter pretty easily now since they can use AWT to give their UAs monk scaling and have their Weapon Training bonus, meaning that if they TWF they can Flurry of Blows with the same effectiveness as a monk after level 10.

But at this rate they'll find a way to nerf that too. Presumably because of all things that are unbalanced, anyone but a monk using unarmed is the real problem.

Florian

2016-05-22, 12:35 AM

Florian

2016-05-22, 02:36 AM

Yeah, but nerfing scimitars doesn't make the flame tongue appealing. I'll just go to the next 'boring and bland option' (though I'd argue that neither of those weapons are very interesting in the first place).

Nevermind that your argument seems fundamentally disingenuous. You claim that you want item diversity, yet at the same time you're celebrating the fact that several times are now never worth using ever. You know, the exact opposite of diversity. Nerfing overpowered stuff is one thing, but it seems kind of self evident why "this item will never see the light of day" is incredibly bad, from the perspective of diversity and balance and game design and book design and every other sort of design.

I´m having the opinion that the basic situation right now, having to chose between efficiency or flavor is the basic flaw that should be removed to open up more diversity and fun for character builds.

I would not "nerf the scimitar". Contrary to that, I would reduce the arms and armor lists to some basic but meaningful choices that stay relevant during the whole game and move the flavor to be templates coupled with cost reduction.

Psyren

2016-05-22, 07:58 AM

Just checked it, thank goodness that's still in there. I thought the flurry was just in the general "abilities/feats that need UA apply to that weapon".

Even so, I don't understand why they would go out of their way to purposefully make anyone else trying to focus unarmed have a bad time. Even Brawlers get whacked with the bat with the Brawling armor nerf, hence my note that it feels like you're being forced into monk. Well, you can use UAs with the Fighter pretty easily now since they can use AWT to give their UAs monk scaling and have their Weapon Training bonus, meaning that if they TWF they can Flurry of Blows with the same effectiveness as a monk after level 10.

But at this rate they'll find a way to nerf that too. Presumably because of all things that are unbalanced, anyone but a monk using unarmed is the real problem.

This is just melodrama. A non-monk losing (or in this case, delaying) the piddly +2 grapple/damage bonus from Brawling isn't "forcing them into monk." And even if they had deleted it from the game entirely instead of just making it more expensive, it wouldn't have made much difference.

Kurald Galain

2016-05-22, 08:25 AM

Looking at this from a practical angle, and irrespective of the recent errata, I find that there are almost no interesting magical items that cost less than 4,000 gp - except for casters, where you can't go wrong with a few pages of spell knowledge and pearls of power.

At that price level, almost all interesting items are directly competing with e.g. a belt of stat +2, an armor/cloak +2, or a magic weapon; these items are effective but boring, and players tend to buy them first once they can afford them.

So to see more variety in items used, the system would need some flavorful and useful-but-not-overpowered items around the 2,000 gp price range. There's not a lot of those, and this errata just happens to nuke several of them.

darkdragoon

2016-05-22, 05:26 PM

The problem is it's 2016 and things pointed out circa 2000 are still happening with regularity.

The quickrunner's shirt was basically a poor man's Hustle, and now it's even poorer.

The brawling armor is inherently limited, and making it cost 8000 more (not including the opportunity cost of other enhancements as well) just makes it even more niche.

upho

2016-05-22, 07:53 PM

This errata is just a big sigh IMO. Unfortunately, the PDT keep proving they're about as reliable with the nerf bat and their own system as the Hulk is with a scalpel doing brain surgery; they either bash the wrong thing or don't know when to stop bashing the right thing. In this case:

Pummeling Getting rid of the ridiculous "crit once and all attacks crit" was of course great. Making the style inaccessible to weapon wielders was questionable (the game needs more ways to access pounce, not less, especially for those whose combat style is pretty much limited to melee damage), and making it off limits to natural attackers was just bad design and overkill.
FCT I might see a few reasons as to why you shouldn't be able to pile everything UAS related to your natural attacks, but limiting FCT to feats which require IUS is again just bad design and overkill.
Quickrunner's Shirt A mix between 1 and 2 above - good that they removed the "two tons of shirts"-munchkinism, while limiting the use with the uncalled for "turn ends after use" was again just bad design and overkill.

Besides a few price fixes, everything else pretty much follows the same theme of overkill or shouldn't have been touched by the nerf bat to begin with. :smallsigh:

As other posters have said, it seems evident the PDT's nerf decisions are WAY too influenced by PFS. Besides the necessary parts of the old FAQ nerfs mentioned above, I'll be fully and wholeheartedly ignoring the rest of this errata at my table.

Shackel

2016-05-22, 07:58 PM

This is just melodrama. A non-monk losing (or in this case, delaying) the piddly +2 grapple/damage bonus from Brawling isn't "forcing them into monk." And even if they had deleted it from the game entirely instead of just making it more expensive, it wouldn't have made much difference.

Is there a particular reason you are so rude over talking about a tabletop game?

Beyond that, a +2 to hit is not small peas. That's a pretty solid bonus that they're making far more expensive to crush the non-monk(I guess unless you're a Sohei) unarmed users. Maybe an optimizer doesn't see +2 as big, but for an average joe like myself that would definitely be worth consideration.

Psyren

2016-05-22, 08:41 PM

Is there a particular reason you are so rude over talking about a tabletop game?

I apologize if I sound that way as that's not my intent. But I do genuinely think that this kind of reaction to a mere +2 bonus becoming more expensive is way out of proportion, and will continue to think that :smallconfused:

Beyond that, a +2 to hit is not small peas. That's a pretty solid bonus that they're making far more expensive to crush the non-monk(I guess unless you're a Sohei) unarmed users. Maybe an optimizer doesn't see +2 as big, but for an average joe like myself that would definitely be worth consideration.

See, language like "crush" being applied to losing a +2 bonus is what I find strange. If that was truly making or breaking somebody's build out there, then I apologize for being blunt, but that build did and does in fact need work. (And the bonus isn't even being lost.)

Sayt

2016-05-22, 09:56 PM

Honestly, Brawler Fighter with Pummeling Charge and Horn of the Criosphix is probably gonna be okay even without Brawling a armour, especially if they have something like Trained Finesse for Even Bigger Number, the only real disappointing thing fot his build is that the dual style feat is strictly Weapon Style+other Style, preventing you from getting Dragon Ferocity Horn of the Criosphinx Pummelling Charges, which while a little disappointing, is perhaps a good thing.

Yondu

2016-05-23, 02:22 AM

OMG did they really have to change the scorpion whip again?!

Also, I just noticed there's a mitral waffle iron on the equipment list. WTF? :smallbiggrin:

Items that didn't work and are now fixed: Spell Storing armor
Items that were overpowered or underpriced, and are now basically useless: Brawling armor, Mistmail, Staff of the Master, Quick Runner's Shirt
Items that didn't need nerfing and are now useless: Courageous weapon, Ring of ferocious action, Gloves of recon, Jingasa, Bracers of Falcon, Goblin fire drum, Snapleaf

Overall verdict: they're just overreacting now. I also note they failed to just make a central rule for the idea that duration-per-day items must be worn 24 hours before they work. It's rather silly to insert that text into each individual item.
I had post two times on Paizo Messageboards on this matter, but each time my post has been removed as i was noting the overreaction, it seems they don't even want to hear the gamers, I'm not PFS, I don't want to play PFS, but it seems that only PFS players have an influence on Erratas...
To be honest, I start to be really annoyed by Erratas in PF, after nerfing Dext to Damage options, they nerf useful items, I think I'll remove erratas completelly from my games and house rule the game in the future.
One more errata like this, I'll sold all my PF books and try another game...

Florian

2016-05-23, 02:43 AM

I had post two times on Paizo Messageboards on this matter, but each time my post has been removed as i was noting the overreaction, it seems they don't even want to hear the gamers, I'm not PFS, I don't want to play PFS, but it seems that only PFS players have an influence on Erratas...
To be honest, I start to be really annoyed by Erratas in PF, after nerfing Dext to Damage options, they nerf useful items, I think I'll remove erratas completelly from my games and house rule the game in the future.
One more errata like this, I'll sold all my PF books and try another game...

Well, PFS needs very firm common ground to work as a social thing, while you can home-brew and house-rule to your hearts desire for your home game.
In addition, PFS will probably generate way more useful feedback because, unlike with a home game, way more variables are known about the circumstances that led to the feedback.

Yondu

2016-05-23, 02:54 AM

Well, PFS needs very firm common ground to work as a social thing, while you can home-brew and house-rule to your hearts desire for your home game.
In addition, PFS will probably generate way more useful feedback because, unlike with a home game, way more variables are known about the circumstances that led to the feedback.
The messageboard is full of feedback from non-PFS players, PFS is has a biaized view of the game, has you cannot craft, you cannot pass 12th level, you cannot buy or make anything interresting, it's like the MTG tournaments, you have rules to apply to anybody if they want to play the same game, they ban cards at this tournaments but if you want to play with others peoples, you have the choice to apply or not, the problem is if you play with PRD (not my case, I have a lot of books and PDF's), the errata will apply even if you don't want it...

Shackel

2016-05-23, 03:20 AM

I apologize if I sound that way as that's not my intent. But I do genuinely think that this kind of reaction to a mere +2 bonus becoming more expensive is way out of proportion, and will continue to think that :smallconfused:

See, language like "crush" being applied to losing a +2 bonus is what I find strange. If that was truly making or breaking somebody's build out there, then I apologize for being blunt, but that build did and does in fact need work. (And the bonus isn't even being lost.)

You say it isn't your intent but when you're trying that desperately to look past the forest for a single, isolated tree(see: the language used) and ignoring the actual meaning behind it, it definitely comes off as you purposefully trying to be dismissive and rude. Which I will continue to think, and considering your attitude showing no actual desire to speak constructively or debate on, leave it at that.

Tuvarkz

2016-05-23, 04:18 AM

Well, PFS needs very firm common ground to work as a social thing, while you can home-brew and house-rule to your hearts desire for your home game.
In addition, PFS will probably generate way more useful feedback because, unlike with a home game, way more variables are known about the circumstances that led to the feedback.

The issue with PFS is that it rarely pokes up glaring issues with the system, particularly due to the low-tuning of the encounters in there and the fact that it's designed around minimal teamwork between the players. Or the apparent fact that minimal to nonexistent system mastery tends to be a common factor in most of PFS players.

While indeed 100% white room simulations aren't the end of it all, the disdain with the which the Paizo team treats it is wholly undeserved.

Fizban

2016-05-23, 07:20 AM

I don't know anything about Pathfinder items, but if there's nothing interesting under 4k then there you go. 3.5 didn't start printing cheap items until late, while it would seem Pathfinder decided to stick with the conservative route. Then they finally decide/someone sneaks in some MiC style cheap stuff, everyone pounces on it, and they nerf it into oblivion to restore the atmosphere they were trying to maintain.

Apparently one or more of these items allowed swift action movement or teleportation? I've seen the Dim Door clause and a comparison to Hustle. What bugs me about these items (see: Anklets of Translocation et all) and their comparisons to spells is that it's fundamentally ignoring the whole point of magic and classes. We already know that magic is supposed to be overpowered, maybe that's why spells/powers like Hustle exist? And that's supposed to be part of playing that class, not a part of everyone's gear list. Unless you think printing items that give people full BAB and combat feats is a good idea, since that's the same sort of thing.

Florian

2016-05-23, 07:32 AM

Psyren

2016-05-23, 08:59 AM

You say it isn't your intent but when you're trying that desperately to look past the forest for a single, isolated tree(see: the language used) and ignoring the actual meaning behind it, it definitely comes off as you purposefully trying to be dismissive and rude. Which I will continue to think, and considering your attitude showing no actual desire to speak constructively or debate on, leave it at that.

There's no "desperation" on my part - just mystification at a +2 bonus inspiring this much fervor - but, suit yourself.

I don't know anything about Pathfinder items, but if there's nothing interesting under 4k then there you go. 3.5 didn't start printing cheap items until late, while it would seem Pathfinder decided to stick with the conservative route. Then they finally decide/someone sneaks in some MiC style cheap stuff, everyone pounces on it, and they nerf it into oblivion to restore the atmosphere they were trying to maintain.

Apparently one or more of these items allowed swift action movement or teleportation? I've seen the Dim Door clause and a comparison to Hustle. What bugs me about these items (see: Anklets of Translocation et all) and their comparisons to spells is that it's fundamentally ignoring the whole point of magic and classes. We already know that magic is supposed to be overpowered, maybe that's why spells/powers like Hustle exist? And that's supposed to be part of playing that class, not a part of everyone's gear list. Unless you think printing items that give people full BAB and combat feats is a good idea, since that's the same sort of thing.

@Fizban:

You´re arguing besides the actual point.
The perceived problem actually is that there are some rather cheap items where the initial cost-benefit-calculation is right, but that will keep on scaling in power to an absurd level, while comparative items on the same slot don´t have the benefit of scaling, staying static.

Edit: The two best examples here are the Bracers of Falcon´s Aim and Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier.
The former will upgrade nearly any kind of martial ranged combat, therefore increase in power with any additional investment you make into using this kind of strategy, the later is able to negate one certain kind of attack per day and will scale in power the more powerful that attack would be.

Indeed this does seem to be the issue. Similarly, Quickrunners gets more and more valuable the more attacks you get.

But at the same time, I do agree with the comments saying that this was overkill. Quickrunners, I feel, would have been fixed with just the 24 hour "attunement." Tremor Boots were too much at 20, but could have dropped to 10ft rather than 5, and similarly the Recon Gloves could have also been 10ft since the attunement requirement largely fixed the "swap-in-swap-out" gameplay. And most of all - as I said before, FAQ was a good way for them to roll out these changes on a trial basis that didn't require Eurasia-ing everyone's PDFs and SRDs sources.

Now, am I going to rend my garments over it all, probably not - but I do think there's an opportunity for constructive and actionable feedback here that is going to be lost in all the usual vitriol and hyperbole that surrounds nerfs.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-23, 09:39 AM

Shackel

2016-05-23, 10:03 AM

Florian

2016-05-23, 10:21 AM

There actually are some interesting magic items under 4k, but many are limited use and intended for higher-level game play. The items that do exist in that budget range are often quite interesting for more intrigue-based game play, which I happen to enjoy. If you're going pure hack & slash though you'll be out of luck.

It´s more a psychological effect, really.

People generally seem to value constant boni, especially multipliers more than investing in one-shot effects, even if those are more powerful. It´s easier, doesn´t take actual tactical understanding to use and won´t need you to juggle with the necessary actions.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-23, 10:22 AM

Though it's balanced out by being on light armor in the first place: either you're tanking your defense for it, or you're going to still be spending a fair amount of cash for mithral(if that'd even work).

Well, Unarmed builds tend to be either unarmed or only wearing light armor anyway. All that you're sacrificing is AC from your armor enhancement bonus, which you could gain in a number of ways. Players now have to chose between +3 AC and +2 Attack/Damage. That's an interesting choice to be making, and the type that I wish we had more of in Pathfinder.

This is opposed to the changes with Quick Runner's Shirt, where it went from powerful and slightly cheesy to possibly not worth buying.

Kurald Galain

2016-05-23, 10:42 AM

Florian

2016-05-23, 10:46 AM

Well, Unarmed builds tend to be either unarmed or only wearing light armor anyway. All that you're sacrificing is AC from your armor enhancement bonus, which you could gain in a number of ways. Players now have to chose between +3 AC and +2 Attack/Damage. That's an interesting choice to be making, and the type that I wish we had more of in Pathfinder.

This is opposed to the changes with Quick Runner's Shirt, where it went from powerful and slightly cheesy to possibly not worth buying.

Careful there.

Like with any other martial style, you go unarmed because you see some actual gain by doing so. Mostly, this is based on discovering some synergy that gives you an internal static multiplier that makes this choice superior and worth the investment.

Talk about the Quick Runner´s Shirt is always centered on the obvious, but so far seldomly managed to touch on the powerful. Easy Pounce? Yes, obvious. Easy "Studied Target"? That, too!

The issues that we´re talking about right now are not based on being intimately familiar with one kind of build, but having a working familiarity with all kinds of builds that utilize certain rules elements.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-23, 11:29 AM

Careful there.

Like with any other martial style, you go unarmed because you see some actual gain by doing so. Mostly, this is based on discovering some synergy that gives you an internal static multiplier that makes this choice superior and worth the investment.

Talk about the Quick Runner´s Shirt is always centered on the obvious, but so far seldomly managed to touch on the powerful. Easy Pounce? Yes, obvious. Easy "Studied Target"? That, too!

The issues that we´re talking about right now are not based on being intimately familiar with one kind of build, but having a working familiarity with all kinds of builds that utilize certain rules elements.

Well I would argue that the majority of players go unarmed because they want to play the guy who punches things, not because of some mechanical synergy they've discovered. As for Quick Runner's Shirt, the fact that so many classes and builds could do various things with it is what made it such a good item. The only "problem" with the item is that it plays with action economy assumptions and so the 24-hour clause is fairly reasonable when you consider the low cost of the item.

darkdragoon

2016-05-23, 01:24 PM

And that's supposed to be part of playing that class, not a part of everyone's gear list. Unless you think printing items that give people full BAB and combat feats is a good idea, since that's the same sort of thing.

Many magic items exist for the sole purpose of providing such effects. Similarly the vast majority of classes coming out (and archetypes, and related support like feats) are I want to have XYZ. And even if this were some sort of "Put the genie back in the bottle" design paradigm these items are a poor choice to start it with.

A pile of those shirts cost more and do less than a dorje, unless you really only need it like once a week or something. The old psicrown of the evader did more. The PU equivalents are more "fly and time travel" but again, you'd probably want that by the time you can afford them. But instead it gets worse, because somebody doesn't like the idea of changing a shirt. Seriously. Ironically enough another book has "take off your pants to avoid stuff in combat."

upho

2016-05-23, 03:37 PM

@Fizban:

You´re arguing besides the actual point.
The perceived problem actually is that there are some rather cheap items where the initial cost-benefit-calculation is right, but that will keep on scaling in power to an absurd level, while comparative items on the same slot don´t have the benefit of scaling, staying static.

Edit: The two best examples here are the Bracers of Falcon´s Aim and Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier.
The former will upgrade nearly any kind of martial ranged combat, therefore increase in power with any additional investment you make into using this kind of strategy, the later is able to negate one certain kind of attack per day and will scale in power the more powerful that attack would be.I actually think this far from the truth in most cases. For example, the Jingasa is very powerful during earlier levels when you're highly unlikely to be hit by more than one crit per day, but it doesn't do much to protect you against for example a 15th level crit-opped magus. Likewise:
Talk about the Quick Runner´s Shirt is always centered on the obvious, but so far seldomly managed to touch on the powerful. Easy Pounce? Yes, obvious. Easy "Studied Target"? That, too!And? What exactly is OP about a "free" Studied Target 1/day? The QS had a greater impact on the higher level combat performance of martials than anything else, which is exactly why it was GREAT for balance. Over-nerfing it is simply bad design, while it would've been good design to release additional easily accessible options (for martials) having the same benefit.

Indeed this does seem to be the issue. Similarly, Quickrunners gets more and more valuable the more attacks you get.Eh...? :smallconfused: Last I checked monsters get more HP and higher AC. Both you and I can very easily build a martial able to one-shot an "average" CR = level monster with a full attack in early as well as late levels.

But at the same time, I do agree with the comments saying that this was overkill. Quickrunners, I feel, would have been fixed with just the 24 hour "attunement." Tremor Boots were too much at 20, but could have dropped to 10ft rather than 5, and similarly the Recon Gloves could have also been 10ft since the attunement requirement largely fixed the "swap-in-swap-out" gameplay. And most of all - as I said before, FAQ was a good way for them to roll out these changes on a trial basis that didn't require Eurasia-ing everyone's PDFs and SRDs sources.This.

Now, am I going to rend my garments over it all, probably not - but I do think there's an opportunity for constructive and actionable feedback here that is going to be lost in all the usual vitriol and hyperbole that surrounds nerfs.And hopefully this as well. Vitriol and hyperbole sure isn't going to help, but unfortunately I can totally see why so many respond in such a manner, and Paizo are chiefly to blame for this, not their customers.

Psyren

2016-05-23, 04:20 PM

Eh...? :smallconfused: Last I checked monsters get more HP and higher AC. Both you and I can very easily build a martial able to one-shot an "average" CR = level monster with a full attack in early as well as late levels.

They do, but that's already accounted for by your need to buy more attack and defense bonuses at higher levels. As you climb, most sub-3k items drop off in usefulness; a +1 sword is a godsend at level 2, but quickly thrown in the vendorheap at 12. Not so the shirt, which stayed just as useful when you could scrape together the coin for your first one, as it does when you have the WBL to churn them out like Perry Ellis.

And hopefully this as well. Vitriol and hyperbole sure isn't going to help, but unfortunately I can totally see why so many respond in such a manner, and Paizo are chiefly to blame for this, not their customers.

I think there's fault on both sides. This sort of reaction happens almost across the board in games that get patched, whether the game in question is digital or tabletop. People don't like nerfs, no matter how much they may be needed.

Having said that, the designers do themselves no favors if they don't have dialogue about their line of thinking, don't pre-detonate changes via FAQ where feedback can be more easily solicited, and err on the side of overnerfing instead of changing one thing and seeing how it plays out before changing the other thing.

upho

2016-05-23, 05:13 PM

They do, but that's already accounted for by your need to buy more attack and defense bonuses at higher levels. As you climb, most sub-3k items drop off in usefulness; a +1 sword is a godsend at level 2, but quickly thrown in the vendorheap at 12. Not so the shirt, which stayed just as useful when you could scrape together the coin for your first one, as it does when you have the WBL to churn them out like Perry Ellis.I think we, as well as most other players, agree that nerfing the walking Perry Ellis factory was a good thing. I'm annoyed by the "turn ends"-thing. And yes, the additional move remains useful in higher levels. I fail to see why this is a bad thing simply because a +1 sword doesn't do so. Regardless of the QS, items aren't - and IMO shouldn't be - balanced solely to other items, they should be balanced to the system as a whole.

Very important sidenote: I don't have any personal experience with the Perry Ellis phenomenon since my obvious diabolical leanings makes me more of a Prada (https://youtu.be/Xwho_Dpd3xY?t=22) and Jeffery-West (http://jeffery-west.co.uk/) kinda guy:
http://res.cloudinary.com/upho/image/upload/c_scale,h_294/v1464040059/3998909820_8cfd87172e_zfxrab.jpg

:smalltongue:

I think there's fault on both sides. This sort of reaction happens almost across the board in games that get patched, whether the game in question is digital or tabletop. People don't like nerfs, no matter how much they may be needed.

Having said that, the designers do themselves no favors if they don't have dialogue about their line of thinking, don't pre-detonate changes via FAQ where feedback can be more easily solicited, and err on the side of overnerfing instead of changing one thing and seeing how it plays out before changing the other thing.Agreed. The lack of dialogue and over-nerfing are the reasons why I think Paizo are chiefly to blame for the vitriol and hyperbole. Though they have a smaller customer base, I think it's reasonable to compare this to the reactions for example DSP get when they publish nerfs. It's a different world IME.

--------------------

Slightly OT It strikes me in this as well as many other threads related to items that it seems most seem to view the "additional item benefit in same slot for 50% price increase"-rule as something that is only rarely allowed. Is this really the case in most games outside of PFS?

If so, it seems very odd to me. I've so far never played in a game which didn't allow this (and usually at least some custom items as well, within reason).

Necroticplague

2016-05-23, 10:36 PM

avr

2016-05-24, 12:07 AM

I think the original intended purpose of the QRS was to assist running away. Like Expeditious Retreat, being used that way is rare in actual play though.

To the OT - yes, it is common for people to declare that they are playing RAW, and that that means only items which you can find in the books/SRD exist.

Florian

2016-05-24, 12:42 AM

I'm kinda confused as to the purpose of the shirt now that it ends your turn. I thought the point of it was to essentially act as a 1/day Pounce with a bit less movement.

EDIT: With some further thought, all the main uses of a move action that end your turn I can think of basically turn this into a ranged option, instead of a melee one.

Don´t you think that if the purpose was to give the ability to Pounce, the item would have read as "activate as a swift action to gain the ability to Pounce 1/day" from the beginning? And would have been priced according to the apparent worth of Pounce all along?

What it is, simply is some Nike jogging shirt that allows to push a bit harder at jogging, gain one last burst of speed.

I think this shows one of the main problems with errata and "nerfs", the moment when the original creator chimes in to say that something was not used as it was originally intended.

Slightly OT It strikes me in this as well as many other threads related to items that it seems most seem to view the "additional item benefit in same slot for 50% price increase"-rule as something that is only rarely allowed. Is this really the case in most games outside of PFS?

It´s simply a very problematic rule with far-ranging implications.
Right now you have to make a choice per slot, with the back-up option to go slotless, aka Ioun Stone, at double price.
Combining items with the 50% cost increase is way cheaper than going slot plus slotless. So there´s something fundamentally wrong here.

The other thing is that basically, you´ve got to make a choice if you want to broaden or deepen your build.
Allowing for both will create way more synergies than intended, making the math come apart even earlier than usual.

Consider something that was discussed earlier in this thread: Specific items use this rule and mostly are considered to be sub-standard for their pricing. That is, unless the combined power of the items creates such a large synergy that it would be ridiculous not to use it, like Celestial Armor or the Jingasa.

Necroticplague

2016-05-24, 01:41 AM

Don´t you think that if the purpose was to give the ability to Pounce, the item would have read as "activate as a swift action to gain the ability to Pounce 1/day" from the beginning? And would have been priced according to the apparent worth of Pounce all along? No, because this is a different mechanic, with different results. It trades the requirement of having to move in a straight line and being foiled by difficult terrain for an increment of your movement speed on the downside, and trades the benefits of charging for the ability to be of some use to ranged characters on the upside. However, for a melee character, they used to have similar roles (getting the movement+full attack they need in).

What it is, simply is some Nike jogging shirt that allows to push a bit harder at jogging, gain one last burst of speed. I understand the fluff/concept of the item. My question is then: what do you do with that burst? You clearly don't run into combat with it, because you lose your actions after it. You clearly don't run out of melee with it, because it does nothing to stop AoOs from movement (which, in my experience, usually end up with you tripped and/or grappled for your troubles). You don't reload then attack, because you'd lose the actions for attacking if you did this (and consistency is rather important for reloading, so this is stymied by the. The only real uses I can think of for it are either so minor that a 1/day limit is hilariously insulting (various messing around with items, like doors or inventory), mostly just useful for ranged characters (shoot->reload->shirt->head for cover), things where if you do them at all, you probably would want to be able to do it much more consistently than once per day (full attack->hide in combat), or some combination of the above.

I think this shows one of the main problems with errata and "nerfs", the moment when the original creator chimes in to say that something was not used as it was originally intended.
To be frank, I don't give a dang what was originally intended. If something's interesting to use, and not breaking the game, I don't see a reason to nerf it. Sometimes, you might have to sacrifice one at the expense of the other (new pummeling style is much more boring than the old version, but also much less gamebreaking), but something that's neither has no reason for change.
Changing shirts mid-combat is an action-neutral proposition (would need move action to remove shirt, and the new one under it would let you gain another one at the cost of the swift, so net loss in action), so it only matters between combats. And having one extra move action per encounter per day doesn't seem that horrifically powerful. But having to plan when to unload in an encounter is an interesting decision still. So, interesting, not broken, why nerf?

Florian

2016-05-24, 03:40 AM

To be frank

To be frank in return, that happens when you pose building blocks and the final build to be equal. That leads to the situation that the final build is seen to just be another building block and can be used as that.

Othniel

2016-05-24, 05:48 AM

Seeing as some of these nerfs are dumb, I will be ignoring them for the games I GM. What Paizo really needs to do is hire some people to edit their stuff in the first place. I've run into so many situations where the rules are needlessly complicated or confusing.

Psyren

2016-05-24, 06:56 AM

I understand the fluff/concept of the item. My question is then: what do you do with that burst? You clearly don't run into combat with it, because you lose your actions after it. You clearly don't run out of melee with it, because it does nothing to stop AoOs from movement (which, in my experience, usually end up with you tripped and/or grappled for your troubles). You don't reload then attack, because you'd lose the actions for attacking if you did this (and consistency is rather important for reloading, so this is stymied by the. The only real uses I can think of for it are either so minor that a 1/day limit is hilariously insulting (various messing around with items, like doors or inventory), mostly just useful for ranged characters (shoot->reload->shirt->head for cover), things where if you do them at all, you probably would want to be able to do it much more consistently than once per day (full attack->hide in combat), or some combination of the above.

Actually, you can still run into combat with it - you'd just be using it on your second target instead of your first. Full attack, drop somebody, swift move to the next guy.

I agree with you though, archers will get more mileage out of it now. Full-attack and reposition.

Necroticplague

2016-05-24, 11:04 AM

To be frank in return, that happens when you pose building blocks and the final build to be equal. That leads to the situation that the final build is seen to just be another building block and can be used as that.
Er, can you expand a little? I'm not sure what you're saying there. The only "final" is that I'm looking at the most possible abusive this thing could get (wearing a whole s***-ton of them, use outermost, take it off to make one under it able to be used; or mechanically identically, changing your shirt after every encounter), then seeing that it's not that powerful.

Florian

2016-05-24, 03:58 PM

upho

2016-05-24, 05:10 PM

To the OT - yes, it is common for people to declare that they are playing RAW, and that that means only items which you can find in the books/SRD exist.But the 50% markup rule is RAW (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#TOC-Adding-New-Abilities) AFAIK.

It´s simply a very problematic rule with far-ranging implications.
Right now you have to make a choice per slot, with the back-up option to go slotless, aka Ioun Stone, at double price.
Combining items with the 50% cost increase is way cheaper than going slot plus slotless. So there´s something fundamentally wrong here.There's nothing wrong. You're comparing apples and pears - there are no iouns that copy the benefit of a slotted item.

The other thing is that basically, you´ve got to make a choice if you want to broaden or deepen your build.
Allowing for both will create way more synergies than intended, making the math come apart even earlier than usual.This might be true during a few levels for a few builds, but in general and during most levels, the choice is an illusion. Quick example off the top of my head: thrown weapon builds. Yes, most of them are not viable at all during most levels unless the 50% markup rule is allowed to, for example, add additional +stat bonuses and blinkback belt to your belt of mighty hurling. Likewise, forcing an item like say the Maelstrom Shield to stick with its +1 bonus doesn't merely make the shield itself worthless a few levels after you've managed to get your hand on it, it may very well also do the same with more than half of the other options you've chosen.

Do you have any examples of the 50% markup breaking the game?

Consider something that was discussed earlier in this thread: Specific items use this rule and mostly are considered to be sub-standard for their pricing. That is, unless the combined power of the items creates such a large synergy that it would be ridiculous not to use it, like Celestial Armor or the Jingasa.And? I agree that no-brainers are bad, since they also simply create the illusion of choice. But in this case, the PDTs choice was between nerfing for example the Jingasa to the same level of uselessness as the other head-slot items or to increase the usefulness of the crap options to be competitive. They chose the former, which is bad design.

The whole d20 system family has a very potent and flexible creation system at its core. Each and every unique item should be created using the underlying rules and the actual creator has the full right to explain how and why he created something, with what limitations in mind.

"Player Empowerment" in d20 has lead to the point that people feel entitled to abuse stuff even when the original creator tells them they intended otherwise.This is purely from a DM POV: You've probably heard the hyperbole saying "In PF, you need a feat to take a dump." And there's a lot of truth to it. This isn't inherently bad in any way, but such a mechanics-heavy game also needs to put a lot of mechanical empowerment in the hands of the players, or you'd be better off playing Diablo on a computer.

I completely agree with Necroticplague. An option which doesn't break the system - in this case actually HELPS the system - shouldn't be nerfed simply because it isn't used as the creator intended. If the intended flavor feels very important, such a nerf should be accompanied with an equally attractive alternative intended to be used in the way people "wrongly" used the nerfed option. But unfortunately, Paizo didn't publish a "Pouncer's Shirt", they simply nerfed the QS into near uselessness. Bad design.

Necroticplague

2016-05-24, 05:54 PM

The whole d20 system family has a very potent and flexible creation system at its core. Each and every unique item should be created using the underlying rules and the actual creator has the full right to explain how and why he created something, with what limitations in mind. Well, yeah, anyone has the right to say whatever they want. They are free to tell me their intent. However, I am similarly free to disregard it as no more a valid use for something than my own. I don't see anything wrong with rules having emergent properties.

"Player Empowerment" in d20 has lead to the point that people feel entitled to abuse stuff even when the original creator tells them they intended otherwise.
Actually, player empowerment has jack to do with this. This is more like Death of the Author as it applies to rulebooks, in that I see no reason why one person's interpretation of something should be more correct than any others', independent of the rule itself.

Sayt

2016-05-24, 07:24 PM

There's nothing wrong. You're comparing apples and pears - there are no iouns that copy the benefit of a slotted item.

Actually, there are Enhancement bonus to [Ability] Ioun stones, at the very least for Con and Int, but there isn't, IIRC, a complete set, they're easy to cancel, and generally speaking it is double for slotless, see also Thorny Ioun Stones and gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver.

That said, I also like the 50% increase, as it means a fighter that wants relaible flight can get Wings of Flight without giving up his resistance bonus, and doesn't have to settle for a magic carpet or winged boots.

Psyren

2016-05-24, 08:04 PM

Er, can you expand a little? I'm not sure what you're saying there. The only "final" is that I'm looking at the most possible abusive this thing could get (wearing a whole s***-ton of them, use outermost, take it off to make one under it able to be used; or mechanically identically, changing your shirt after every encounter), then seeing that it's not that powerful.

Whether it's really powerful to do such things isn't the point - rather, the very actions you describe just feel silly and metagamey and kill my immersion in the game itself. Speaking personally, as a GM I'd rather just let a player research a custom version of the shirt that can be used multiple times per day than to have them layering or stripping every fight.

The first one in particular feels especially ridiculous - layering on stacks of shirts with no penalty, the player removing their armor after every fight to get to them, and it also raises design implications about other shirts - does that "outermost layer" technique of multiple items occupying a slot work? Should it? Should I stack shoes and hats and amulets and belts the same way? Should I feel like I have to or else be playing suboptimally?

Anlashok

2016-05-24, 08:35 PM

Given the restrictions in place that doesn't sound metagamey to me. It actually sounds like someone with enough money and time might actually try to do themselves.

Actually I'd go further and say that sounds even less metagamey than the current version of the item. Attunement is a really bizarre silly concept and I can't help but imagine some fighter asking "Wait, why can't you make a version of this shirt that works right away?" And the magical crafter couldn't do anything more than shrug and say "Balance?". It's strange and immersion breaking, but I suppose immersion and game-feel are secondary concerns for PF. Which is fine. Lots of games are like that. Tetris isn't particularly interested in immersion either.

Psyren

2016-05-24, 09:34 PM

"Wait, why can't you make a version of this shirt that works right away?" And the magical crafter couldn't do anything more than shrug and say "Balance?".

How about he replies "that's how magic works ninny, if you don't like it why don't you spend a decade in apprenticeship to a curmudgeonly senex/be born with magical blood like I did?"

I view the printed items as the way everyone is taught to make them (or the logical consequence of the methods that are most common), just as the printed spells are the ones that are widespread. Custom items and custom spells are possible, but they require supreme craftsmanship or artistry to pull off, and are the product of either eccentric genius or painstaking research. The fighter in your example might as well be asking "Wait, why can't you make a car that runs by clapping?" Because nobody invented it yet.

Necroticplague

2016-05-24, 11:13 PM

Whether it's really powerful to do such things isn't the point - rather, the very actions you describe just feel silly and metagamey and kill my immersion in the game itself.
Doesn't put a dent in mine. Thus, only whether it's powerful to do such a thing matters. If an item has limited uses, it seems perfectly reasonable, IC and OOC, to have redundancies. You have more than one healing potion in case you need more healing than one can provide, you keep an extra shirt in case you need more than one burst of speed in the day.

Speaking personally, as a GM I'd rather just let a player research a custom version of the shirt that can be used multiple times per day than to have them layering or stripping every fight.I don't see why both can't coexist. The multiple-charge-shirt is strictly stronger (in case you need the burst more than once per encounter). Thus, one improvised cheaper option with some downsides, and a better, premium option can both exist.

The first one in particular feels especially ridiculous - layering on stacks of shirts with no penalty, the player removing their armor after every fight to get to them, and it also raises design implications about other shirts - does that "outermost layer" technique of multiple items occupying a slot work?

Actually, re-looking through the magic item rules, it would actually be the first shirt put on that's the active one, so you'd probably need to take off the innermost one, not the outermost.

Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect.

Should I stack shoes and hats and amulets and belts the same way? Should I feel like I have to or else be playing suboptimally?Don't see why not, if they are also of the 'limited use per day of abilities'.
No, but you don't even if this works. All it means is that you can invest if you want the effect more. If you're content with one burst of movement, you buy one shirt. If you want more, you buy more. Considering that redundant magic items cost money, this just leaves you more consistently using weak abilities, instead of less consistently using strong ones.

Shackel

2016-05-24, 11:49 PM

I think with such a nerf to the Quick Runner's Shirt and the like it might've been better to make them consumable-type items to help with flavor. The shirt just losing its magic after one use(but you can buy many of them) makes a lot more sense flavor-wise than inexplicably needing to wear it for 24 hours(while sleeping I guess) just to get a single use out of it for that day, repeat the process. 800-1000gp would be fitting, considering 3.5's Psionic Tattoo costs(Hustle being the closest comparison) and adding being able to activate it as a swift action.

Psyren

2016-05-25, 01:53 AM

Doesn't put a dent in mine. Thus, only whether it's powerful to do such a thing matters. If an item has limited uses, it seems perfectly reasonable, IC and OOC, to have redundancies. You have more than one healing potion in case you need more healing than one can provide, you keep an extra shirt in case you need more than one burst of speed in the day.

Potions aren't worn in item slots though. I don't think slotted items should be quite as consumable as that, especially when they're inside all your other clothing/armor.

I don't see why both can't coexist. The multiple-charge-shirt is strictly stronger (in case you need the burst more than once per encounter). Thus, one improvised cheaper option with some downsides, and a better, premium option can both exist.

I'm fine with both existing; what I find silly is ripping your shirt off after every fight (or perhaps even multiple times in the same fight.) I'm in favor of them trying to prevent that by adding a mechanic (attunement), even if they went a little overboard.

Actually, re-looking through the magic item rules, it would actually be the first shirt put on that's the active one, so you'd probably need to take off the innermost one, not the outermost.

Which makes the entire layered-shirt scheme so impractical that you're better off just researching a custom multi-use solution in my mind.

Anlashok

2016-05-25, 03:10 AM

How about he replies "that's how magic works ninny, if you don't like it why don't you spend a decade in apprenticeship to a curmudgeonly senex/be born with magical blood like I did?"

I view the printed items as the way everyone is taught to make them (or the logical consequence of the methods that are most common), just as the printed spells are the ones that are widespread. Custom items and custom spells are possible, but they require supreme craftsmanship or artistry to pull off, and are the product of either eccentric genius or painstaking research. The fighter in your example might as well be asking "Wait, why can't you make a car that runs by clapping?" Because nobody invented it yet.

That'd make sense were it not true that a significant number of magic items do work that way. It's less "Why not make a car that runs on clapping?" and more "Why not make a car that runs on gasoline instead of requiring me to brave the depths of the nine hells to recover ichor made from the blood and anguish of a billion sinners condensed down into tar over millennia to get out of the driveway?"

Florian

2016-05-25, 06:04 AM

Necroticplague

2016-05-25, 09:09 AM

Potions aren't worn in item slots though. I don't think slotted items should be quite as consumable as that, especially when they're inside all your other clothing/armor. Why not?
What makes you think the fhisrt has to be inside your other things?

I'm fine with both existing; what I find silly is ripping your shirt off after every fight (or perhaps even multiple times in the same fight.) I'm in favor of them trying to prevent that by adding a mechanic (attunement), even if they went a little overboard.
What's inherently silly about it? It's not much different from carrying a brace of pistols, drawing, firing, and tossing to the ground to avoid reloading mid-combat. Something which was done in real life back when pistols took forever to reload.

Also, there's literally no point to ripping off a shirt mid-fight. That would be a move action to remove the shirt, and the shirt only gives you a move actions, so your actually losing out on actions doing so (considering the swift action to use, you're giving up a swift and move to get a move).

Psyren

2016-05-25, 09:21 AM

Why not?
What makes you think the fhisrt has to be inside your other things?

Because stretching it over your armor or wearing it on the outside of your robe is silly and immersion-breaking.

What's inherently silly about it? It's not much different from carrying a brace of pistols, drawing, firing, and tossing to the ground to avoid reloading mid-combat. Something which was done in real life back when pistols took forever to reload.

Hand-held guns and worn shirts are not the same, just as hand-held potions and worn shirts are not the same. You keep using analogies that just don't mesh for me. You can't just say "all items should behave identically regardless of form or function." (Well, you can - I certainly can't stop you - but I won't be boarding that train with you either.)

That'd make sense were it not true that a significant number of magic items do work that way. It's less "Why not make a car that runs on clapping?" and more "Why not make a car that runs on gasoline instead of requiring me to brave the depths of the nine hells to recover ichor made from the blood and anguish of a billion sinners condensed down into tar over millennia to get out of the driveway?"

There is a whole category of items that "attune." It's not a new or revolutionary concept. UE pg. 206:

SLOTTED WONDROUS ITEMS
When a character wears a slotted wondrous item he cannot gain the benefit from a wondrous items of the same slot until the first item is removed. Of course, a character may carry or possess any number of slotted items of the same type, but additional items have no effect until they are worn. Sometimes a slotted wondrous item must be worn for a period of time (typically 24 hours) before the item’s full effect manifests.

All the errata did was say "we intended Quickrunner's Shirt to be this type of car" (or however the analogy needs to be phrased to get across.) Which ones get put in this category is completely arbitrary, like many other laws of magic, but that doesn't stop them from being laws (unless of course you houserule otherwise, which is perfectly valid.)

It's not just wondrous items either - several rings need to "attune" as well, like Ring of the Maker and Ring of Heroes. And even some unslotted items like Minder's Coin.

Triskavanski

2016-05-25, 09:35 AM

I'm fine with both existing; what I find silly is ripping your shirt off after every fight (or perhaps even multiple times in the same fight.) I'm in favor of them trying to prevent that by adding a mechanic (attunement), even if they went a little overboard.

"It's anime law: whenever a male shōnen protagonist takes off his shirt, all of his attributes increase exponentially." (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BattleStrip)
— Kurama, Yu Yu Hakusho Abridged

Or if Anime isn't your thing, there is also Hulk Hogan, or Jason Stathem who constantly take off their shirts.

*********************************

I'm not against nerfs. Sometimes yes, things do need to be nerfed. What I'm against is going too far with nerfs. I'm also against doing only nerfs, and then sitting back and calling it balance.

I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I'm sure there were items that are not desirable because mechanically they don't really function. I know other things like Rogue's talents like Esoteric Scholar is pretty bad

Psyren

2016-05-25, 09:50 AM

"It's anime law: whenever a male shōnen protagonist takes off his shirt, all of his attributes increase exponentially." (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BattleStrip)
— Kurama, Yu Yu Hakusho Abridged

Or if Anime isn't your thing, there is also Hulk Hogan, or Jason Stathem who constantly take off their shirts.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point :smalltongue:

Necroticplague

2016-05-25, 10:09 AM

Because stretching it over your armor or wearing it on the outside of your robe is silly and immersion-breaking.Not necessarily. While the shirt very definitely has certain qualities (light, very thin, embroidered with winged feet), it's specifics of how it looks aren't specified much. It's entirely possible that it's a shirt that isn't like a t-shirt, and can be worn over mail sensibly. Here's a couple of example pics that seem to fit in perfectly with a typical dnd world (though admittingly, they tend towards paladin-type aethetics for some reason).
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/81/c4/3a81c476817d9783cb40d9991b7cfae9.jpg
http://www.acc1.biz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/CrusaderImage1.jpg
Just replace crosses with winged sandals, and you're good to go.
Considering that the Chest slot also includes items that very obviously can go over armor, like bandoliers, there's zero reason to assume the shirt is in some form that makes it unable to be worn over armor. Maybe take some advice from your own signature, and change the assumption of what the shirt looks like.

Hand-held guns and worn shirts are not the same, just as hand-held potions and worn shirts are not the same. You keep using analogies that just don't mesh for me. You can't just say "all items should behave identically regardless of form or function." (Well, you can - I certainly can't stop you - but I won't be boarding that train with you either.)

Why not? Why is the slot so important? You keep making the incredibly arbitrary point over it, when that's mostly irrelevant to the function of the item (because slot assignment is mostly arbitrary). They're the same in the most important way that matters; they have a limit of use that means having backups would be useful. Backup gun for more firing without reloading , backup potion for more healing, backup shirt for more running.

Psyren

2016-05-25, 10:27 AM

Not necessarily. While the shirt very definitely has certain qualities (light, very thin, embroidered with winged feet), it's specifics of how it looks aren't specified much. It's entirely possible that it's a shirt that isn't like a t-shirt, and can be worn over mail sensibly. Here's a couple of example pics that seem to fit in perfectly with a typical dnd world (though admittingly, they tend towards paladin-type aethetics for some reason).
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/81/c4/3a81c476817d9783cb40d9991b7cfae9.jpg
http://www.acc1.biz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/CrusaderImage1.jpg
Just replace crosses with winged sandals, and you're good to go.
Considering that the Chest slot also includes items that very obviously can go over armor, like bandoliers, there's zero reason to assume the shirt is in some form that makes it unable to be worn over armor. Maybe take some advice from your own signature, and change the assumption of what the shirt looks like.

Shirts are not bandoliers, regardless of what my sig says. They are different english words.

We'll have to agree to disagree because this isn't going anywhere.

Why not? Why is the slot so important? You keep making the incredibly arbitrary point over it, when that's mostly irrelevant to the function of the item (because slot assignment is mostly arbitrary). They're the same in the most important way that matters; they have a limit of use that means having backups would be useful. Backup gun for more firing without reloading , backup potion for more healing, backup shirt for more running.

Because guns and potions aren't clothing.

Triskavanski

2016-05-25, 10:58 AM

But sometimes, guns are potions.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/Mzc2WDUwMA==/$T2eC16VHJH8E9qSEWJ,iBQ3SvdVvIw~~60_35.JPG

ATalsen

2016-05-25, 11:31 AM

Not necessarily. While the shirt very definitely has certain qualities (light, very thin, embroidered with winged feet), it's specifics of how it looks aren't specified much. It's entirely possible that it's a shirt that isn't like a t-shirt, and can be worn over mail sensibly. Here's a couple of example pics that seem to fit in perfectly with a typical dnd world (though admittingly, they tend towards paladin-type aethetics for some reason).
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/81/c4/3a81c476817d9783cb40d9991b7cfae9.jpg
http://www.acc1.biz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/CrusaderImage1.jpg
Just replace crosses with winged sandals, and you're good to go.

...Those aren't shirts, though, those are tabards. I mean, specifically the pics you have chosen are pics of tabards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabard
A tabard is a short coat common for men during the Middle Ages. Generally used while outdoors, the coat was either sleeveless or had short sleeves or shoulder pieces. In its more developed form it was open at the sides; and it could be worn with or without a belt.

Google:
historical
a coarse sleeveless garment worn as the outer dress of medieval peasants and clerics, or worn as a surcoat over armor.
a herald's official coat emblazoned with the arms of the sovereign.

There is at least one tabard magic item, which exactly fits the pics you chose, and it in fact uses the BODY slot, not the SHIRT slot.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/tabard-crusader-s

Sorry, if its not entirely on topic, but to me this is like comparing armor to a headband and expecting the same functionality. Since 3.0 (and maybe even earlier D&D versions) slots have been intended to have different functions (admittedly that has been blurred by authors not sticking to the original intent, but we should not propagate that blurring).

Psyren

2016-05-25, 12:05 PM

...Those aren't shirts, though, those are tabards. I mean, specifically the pics you have chosen are pics of tabards.

There is at least one tabard magic item, which exactly fits the pics you chose, and it in fact uses the BODY slot, not the SHIRT slot.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/tabard-crusader-s

Sorry, if its not entirely on topic, but to me this is like comparing armor to a headband and expecting the same functionality. Since 3.0 (and maybe even earlier D&D versions) slots have been intended to have different functions (admittedly that has been blurred by authors not sticking to the original intent, but we should not propagate that blurring).

I was going to point all that out but decided it wouldn't be worth the effort, so thank you for saving me the trouble.

Triskavanski

2016-05-25, 04:47 PM

Only one shirt is acceptable.

http://rlv.zcache.com/relfli_purple_winged_foot_shirt-ra97cb502f5ec46d7a4eccb706b47d659_8nhdf_324.jpg

upho

2016-05-26, 08:10 AM

@upho:

The item creation rules might provide some useful formulae, but they also contain the very important rule that you have to look at the final result and compare it to the example items to see how the actual pricing should turn out.

Look at the overall discussion taking place right now to see what happens when the cost-benefit-ratio of an item turns out to be wrong and an adjustment happens.

Both rules are RAW, the 50% markup for additional abilities on one slot and the x2 multiplier for going slotless (you might have gotten me calling that the Ioun Stone phenomenon wrong). The third rule is is also RAW: After crunching all relevant numbers, you´ve got to do the necessary step of comparing the result with the benchmark items and use your judgement when assigning the final price tag based on how efficient it will prove to be.I mostly agree with your reasoning per se. Rather, it's what I suspect you believe should be the overall goal (or the lack of it) when designing/balancing mechanics of new options, and what seems to be your base assumptions about the game, which it seems I don't agree with at all (such as the balance quality of "core benchmark items", more below).

A major point here is that the RAW always falls back to referencing the core rules, disregarding other developments that have taken place, else stuff would change too fast and the reference points for pricing things would change to quickly.

In the long run, that will mean that things will either get more unbalanced with new source material, or that existing items have to be "devalued" to correlate with the now existing new reference points.This is where I think the main difference between our viewpoints is found. Just to make sure I understand what you're you're suggesting here, in short: 1) the benefits of a new item (whether from new splat books or one-offs created by players/DMs via the markup or custom item rules) should be measured against the closest resembling benefits of "core benchmark items" preferably found in the CRB, and 2) the new item's price (potentially also including crafting prereqs/rarity etc) and whether it can be considered balanced or not should then be determined by this comparison. Am I correct?

If so, of course you're right that this is what the RAW on altering/improving/making new items suggests. Which I believe the 50% markup rule is kinda shorthand for when simply combining/improving benefits of already existing items, as seen in for example the prices of +stat belts and headbands which Paizo has kindly already calculated for us in the CRB tables.

I'm not disputing any of this. I'm basically saying that while this method might work fine as simple pricing/balance guidelines for less complex new items with benefits similar to those of the core items, this "vetting" method actually hurts the system when used to balance items with more unique new benefits, or maybe even a few of the more complex stacked item combos which can potentially be created via the 50% markup rule (though probably not the previously mentioned "Belt of Mighty Physical Blinkback Hurling +6"). The method simply wasn't designed to handle such new items (or when making more complex stacked items or making errata for older items, for that matter), and the text actually somewhat recognizes that limitation. And of course, the reason the method fails miserably in these cases is partially because it's based on over-simplified assumptions about the game, but worse, it's also based on simply false assumptions:

The method is fundamentally flawed by its inherent myopia, failing to take the rest of the rest of the system into account. If new items are created without taking the mechanics existing outside of the "bubble of core benchmark items" into account, developers, along with the more homebrew-happy players/DMs, are basically robbed of a whole category of tools which could've - and should've - been used to increase mechanical variety and improve balance.
The method is based on the assumptions that there is a good balance in the core system which new additions should strive to maintain, which is complete and utter BS. So using this method means new/errata-ed items will inevitably inherit most of the needless limitations and serious balance flaws of the "core benchmark items" when combined with the rest of the system, rather than having the potential to help fixing these issues.

Case in point: the latest QS nerf. I believe the nerfed QS is undoubtedly more balanced to "core benchmark items", while it undoubtedly also manages to worsen the balance issues the system as a whole suffers from (in this case the old martial/caster disparity).

To stay with your example, ranged martial combat is powerful as it always allows to full attack. Thrown weapons are powerful as they don´t have any inherent limits on how damage is calculated, unlike, say, a Comp. Longbow does unless you have actually paid for it being Adaptive.First off, Adaptive costs how much, exactly? Less than 2k IIRC, not even remotely close to the costs involved in order for the thrown weapon build to be able to simply take as much advantage of its iterative attacks (or Rapid Shot etc) as the longbow build. I think you'll find it very hard to prove that allowing a "Belt of Mighty Physical Blinkback Hurling +X" through the markup rule would generally make thrown weapon builds broken or OP when compared to longbow builds... (Besides perhaps in the case of some exceptionally rare and very specific thrown builds (example best known to me (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454387-Wolf-Trip-Shield-Champion-Intimidation-Martial-Control-of-Gravitas)) - which typically bloom late and also rely on additional specific expensive stacked item combos IME - an archer build is still mechanically more efficient in a large majority of combat situations during most levels. Not to mention the absolutely crucial items needed for the thrower build to be functional are a lot more expensive than those the archer build would need, meaning the archer is actually also likely to be more versatile on the whole).

More importantly and to the point, I would still fail to see why my "Thrice-Belt of Body Boni and Thrilling ThrowsTM" (priced according the markup rule) would be a bad thing, even if it would actually enable say a thrown weapon fighter to be more effective than an archer fighter during most levels and in most combat situations. In fact, I would actually see it as a very good argument for allowing and fully endorsing the "Thrice-Belt of Body Boni and Thrilling ThrowsTM" if that had been the case.

Once we start combining those, like Blinkback and Mighty Hurling without comparing that to the overall reference points, we can simply drop the notion that "balance" is a positive thing we all aim to try and achieve out of the window, along with the bathwater and the actual baby.Of course you need reference points. I just think that in the case of new/more complex item benefits, those reference points should definitely not be only "core benchmark items", or even primarily based on items. At least if you'd like to see the mechanical variety and balance of PC builds improve.

Actually, there are Enhancement bonus to [Ability] Ioun stones, at the very least for Con and Int, but there isn't, IIRC, a complete set, they're easy to cancel, and generally speaking it is double for slotless, see also Thorny Ioun Stones and gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver.While I agree these examples are indeed close to being duplicates of slotted items, they aren't identical. For example, for an additional 500 gp (for a wayfinder), a Pink and Green Sphere (priced at 8/32/72 k for +2/+4/+6 Cha (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/h-l/ioun-stones#TOC-Advanced-Ioun-Stones)) also gives you an untyped +1 Will. Which, now that I think about it, might actually make paying an additional 8 or 18 k and having one of these stones replace a +4 or +6 stat on your belt or headband a sound investment during higher levels in some rare corner cases... A Thorny Stone in a wayfinder will actually give you the Acrobatic or the Athletic feat, which can actually be of some real value for most builds.

Still, I've yet to see a build making good use of the upgradable +stat stones, and IMO the stackable 24 k +2 stat stones are horribly overpriced, close to the point of uselessness even should you play in a game where the +50% markup rule has been banned (24 k being equal to that of upgrading a second or third +stat on a belt or headband from +4 to +6). But it does happen I find a Thorny stone on player's item wishlist for a higher level combat maneuver focused PC (or one of my NPC or experiment builds) that already has the gauntlets, and for a sound mechanical reason.

That said, I also like the 50% increase, as it means a fighter that wants relaible flight can get Wings of Flight without giving up his resistance bonus, and doesn't have to settle for a magic carpet or winged boots.Yep, another example that having a liberal markup rule policy typically does much more to improve the weaker category of builds in the game than the stronger, and thus helps improve the overall game balance (and hopefully fun).

darkdragoon

2016-05-26, 09:31 AM

The whole d20 system family has a very potent and flexible creation system at its core. Each and every unique item should be created using the underlying rules and the actual creator has the full right to explain how and why he created something, with what limitations in mind.

"Player Empowerment" in d20 has lead to the point that people feel entitled to abuse stuff even when the original creator tells them they intended otherwise.

The Holy Writers were wrong in the past and from their subsequent efforts most don't seem like they are going to change their habits. To say "well, they completely whiffed on it but their HEART IS PURE" is Tooth Fairy reasoning at best.

But of course it's more egregious when again after years of complied "this is good, this is bad, this is cheese" we still have books coming out with the equivalent of "it took the goblins a couple centuries to figure out bicycles need 2 wheels" Honestly a lot involved are either being disingenuous or are parodying themselves.

upho

2016-05-26, 09:58 AM

Because stretching it over your armor or wearing it on the outside of your robe is silly and immersion-breaking.
Hand-held guns and worn shirts are not the same, just as hand-held potions and worn shirts are not the same. You keep using analogies that just don't mesh for me. You can't just say "all items should behave identically regardless of form or function." (Well, you can - I certainly can't stop you - but I won't be boarding that train with you either.):smallconfused: Wait, something's definitely not right here...

Guys, I think someone's taken over Psyren's account and pretends to be the real Psyren! :smalleek:

But... Hmm...

@The doppelganger pretending to be Psyren: your impersonation is actually so dang good I think I'm fine with your faking it for now. Feels almost as good as real. Truly impressive, dude! Must've been hell learning all those tons of nerdy PF stuff by heart, and I think you're doing great so far, besides for one teensy little give-away: the real Psyren has no trouble hand-waving lamias (as in "snake-tail-people"), merfolk (as in "fish-tail-people"), and even intelligent snakes to have actual legs AND feet, and even as being fully capable of going all out Chuck Norris with those "feet"!

Whatever you yourself might think of this, it says quite a lot about the real Psyren's immersion which you should know - it's like frigging Fort Knox! So the real Psyren would hardly be bothered by someone going against a flavor detail as hilariously insignificant as when something called a "shirt" in the rules is portrayed by a player as being suspiciously similar to tabard and is worn outside of said player's PC's armor (like, you know, an actual tabard). In fact, I'd even say the real Psyren's rock-steady immersion wouldn't be the slightest disturbed even by a character simultaneously wearing an entire warehouse's worth of such "shirts", regardless of whether those are worn outside or inside armor, wrapped around fingers or toes, or even as very baggy underwear. Though he might very well take issue with the cheesy mechanical effects...

(As a sidenote in case it comes up again while you're doing your "doppelganging", I think Psyren would also say intelligent worms are able to make round-house kicks in PF, at least if they have levels in Un-Monk, but I'm pretty sure (and sincerely hope) even he draws the line before shao-lin jellyfish or Bruce Lee beholders, intelligent or not... )

Oh, and please return the real Psyren to us once you're done posting fun embarrassing stuff in his name here on GitP (may I suggest some shameless flirting with various regulars, I'd probably start with Snowbluff)!

Sorry Psyren, but I just couldn't resist!
:smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2016-05-26, 11:09 AM

Lord_Gareth

2016-05-26, 11:14 AM

Psyren

2016-05-26, 11:15 AM

I do believe it was a long and comedic highlight of your flagrant and persistent hypocrisy.

Ah, so trolling then, coupled with external thread baggage. Good to know.

Lord_Gareth

2016-05-26, 11:18 AM

Ah, so trolling then, coupled with external thread baggage. Good to know.

Nobody makes you post what you post. That's on you. When stuff like, say, the candle of invocation argument happens, people remember, especially considering how long and involved that was. Repeat the same pattern of behavior elsewhere and it becomes associated with you. If getting to know a person is trolling then I dunno what to tell you.

upho

2016-05-26, 11:40 AM

Nah, no embarrassment here. "PC Races (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/uncommonRaces/merfolk.html) should be able to take PC Classes (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/classes/monk.html#unchained-monk-progression) unless otherwise prohibited" is a pretty basic underlying assumption of this game, one which has no bearing on the discussion at hand. But congrats on spending the time writing... whatever that was.Heh, as I think you know, I totally agree. But when I read your views on the shirts my stupid little grey ones just couldn't keep themselves from making the rather tenuous connection to our silly exchange on the plausibility and proper anatomy of hypothetical "karate cobras", reminding me I had to leave that discussion somewhat prematurely. So I simply had to write... Uh, something...

And yeah, I think any embarrassments are totally on me! :smallredface:

upho

2016-05-26, 11:55 AM

I do believe it was a long and comedic highlight of your flagrant and persistent hypocrisy.Score! :smallbiggrin:

Although I must say any perceived trolling was unintended and purely coincidental. Think of it more as a friendly reminder of how stupid these discussions can become, Psyren. :smallwink:

Nobody makes you post what you post. That's on you. When stuff like, say, the candle of invocation argument happens, people remember, especially considering how long and involved that was. Repeat the same pattern of behavior elsewhere and it becomes associated with you. If getting to know a person is trolling then I dunno what to tell you.Please don't try to change Psyren, I like bickering about details with him!

And I find many of his posts kinda entertaining and often even insightful...

Vyanie

2016-05-27, 12:50 AM

The Brawling change is one of the few that I can understand, especially from a game design perspective. Armor is an item slot intended almost purely for defensive bonuses, but for the half the cost of a +2 weapon you were getting +2 to attack and damage as well as +1 armor. The new cost of +1 Brawling Armor is still 2,000 gold cheaper than a +3 AoMF (using new costs) and the combined cost is 16,000 gold cheaper than a +5 AoMF.

Considering you're getting offensive bonuses in a slot you normally couldn't, that the bonuses are untyped and that the overall cost is still cheaper than an equivalent and standard item that's a pretty big deal. This also shuts down early access to a +2 attack/damage bonus when all other builds could only afford a +1.

@Fizban - There actually are some interesting magic items under 4k, but many are limited use and intended for higher-level game play. The items that do exist in that budget range are often quite interesting for more intrigue-based game play, which I happen to enjoy. If you're going pure hack & slash though you'll be out of luck.

I am just the opposite, considering there are really only 2 classes that use hand to hand for the most part it is rather a niche item. Not only is it a niche item but look at all the nice fun monsters that completely counter h2h combat, especially once you start hitting cr6+ creatures.... ohh you want to smack that Remorhaz... go right a head ohh wait you died from striking it... how about striking an ooze, or even low CR mobs like mimics or others that cause effects if you come into contact with them.

You are talking about classes that want to use their in class abilities (hand to hand) and do something. Remember classes that use hand to hand have to give up weapon bonuses. that is 1-2 less slots they can utilize. If you want to complain about AOMF then also remember they have to choose that and a pretty stupid price over what every other class can pick. Brawling at +1 was a good pick strong but not OP considering the niche and the counters to it. Now at +3 only an idiot would choose it... and even better you can't get it at low levels that everyone else is getting +1 weapons so you now just took away something HUGE for the classes that could use it.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-27, 06:21 AM

I am just the opposite, considering there are really only 2 classes that use hand to hand for the most part it is rather a niche item. Not only is it a niche item but look at all the nice fun monsters that completely counter h2h combat, especially once you start hitting cr6+ creatures.... ohh you want to smack that Remorhaz... go right a head ohh wait you died from striking it... how about striking an ooze, or even low CR mobs like mimics or others that cause effects if you come into contact with them.

You are talking about classes that want to use their in class abilities (hand to hand) and do something. Remember classes that use hand to hand have to give up weapon bonuses. that is 1-2 less slots they can utilize. If you want to complain about AOMF then also remember they have to choose that and a pretty stupid price over what every other class can pick. Brawling at +1 was a good pick strong but not OP considering the niche and the counters to it. Now at +3 only an idiot would choose it... and even better you can't get it at low levels that everyone else is getting +1 weapons so you now just took away something HUGE for the classes that could use it.

Well no. We're talking about classes which can use hand to hand and wear light armor. These are niche cases with the exception of the Brawler. Even so, the AoMF was just reduced in cost again and is now equal to the costs of an enchanted weapon. You can get your +1 AoMF at the same time as other classes get their +1 weapon with the option of it being Agile instead of +1.

Regarding the scenario you pointed out regarding getting hurt when you hit a target... so what? A Monk or UnMonk will be worse off in this situation (than a class which can use Brawling) as they can only fight with their hands/feet while other classes can switch to a back up weapon. And even if they couldn't, how does Brawling help with this scenario?

Florian

2016-05-27, 06:30 AM

Feels somehow like the wrong way to look at it. Classes are simply components in overall builds and those will turn out to be more effective than the original class they where based on.
You can go IUS with a normally weapon-based build because you found some synergy there and capitalized on it. The Savage Warrior Fighter archetype would be an example for when you try do that.
As usual for a dedicated build, the gain will mostly be much higher then the costs.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-27, 07:47 AM

Feels somehow like the wrong way to look at it. Classes are simply components in overall builds and those will turn out to be more effective than the original class they where based on.

That depends entirely on the goals of the player. Sometimes you want to match the lore/fluff of a class as written, or see what you can do with a particular class. Sometimes you have a character concept that doesn't match anything exactly as written but a little creative refluffing of existing classes works. I'm doing the later right now in a PF game where I'm playing a Decker/Rigger with an emphasis on heavy demolitions. I'm using an Alchemist as the foundation of that build but not playing an Alchemist. When I play in PFS (pretty rare now) I tend to stick to the established lore with characters.

You can go IUS with a normally weapon-based build because you found some synergy there and capitalized on it. The Savage Warrior Fighter archetype would be an example for when you try do that. As usual for a dedicated build, the gain will mostly be much higher then the costs.

All I was saying is that in the event of fighting a creature that hurts me if I punch it, a non-monk can switch to weapons if need be. I'm not really sure what point Vyanie was trying to make though. To your point though, I quite agree that a Fighter can make a very effective unarmed strike build. You don't even need archetypes in fact, as the AWT opions can be quite powerful.

Tuvarkz

2016-05-27, 07:57 AM

All I was saying is that in the event of fighting a creature that hurts me if I punch it, a non-monk can switch to weapons if need be. I'm not really sure what point Vyanie was trying to make though. To your point though, I quite agree that a Fighter can make a very effective unarmed strike build. You don't even need archetypes in fact, as the AWT opions can be quite powerful.

Indeed, you can very easily get warpriest/monk damage die progression with unarmed strikes via AWT, and you can pick the feat for it as early as level 5

upho

2016-05-27, 08:45 AM

Well no. We're talking about classes which can use hand to hand and wear light armor. These are niche cases with the exception of the Brawler. Even so, the AoMF was just reduced in cost again and is now equal to the costs of an enchanted weapon. You can get your +1 AoMF at the same time as other classes get their +1 weapon with the option of it being Agile instead of +1.Just out of curiosity, how do you come to this conclusion when a +1 weapon is 2k and a +1 AoMF is 4k?

Speaking of, I think the AoMF can have pretty weird effects due to its slot, special enhancement bonus limitations/perks, the attacks it affects, and the price. The net effect for most builds may typically be about equal to TWF with manufactured weapons during early and mid levels, albeit with a less smooth progression of enhancement increases and with less options for creative combos using different special magic weapon abilities, but the loss of the neck slot will often become increasingly annoying in higher levels IME. And for natural attack builds, it usually has a much better cost/benefit ratio than weapons have for weapon wielding builds with a similar focus, especially when combined with special magic weapon abilities which get the most out of the extremely high accuracy of the attacks (ie abilities triggered on hit/dealing damage). Although this doesn't really make natural attackers (synths excluded) suitable for focusing on melee control/debuffing of course, as they're still severely hampered by their lack of reach, quite a few such magic abilities can increase their damage output much more than the same abilities would for damage focused weapon wielders.

Regarding the scenario you pointed out regarding getting hurt when you hit a target... so what? A Monk or UnMonk will be worse off in this situation (than a class which can use Brawling) as they can only fight with their hands/feet while other classes can switch to a back up weapon. And even if they couldn't, how does Brawling help with this scenario?This. Also, IME the UAS builds which arguably gain the most from Brawling are typically damage focused and fully capable of one-shotting virtually any CR = level enemy without killing themselves in the process, at least if given a round's worth of buffing. While there are a rare few monsters which can be considerably more problematic for these builds than for weapon wielders (such as the mentioned remorhaz in most cases), but IME such enemies are so rare it doesn't really have any significant impact on the overall effectiveness of UAS builds in comparison to weapon wielders.

As a sidenote, I think the one truly major drawback of unarmed fighting is the lack of reach, since this basically means that in order to be as effective in combat as weapon wielders during all levels, your combat role options are going to be limited to "damage with more damage" or "damage with a tiny side order of something else". Which says quite a lot about the lack of mechanical variation found in the viable unarmed build options available, considering that martial combat in general already is extremely damage oriented.

Or to put it in other words, I think you could make a martial weapon wielder whose effectiveness in combat has nothing to do with DPR numbers, and probably be about as effective in most circumstances as one whose effectiveness is all about DPR (although without access to PoW content, your options are probably going to be limited to one or two highly specific build paths). This is sadly still impossible for an unarmed build AFAIK, despite the many control related unarmed options published so far.

Florian

2016-05-27, 09:04 AM

upho

2016-05-27, 09:25 AM

@upho:

A serious natural attacks build can get of 6 attacks and pounce at lvl 6. That´s exactly the situation where you have exponential growth in worth by something like Brawler enhancement or AoMF, as their actual limits have not set in yet.I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Can you please be a bit more specific about what this comment refers to?

Florian

2016-05-27, 09:59 AM

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Can you please be a bit more specific about what this comment refers to?

A bit back in this discussion, we were talking about pricing by apparent worth.

I find nur comment to be amusing because Brawler with not much worth as there where not many synergies gained from it back then, which has changed, but at the same time, you compare the apparent worth of an AoMF with a time that has long changed.

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-27, 11:53 AM

Just out of curiosity, how do you come to this conclusion when a +1 weapon is 2k and a +1 AoMF is 4k?

My bad. I read the "costs" update and skimmed past the price. AoMF is still double the cost of a single weapon, equal to the cost of two weapons. That does change things somewhat. Anyway, my advice is still to ignore Paizo's errata in any situation where they aren't fixing broken wording. Brawling as a +1 enchantment won't have a significant impact on game balance. My argument was more from game designer perspective anyway.

upho

2016-05-27, 12:27 PM

A bit back in this discussion, we were talking about pricing by apparent worth.

I find nur comment to be amusing because Brawler with not much worth as there where not many synergies gained from it back then, which has changed, but at the same time, you compare the apparent worth of an AoMF with a time that has long changed.Eh...? The last sentence is very weird, and doesn't explain your previous post. Though I assume you're talking about the Brawling armor (not the Brawler class), my poor little brain still doesn't get what you're trying to say. Is it that you believe I'm contradicting my previously explained "pricing/balancing philosophy" when I later talk about the AoMF? Or is it something else?

What does "back then" refer to - is it "earlier in this thread" or "back when the Brawling armor was first released"? And what do you mean when you say I "compare the apparent worth of an AoMF with a time that has long changed"? Do you mean that I'm using outdated assumptions about the rules system which since long are no longer applicable? If so, I'd really appreciate if you could please quote me and explain what I've missed.

And I'm confused by your previous post:
A serious natural attacks build can get of 6 attacks and pounce at lvl 6.What have I written to give you the impression I wasn't aware of this? Again, I'd really appreciate if you could provide a quote (or several) from my previous posts.

That´s exactly the situation where you have exponential growth in worth by something like Brawler enhancement or AoMF, as their actual limits have not set in yet.Though I completely understand "more attacks = more value of bonuses to attacks", I have no clue to what "their actual limits have not set in yet" refers to. The limits of natural attack builds? Limits of the items themselves? And I also fail to see how this is applies to my post talking about the AoMF.

Please try to be more clear, I'm not a particularly smart person. :smallredface:

upho

2016-05-27, 12:51 PM

Brawling as a +1 enchantment won't have a significant impact on game balance. My argument was more from game designer perspective anyway.And I agree with both your assessment of Brawling and your argument in principle, even if it doesn't really apply to the AoMF in the way you described. But I think it's highly relevant when looking at natural attack builds and the current price of the AoMF.

It seems to me Paizo still don't know how to handle natural attacks for PCs, or even how they would like them to work. They give it some archetype/class option support (even scaling improvements), but not nearly enough to make it viable as more than backup if your manufactured weapons are stolen. Together with the rest of the mess that makes up the options for natural attackers, in comparison to weapon wielders, they're bound to be plain awful if low-op, very OP during early levels and very UP during later levels if mid-op, and if high-op even broken during early levels but pretty OK during later levels. And to make them viable during all levels, you have to jump through such a staggering number of hoops and various exercises in both self-nerfing and insane boosting it's not even funny. :smallsigh:

NightbringerGGZ

2016-05-27, 01:10 PM

And I agree with both your assessment of Brawling and your argument in principle, even if it doesn't really apply to the AoMF in the way you described. But I think it's highly relevant when looking at natural attack builds and the current price of the AoMF.

It seems to me Paizo still don't know how to handle natural attacks for PCs, or even how they would like them to work. They give it some archetype/class option support (even scaling improvements), but not nearly enough to make it viable as more than backup if your manufactured weapons are stolen. Together with the rest of the mess that makes up the options for natural attackers, in comparison to weapon wielders, they're bound to be plain awful if low-op, very OP during early levels and very UP during later levels if mid-op, and if high-op even broken during early levels but pretty OK during later levels. And to make them viable during all levels, you have to jump through such a staggering number of hoops and various exercises in both self-nerfing and insane boosting it's not even funny. :smallsigh:

Well, there seems to be a bit of a standard to default to a Claw/Claw/Bite build, as that's generally what you wind up with if you're not heavily optimizing additional natural attacks. I agree that a revamp is needed though. These rules were originally intended to be used by monsters/animals and not player characters, so they're out of balance already. Even animal companions have limiting factors, in that that they only get specific natural attacks. Eidolons and the pre-errata Primal Companions show that when you can start stacking additional natural attacks at will the numbers get thrown off.

Necroticplague

2016-05-27, 10:44 PM

Eidolons and the pre-errata Primal Companions show that when you can start stacking additional natural attacks at will the numbers get thrown off.
How are eidolons an example? They have very hard caps on the amount of natural weapons they can have. I think Vivisectors, with their built in added damage and not being subject to such a cap, are better examples. claw/claw/hoof/hoof/bite/gore/tentacle can be gotten by level 4, long before an eidolon will be allowed to have 7 attacks. Unless there's some way to bypass the Max Attack cap of eidolons I don't know about?

Vyanie

2016-05-28, 12:19 AM

Well no. We're talking about classes which can use hand to hand and wear light armor. These are niche cases with the exception of the Brawler. Even so, the AoMF was just reduced in cost again and is now equal to the costs of an enchanted weapon. You can get your +1 AoMF at the same time as other classes get their +1 weapon with the option of it being Agile instead of +1.

Regarding the scenario you pointed out regarding getting hurt when you hit a target... so what? A Monk or UnMonk will be worse off in this situation (than a class which can use Brawling) as they can only fight with their hands/feet while other classes can switch to a back up weapon. And even if they couldn't, how does Brawling help with this scenario?

2 things.. first it is still much more expensive than a single weapon and it takes up a neck slot. So you are saying that a Brawler should not be as efficient as say a fighter? Remember they are only in light armor so they get crap for AC but are still a front line character (Spreading stats around much more than a fighter or barbarian) . They rely on combat maneuvers as well as do damage. The brawling enchantment at +1 was a solid choice, not op not up. At +3 it is now relegated to complete trash pile. (remember you are giving up +1 ac on a LIGHT armor low ac character before the nerf, now you are giving up +3 ac or other abilities to get a minor bonus to attack) Also remember that this +2 is generally not an actual +2... its just canceling out flurry on to hit.

Your talking about agile like it is something...remember when you use agile you would usually use weapon finesse then you take a big hit to your attack by using a shield so either -2 to ac for no shield or -2 to hit for using shield with weapon finesse if you are going that route. In addition if you want to be effective at all with agile as a brawler then you also will need agile maneuvers. That also locks you out of fury's fall.

I do find it funny that you brought up monks and Unmonks being worse off... another front line character that is at the moment getting completely crapped on by pazio. These classes need options like this to even be viable and taking them away just completely removes any reason for people to play them... and do not tell me "flavor" screw flavor hitting for possibly 2d8+bonuses x2 damage with 2 confirmed crits on a lower hit than say a barbarian that hits for 1d12+disgusting bonuses x3 then even more depending on rage powers and enlarging it and such.

The fact that Aomf takes up a neck slot makes it much much less desirable than a magic weapon and a neck item as there are a LOT of really nice neck items every other class can and will choose instead. The fact that it is so easy to counter HTH classes should make Aomf cost about 1/4 what it does at most to help make the classes desirable. At +3 now brawling is in the same realm of any casting class just saying "I win" by throwing all natural laws out and casting something which would you prefer more spells of a higher level, slap keen on a weapon to crit more, AND add something else to the weapon (crit fishing) or... counter your innate ability to miss when you attack with hand to hand.. ( remember wealth by level and max price spent on a single item so at the earliest you should be able to get it is lvl 8.... a +2 bonus to hit and damage at level 8.... and it costs HALF your wealth.... TRASH.)

Vyanie

2016-05-28, 03:08 PM

Just out of curiosity, how do you come to this conclusion when a +1 weapon is 2k and a +1 AoMF is 4k?

Speaking of, I think the AoMF can have pretty weird effects due to its slot, special enhancement bonus limitations/perks, the attacks it affects, and the price. The net effect for most builds may typically be about equal to TWF with manufactured weapons during early and mid levels, albeit with a less smooth progression of enhancement increases and with less options for creative combos using different special magic weapon abilities, but the loss of the neck slot will often become increasingly annoying in higher levels IME. And for natural attack builds, it usually has a much better cost/benefit ratio than weapons have for weapon wielding builds with a similar focus, especially when combined with special magic weapon abilities which get the most out of the extremely high accuracy of the attacks (ie abilities triggered on hit/dealing damage). Although this doesn't really make natural attackers (synths excluded) suitable for focusing on melee control/debuffing of course, as they're still severely hampered by their lack of reach, quite a few such magic abilities can increase their damage output much more than the same abilities would for damage focused weapon wielders.

This. Also, IME the UAS builds which arguably gain the most from Brawling are typically damage focused and fully capable of one-shotting virtually any CR = level enemy without killing themselves in the process, at least if given a round's worth of buffing. While there are a rare few monsters which can be considerably more problematic for these builds than for weapon wielders (such as the mentioned remorhaz in most cases), but IME such enemies are so rare it doesn't really have any significant impact on the overall effectiveness of UAS builds in comparison to weapon wielders.

As a sidenote, I think the one truly major drawback of unarmed fighting is the lack of reach, since this basically means that in order to be as effective in combat as weapon wielders during all levels, your combat role options are going to be limited to "damage with more damage" or "damage with a tiny side order of something else". Which says quite a lot about the lack of mechanical variation found in the viable unarmed build options available, considering that martial combat in general already is extremely damage oriented.

Or to put it in other words, I think you could make a martial weapon wielder whose effectiveness in combat has nothing to do with DPR numbers, and probably be about as effective in most circumstances as one whose effectiveness is all about DPR (although without access to PoW content, your options are probably going to be limited to one or two highly specific build paths). This is sadly still impossible for an unarmed build AFAIK, despite the many control related unarmed options published so far.

Exactly what does every other martial do that is combat focused when you are comparing them to that brawling ability? pre nerf level 4 item added at most 8 damage if you crit 2 times Nat 20's with confirms both times at around level 4 ish. This is on a fairly MAD class so they will have lower str than a fighter or a barb doing less damage. Now without even making the weapon magical just masterwork you added +1 to attack which a unarmed attacker cant do, the cost for enchanting a weapon to +1 is remarkably cheaper than armor, 2k vs 4k. so you can now make your weapon +1 AND have extra gold to get other things. I am sorry but someone swinging a +1 greataxe 1d12 x3 crit range and having a str bonus of +4 through +8 (self buffed)... sure they only hit once but that also means only one chance to miss(good luck missing with the str bonus) and if they hit they are doing more damage than the UAS characters... and god forbid if its a crit the damage just gets stupid. This is much harder for UAS characters because they are much more MAD than other classes. Low or no armor requires higher dex on a front line class to make up and hopefully not get hit every attack so that means either less con (hp) or str (damage and to hit) or usually a mix of the two. Now add in the fact that they are inherently less accurate with -2 to BOTH attacks if they flurry (full attacks only so dont move) and the lower str bonus just means they will usually have -4 through -8 less attack than another comparable martial character in addition if they moved only one attack so wipes out the whole bonus of hand to hand getting more attacks.

To be honest people want strong characters, they want to feel like actual heroes and not farmer john. Besides the whole bs "flavor" argument there is absolutely NO reason to use 3/4 of the classes because they are worse than barbarians and full casters. With nerfing stuff like this it takes any and all reason to even think about trying a different type of character.They should be giving more options (make them good options not complete crap) to these types of classes not taking them away.

In talking about AoMF remember you are loosing a neck slot to do what every other class gets CHEAPER than you. So you are not only loosing a valuable neck slot you are getting charged double to even be somewhat comparable. Does this seem fair to you? considering the niche of this item AND the less of the slot for other better neck items it should cost HALF what a weapon enchantment does.

upho

2016-05-29, 01:33 AM

Well, there seems to be a bit of a standard to default to a Claw/Claw/Bite build, as that's generally what you wind up with if you're not heavily optimizing additional natural attacks.While I wouldn't classify for example getting an item which grants an additional natural attack (such as the Helm of the Mammoth Lord or the Fleshwarped Scorpion's Tail) as "heavily optimizing" in any way, the "default Claw/Claw/Bite build" phenomenon is basically what I was referring to when saying natural attackers are often "very OP during early levels and very UP during later levels if mid-op".

In more detail: Claw/Claw/Bite - no less than 3 primary attacks - are easily attainable at 1st level through numerous build combinations. In most games, this means these "default builds" have a very high risk of being OP in most games during the earliest levels, worsening the already problematic rocket tag tendencies which plague low level combat. I mean, simply by combining a race with a Str bonus and a bite attack with a level of abyssal or draconic bloodline bloodrager and Power Attack, you'll have 6 or 7 full attacks per day with an average DPR able to one-shot a typical CR 2 enemy by almost a 20% margin. While full attacks with such high relative DPR might not be a big deal during mid or high levels, they're often devastating during the early ones IME (since the limited abilities of low CR enemies as well as low level PCs typically make them very easy and frequent targets of melee full attacks), and they're certainly beyond what full attacks of 1st level weapon wielders are capable of AFAIK (at least if limited to Paizo options).

But in mid levels, the relative power of Claw/Claw/Bite builds will IME quickly decrease to be about on par with weapon wielders, and often start to lag behind well before higher levels. This is of course because the build paths granting natural attacks of a sufficient number and strength just to keep up with weapon wielders during higher levels are very few and often highly complex, demanding optimization skills and build planning on a totally different level than what the OP 1st level Claw/Claw/Bite build does.

I agree that a revamp is needed though. These rules were originally intended to be used by monsters/animals and not player characters, so they're out of balance already.I don't really see why the original intended users of natural attacks being non-PCs would somehow make natural attacks inherently out of balance for PCs.

Instead, it simply seems to me that for some reason, Paizo are hell-bent on ensuring at the very least natural attackers based on martial classes remain as unbalanced as possible during as many levels as possible, offering tons of races and 1st level class features making it easy to start with too many attacks, but not even a single related martial class "package" (bloodline/archetype/combat style/etc) allowing them to keep up with weapon wielders in higher levels. And Paizo have proven their lack of insight and awareness of the problem repeatedly, for example by obviously believing it's perfectly reasonable for an eidolon - a caster's pet - to start with 3 primary attacks and a Str of 16+, while quickly shutting down a martial PC trying to remain viable by adding claw attacks to feet (just like the eidolon can) when they instead could've simply added a minimum level requirement. This has caused annoyingly poor and inconsistent design, creating a mix of 3.5e artefacts, trap options and odd special exceptions and vague rules, making many related options weird and difficult to balance (such as the AoMF).

Even animal companions have limiting factors, in that that they only get specific natural attacks. Eidolons and the pre-errata Primal Companions show that when you can start stacking additional natural attacks at will the numbers get thrown off.Eidolons only help show that 3 primary attacks at 1st level shouldn't be allowed, and maybe that 5 or 6 attacks at 20th probably should be a lot more easily attainable for other natural attackers. The max attack limit means eidolons are quickly left far behind in the natural attack stacking game by builds based on PC races such as the wereboar-kin skinwalker and classes such as the primalist bloodrager and alchemist.

How are eidolons an example? They have very hard caps on the amount of natural weapons they can have. I think Vivisectors, with their built in added damage and not being subject to such a cap, are better examples. claw/claw/hoof/hoof/bite/gore/tentacle can be gotten by level 4, long before an eidolon will be allowed to have 7 attacks. Unless there's some way to bypass the Max Attack cap of eidolons I don't know about?This. Although no alchemist build can actually gain 7 attacks by level 4 as you say here (the tentacle discovery won't increase the number of attacks you can make in a round (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rc5)), they can certainly be better examples than eidolons when talking about the AoMF numbers being "thrown off" by a high number of attacks.

(But by simply opting for unarmed strikes instead of natural attacks, eidolons and especially synths can still easily have vastly more numerous attacks in a full attack benefitting from an AoMF than any other PC class, on top of having an ability to get the most out of those full attacks in every round which far surpasses that of any build based on a martial class.)

Necroticplague

2016-05-29, 09:21 AM

This. Although no alchemist build can actually gain 7 attacks by level 4 as you say here (the tentacle discovery won't increase the number of attacks you can make in a round (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rc5)), they can certainly be better examples than eidolons when talking about the AoMF numbers being "thrown off" by a high number of attacks.

(But by simply opting for unarmed strikes instead of natural attacks, eidolons and especially synths can still easily have vastly more numerous attacks in a full attack benefitting from an AoMF than any other PC class, on top of having an ability to get the most out of those full attacks in every round which far surpasses that of any build based on a martial class.)

The tentacle attack isn't giving you another attack, it's replacing, say, the dagger or unarmed strike attack you could make.

upho

2016-05-29, 06:34 PM

The tentacle attack isn't giving you another attack, it's replacing, say, the dagger or unarmed strike attack you could make.But how would that end up as more than 6 attacks? I mean, as an alchemist, you wouldn't be able to make a manufactured weapon attack/UAS in the same full attack as you make two claw attacks. So AFAICT, regardless of the tentacle discovery or whatever you're using your hands for, this cannot ever end up as more than 6 attacks, since that would be the maximum number of attacks you would be able to make without the tentacle. To end up with more than 6 attacks, you'd have to dip monk for "UAS with any body part", or add a tail slap, sting or a pair of wing attacks (although the tentacle would probably just be redundant or even detrimental in that case). But even if this doesn't work before level 5, it sure is bad enough for early level game balance in general to have 6 attacks at 4th and 7 attacks at 5th, besides highlighting the weird disparate balance issues the AoMF struggles with.

Needless to say, I think the FAQ ruling on the vestigial arm and tentacle discoveries is just as bad as the one on clawed feet. Especially since it would have been so infinitely much better to add a general "max natural attacks/character level" rule instead (starting at max 2 attacks), thus not only reducing/removing the early level OP tendencies of natural attackers, but also mitigating their often serious late level UP tendencies. :smallannoyed:

Necroticplague

2016-05-29, 07:34 PM

But how would that end up as more than 6 attacks? I mean, as an alchemist, you wouldn't be able to make a manufactured weapon attack/UAS in the same full attack as you make two claw attacks. So AFAICT, regardless of the tentacle discovery or whatever you're using your hands for, this cannot ever end up as more than 6 attacks, since that would be the maximum number of attacks you would be able to make without the tentacle. To end up with more than 6 attacks, you'd have to dip monk for "UAS with any body part", or add a tail slap, sting or a pair of wing attacks (although the tentacle would probably just be redundant or even detrimental in that case). But even if this doesn't work before level 5, it sure is bad enough for early level game balance in general to have 6 attacks at 4th and 7 attacks at 5th, besides highlighting the weird disparate balance issues the AoMF struggles with.

Well, similarly AFAICT, there isn't a hard-and-fast "can't use a weapon in the hands you make claw attacks with" rule, so I'm not seeing why you can't hold a dagger in one of your hands for the extra attack, then replace said attack with the tentacle one. Closest I can find is more of a mention things are often in that way.

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam).

"Although often" isn't a hard rule, and Feral Mutagen doesn't say you can't use the claws and weapon attacks at the same time, so it seems legit.

Sayt

2016-05-29, 11:07 PM

While specific may trump general, general trumps absence.

Also, I believe that "One natural attack/attack per limb" came up in either FAQ or Errata with Eidolons, and also the shifters? That said, it maybe have been one of James Jacob's Q&As, and it would be a little hypocritical of me to use his rulings in a debate.

upho

2016-05-29, 11:50 PM

Exactly what does every other martial do that is combat focused when you are comparing them to that brawling ability?Just in case it wasn't clear, the only part of my post you're quoting that is specifically related to the Brawling armor is:
This. Also, IME the UAS builds which arguably gain the most from Brawling are typically damage focused and fully capable of one-shotting virtually any CR = level enemy without killing themselves in the process, at least if given a round's worth of buffing. While there are a rare few monsters which can be considerably more problematic for these builds than for weapon wielders (such as the mentioned remorhaz in most cases), but IME such enemies are so rare it doesn't really have any significant impact on the overall effectiveness of UAS builds in comparison to weapon wielders.And this says absolutely nothing about whether I believe the nerf was sound or not, only that I agree with Nightbringer that the specific argument you made (regarding being hurt when attacking certain enemies) is kinda moot when discussing whether Brawling nerf was sound or not.

In addition, note that Nightbringer also said:
Brawling as a +1 enchantment won't have a significant impact on game balance.To which I replied:
And I agree with both your assessment of Brawling and your argument in principle, even if it doesn't really apply to the AoMF in the way you described.Which, again, doesn't say I think the Brawling armor nerf was good. Rather, I was trying to say that while I believe Nightbringer's comparison to other items was correct, due to the Brawling armor's limited mechanical impact in practice and when taking not just other existing items into account, I think the nerf was uncalled for. Which I also said in my first post in this thread (edited for brewity):
This errata is just a big sigh IMO. Besides a few price fixes, everything else pretty much follows the same theme of overkill or shouldn't have been touched by the nerf bat to begin with. :smallsigh:

I may have misunderstood what you're trying to say, but it appears to me as if I you think I believe the Brawling nerf was good. For the record, I don't.

Now if what you're actually disputing here is "Brawling as a +1 enchantment won't have a significant impact on game balance", this is my take on what you're saying:

pre nerf level 4 item added at most 8 damage if you crit 2 times Nat 20's with confirms both times at around level 4 ish. This is on a fairly MAD class so they will have lower str than a fighter or a barb doing less damage. Now without even making the weapon magical just masterwork you added +1 to attack which a unarmed attacker cant do, the cost for enchanting a weapon to +1 is remarkably cheaper than armor, 2k vs 4k. so you can now make your weapon +1 AND have extra gold to get other things. I am sorry but someone swinging a +1 greataxe 1d12 x3 crit range and having a str bonus of +4 through +8 (self buffed)... sure they only hit once but that also means only one chance to miss(good luck missing with the str bonus) and if they hit they are doing more damage than the UAS characters... and god forbid if its a crit the damage just gets stupid. This is much harder for UAS characters because they are much more MAD than other classes. Low or no armor requires higher dex on a front line class to make up and hopefully not get hit every attack so that means either less con (hp) or str (damage and to hit) or usually a mix of the two. Now add in the fact that they are inherently less accurate with -2 to BOTH attacks if they flurry (full attacks only so dont move) and the lower str bonus just means they will usually have -4 through -8 less attack than another comparable martial character in addition if they moved only one attack so wipes out the whole bonus of hand to hand getting more attacks.First, keep in mind we should be talking about armored UAS builds here, which is far from all UAS builds, and also means it's arguably more relevant to talk about non-flurry classes such as the bloodrager, fighter and maybe even barbarian than at least the monk/un-monk.

Second, I think you're forgetting the armored UAS damage dealer can typically access and get the most out of the arguably most powerful melee damage options in the game relatively easily, while it's much more difficult, or often simply impossible, for the weapon wielder to do the same (such as Dragon Style/Ferocity, Pummeling Charge, Horn of the Criosphinx, strong jaw etc). And unlike the Brawling armor, these options really matter, making it perfectly doable to build a very capable armored UAS damage dealer regardless of whether the Brawling armor exists at all in the game or not. Yes, a damage focused weapon wielding single-classed vanilla barb will likely have a higher DPR than a damage focused single-classed vanilla UAS Brawler, at least during most levels. But likewise will for example a single-classed UAS bloodrager likely also have a higher DPR than a single-classed weapon wielding Brawler. So what's actually your point - that rage is great for Str-based damage focused combatants? That the barb and bloodrager classes are OP?

I fail to see is how the pricing of the Brawling armor is going to change the above mentioned relationships between UAS DPR and weapon DPR in any significant way. (It also seems to me as if you believe the actual in-game DPR impact of crits to be much greater than it actually is during a large majority of levels.)

To be honest people want strong characters, they want to feel like actual heroes and not farmer john. Besides the whole bs "flavor" argument there is absolutely NO reason to use 3/4 of the classes because they are worse than barbarians and full casters. With nerfing stuff like this it takes any and all reason to even think about trying a different type of character.They should be giving more options (make them good options not complete crap) to these types of classes not taking them away.I think I agree to the geist of what you're saying here, but full casters are just plain OP or broken unless played by very inexperienced players, and thus shouldn't be used as a good balance point for anything IMO. And I don't see why you throw the barb into this awful category of classes, as I don't think they're even remotely on the same world-nuking game-wrecking power level. Actually, I think the barb, bloodrager and perhaps pally are probably the Paizo martial classes closest to T3, my favorite character/class balance point, although besides perhaps a few highly specific builds, I believe they're unfortunately not quite there yet.

Tip: Make sure PoW (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) is allowed in your game, and you'll find a whole new world of truly viable and fun martial character concepts.

In talking about AoMF remember you are loosing a neck slot to do what every other class gets CHEAPER than you. So you are not only loosing a valuable neck slot you are getting charged double to even be somewhat comparable. Does this seem fair to you? considering the niche of this item AND the less of the slot for other better neck items it should cost HALF what a weapon enchantment does.Sorry, but your assumptions are terribly myopic IMO. First, you need to look at ALL the build types which largely rely on the AoMF, not one class. And if comparing the AoMF price to that of weapons (aside from losing the neck slot), you'll find that none of these AoMF builds will make less than two AoMF-boosted attacks in a full attack, giving the AoMF a cost/benefit ratio roughly equal to that of TWF weapon wielding builds during most levels. But at the same time, some of the AoMF builds will make enough attacks to virtually double that AoMF cost/benefit ratio.

So at the very minimum, you're not really "loosing a neck slot to do what every other class gets CHEAPER than you", not by a longshot. And do you actually think that the AoMF causing a 50% cost increase on other neck slot items are comparable to the AoMF's potential to boost any number of attacks in a full attack, despite the fact that the AoMF will basically never benefit less than the 2 attacks it actually pays for, and sometimes benefit enough attacks to actually motivate a price equal to roughly three or four magic weapons?

As I've said before, I think the issue here isn't the AoMF really, it's the poorly implemented natural attacks and the vast differences between the builds which uses the AoMF. And for what it's worth, if the AoMF only boosted UAS, I would at least agree with you that it should be slotless (or better somehow occupy both "hand-wielded magic weapon slots").

upho

2016-05-30, 12:37 AM

Well, similarly AFAICT, there isn't a hard-and-fast "can't use a weapon in the hands you make claw attacks with" rule, so I'm not seeing why you can't hold a dagger in one of your hands for the extra attack, then replace said attack with the tentacle one. Closest I can find is more of a mention things are often in that way.

"Although often" isn't a hard rule, and Feral Mutagen doesn't say you can't use the claws and weapon attacks at the same time, so it seems legit.But there is indeed a hard-and-fast "can't use a weapon in the hands you make claw attacks with" rule. From the CRB (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attack) (my emphasis):

"You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack."

And since
While specific may trump general, general trumps absence.I believe it doesn't get much more clear or hard-and-fast than that.

Vyanie

2016-05-30, 01:07 AM

Just in case it wasn't clear, the only part of my post you're quoting that is specifically related to the Brawling armor is: And this says absolutely nothing about whether I believe the nerf was sound or not, only that I agree with Nightbringer that the specific argument you made (regarding being hurt when attacking certain enemies) is kinda moot when discussing whether Brawling nerf was sound or not.

In addition, note that Nightbringer also said:To which I replied:Which, again, doesn't say I think the Brawling armor nerf was good. Rather, I was trying to say that while I believe Nightbringer's comparison to other items was correct, due to the Brawling armor's limited mechanical impact in practice and when taking not just other existing items into account, I think the nerf was uncalled for. Which I also said in my first post in this thread (edited for brewity):

I may have misunderstood what you're trying to say, but it appears to me as if I you think I believe the Brawling nerf was good. For the record, I don't.

Now if what you're actually disputing here is "Brawling as a +1 enchantment won't have a significant impact on game balance", this is my take on what you're saying:
First, keep in mind we should be talking about armored UAS builds here, which is far from all UAS builds, and also means it's arguably more relevant to talk about non-flurry classes such as the bloodrager, fighter and maybe even barbarian than at least the monk/un-monk.

Second, I think you're forgetting the armored UAS damage dealer can typically access and get the most out of the arguably most powerful melee damage options in the game relatively easily, while it's much more difficult, or often simply impossible, for the weapon wielder to do the same (such as Dragon Style/Ferocity, Pummeling Charge, Horn of the Criosphinx, strong jaw etc). And unlike the Brawling armor, these options really matter, making it perfectly doable to build a very capable armored UAS damage dealer regardless of whether the Brawling armor exists at all in the game or not. Yes, a damage focused weapon wielding single-classed vanilla barb will likely have a higher DPR than a damage focused single-classed vanilla UAS Brawler, at least during most levels. But likewise will for example a single-classed UAS bloodrager likely also have a higher DPR than a single-classed weapon wielding Brawler. So what's actually your point - that rage is great for Str-based damage focused combatants? That the barb and bloodrager classes are OP?

I fail to see is how the pricing of the Brawling armor is going to change the above mentioned relationships between UAS DPR and weapon DPR in any significant way. (It also seems to me as if you believe the actual in-game DPR impact of crits to be much greater than it actually is during a large majority of levels.)

I think I agree to the geist of what you're saying here, but full casters are just plain OP or broken unless played by very inexperienced players, and thus shouldn't be used as a good balance point for anything IMO. And I don't see why you throw the barb into this awful category of classes, as I don't think they're even remotely on the same world-nuking game-wrecking power level. Actually, I think the barb, bloodrager and perhaps pally are probably the Paizo martial classes closest to T3, my favorite character/class balance point, although besides perhaps a few highly specific builds, I believe they're unfortunately not quite there yet.

Tip: Make sure PoW (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) is allowed in your game, and you'll find a whole new world of truly viable and fun martial character concepts.

Sorry, but your assumptions are terribly myopic IMO. First, you need to look at ALL the build types which largely rely on the AoMF, not one class. And if comparing the AoMF price to that of weapons (aside from losing the neck slot), you'll find that none of these AoMF builds will make less than two AoMF-boosted attacks in a full attack, giving the AoMF a cost/benefit ratio roughly equal to that of TWF weapon wielding builds during most levels. But at the same time, some of the AoMF builds will make enough attacks to virtually double that AoMF cost/benefit ratio.

So at the very minimum, you're not really "loosing a neck slot to do what every other class gets CHEAPER than you", not by a longshot. And do you actually think that the AoMF causing a 50% cost increase on other neck slot items are comparable to the AoMF's potential to boost any number of attacks in a full attack, despite the fact that the AoMF will basically never benefit less than the 2 attacks it actually pays for, and sometimes benefit enough attacks to actually motivate a price equal to roughly three or four magic weapons?

As I've said before, I think the issue here isn't the AoMF really, it's the poorly implemented natural attacks and the vast differences between the builds which uses the AoMF. And for what it's worth, if the AoMF only boosted UAS, I would at least agree with you that it should be slotless (or better somehow occupy both "hand-wielded magic weapon slots").

Sorry about assuming you were for the nerf, been posting on another forum about it and got it mixed up with yours. I will say that increasing it to +3 was in my own opinion very stupid, and was only done for two reasons, PFS and to keep martial characters crap.

I do believe your assumptions about the most damaging melee options are a bit off. You can not have 2 styles active at the same time without moms, since this is a multi into a normal monk class you lose even more attack in addition to the -2 for flurry, while not noticeable at high levels low and mid levels this makes the already lower stated str character to have a devastatingly low to hit bonus. Remember a barb is more focused on damage and in addition they can rage meaning even base they will usually have higher base STR than a brawler since they can also wear medium armor so less focus on high dex for AC and more hp for when they get hit. Until mid to high levels there really is no reason to not be a fighter instead of a brawler at this point since even they will usually be hitting for much more and have a LOT more static feats.

AoMF is by its very nature a sacrifice item. You are sacrificing a good neck slot item to be somewhat viable with to hit and damage. non AoMF characters will be using something else for the simple reason they can, not because they have to, unlike a UAS user. I do agree if it was slotless it would be different or like a hand wielded magic weapon slots. The other thing is most people except rogues will never duel wield simply because it is a trap feat line, so, no it is not worth the cost for what UAS get. I do not understand where you are getting the multiple magic items you were talking about as it is just more attacks per round which every class eventually gets, some just do more with a single attack than what UAS can hope to do with multiple. (at a lower price since they generally use 1 weapon)

The reason i brought casters into the discussion is the fact that UAS were finally given something not retardedly priced that could make them competitive, then because paizo like having their head up someones rear they nuked it into beyond trash. To be honest with you UAS should not receive the -2 to hit when duel wielding as it is natural to strike with both hands vs having to train to strike with 2 weapons, if that was removed I would be complaining a lot less. Brawling is a MUCH needed option especially at the level that you used to get it at for the classes that would UAS, if anything it should have only been expanded to be on clothes or light armor.

The reason i had brought barb into the discussion was besides the DPR they are also about the only martial I ever see in PFS that is not played by a new player since it is a much easier to streamline them being much less MAD than other martials. The rest being casters as paizo has a hard on for them (the casters not the barb). Since most UAS have to have a much higher dex do to only light or no armor generally they must sacrifice str/con to stay alive during a fight thus sacrificing both to hit and damage. So again the neck slot loss is felt much greater than other classes just to make them feasable.

I do agree POW was an excellent resource, but sadly, because it is not paizo quite a few DM's do not allow it. I truly believe that is an excellent blueprint to how martial characters should have been designed, and even so they should have either increased all arrays to help include the MAD classes or just made them much less MAD.

upho

2016-05-30, 02:14 PM

Sorry about assuming you were for the nerf, been posting on another forum about it and got it mixed up with yours.No need to apologize, when looking at my more recent related posts again I can clearly see why someone would make the same assumption as you did. So I'm sorry for not being more clear.

I will say that increasing it to +3 was in my own opinion very stupid, and was only done for two reasons, PFS and to keep martial characters crap.Yeah, the heavy PFS influence is really annoying. I suspect this has also become a major reason as to why Paizo insists on over-nerfing primarily martial options. My impression is PFS games are mostly played at levels 1-5 and never beyond 12, and the players are typically still rather new to the game or at least not very experienced. If putting such extreme focus on the early levels and ignoring the higher ones, while listening primarily to people that tend to both put way too much focus on high damage numbers (instead of seeing the bigger picture) when it comes to balance and not be particularly skilled at building/playing casters, I think the nerfs of the last three years or so seem a lot less idiotic.

I do believe your assumptions about the most damaging melee options are a bit off. You can not have 2 styles active at the same time without moms, since this is a multi into a normal monk class you lose even more attack in addition to the -2 for flurry, while not noticeable at high levels low and mid levels this makes the already lower stated str character to have a devastatingly low to hit bonus.But you certainly don't need all of these options in order to be good enough IMO. And while it might not work very well for Dragon Style and Pummeling Style, the Combat Style Master feat is another option if you'd like to avoid a MoMS dip.

But I might of course be wrong here. What damage feat would you say is capable of surpassing say the benefits of HotCS on a Str-based UAS charge build? (It typically adds at least an +1 x Str and +50% Power Attack damage, as additional bonus to damage to every UAS hit in a pounce. Or in other words: hilarious amounts of damage IMO.)

Remember a barb is more focused on damage and in addition they can rage meaning even base they will usually have higher base STR than a brawler since they can also wear medium armor so less focus on high dex for AC and more hp for when they get hit. Until mid to high levels there really is no reason to not be a fighter instead of a brawler at this point since even they will usually be hitting for much more and have a LOT more static feats.I was actually mostly questioning why you seem to believe an armored UAS build cannot have rage? In my world, if you're serious about dealing UAS damage damage while wearing armor, you most likely will be able to rage (or bloodrage) or at the very least a decent flat attack/damage boost (such as mutagen or smite) during at least a difficult combat's worth of rounds.

I think it's time to put up an example build to ensure we're talking about the same thing here. If you gimme a few moments I think I can modify one of my mid-level wrathblood example builds to use only Paizo stuff and unarmed strikes...

*copies, pastes and alters stuff*

...

*uses profane language directed at fiddly numbers and own incompetence*

...

*decides it's time to give up pretending to know what I'm doing, and to leave the evidence for people to gloat and laugh at*

Ok, finally done. Please note that I'm no expert on UAS builds, and that this is likely quite far from the most efficient UAS damage build possible.

Demon-spawn tiefling bloody-knuckled primalist bloodrager 8, mutagenic mauler brawler 2
CG large female outsider (native)

(All values, except for initiative and Stealth, while in bloodrage and Pummeling Style stance (both free actions), using mutagen and wands of mage armor and strong jaw, under the effects of haste.)

Initiative +8 (+7 in bloodrage); Senses darkvision 60 ft., Perception +20

DEFENSE
AC 21, touch 10, flat-footed 20 10 armor, 2 natural armor, 2 deflection, 1 dodge, -2 bloodrage, -1 size
HP 128 10+9d10 hit die, +60 con, +8 favored class
Fort 15, Ref 9, Will 9; +4 to saves vs. spells, (Su) and (Sp) abilities
DR 1/-, Resist cold 5, electricity 5, fire 5

OFFENSE
Speed 70 ft. (160 ft. charging)
Melee Pummeling Charge with Power Attack: unarmed strike +21/+21/+21/+16/+16 (4d8+35 /x2)
Space 10 ft., Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks Charge Through (free overrun +37 when charging), Greater Overrun (AoO if overrun knocks opponent prone), Pummeling Charge, Pummeling Style

Bloodline and Rage Powers 25 rounds/day: Demonic Bulk, Superstition, Witch Hunter

Mutagen 1h preparation, 20 min duration: +2 natural armor, +4 Strength, -2 Intelligence

Abyssal Bloodline Familiar Compsognathus: +4 initiative

STATISTICS
Ability Scores (20-point buy)
Str (24) 34 16 base, +2 race, +2 level, +4 belt, +4 bloodrage, +4 mutagen, +2 size demonic bulk
Dex (12) 10 10 base, -2 size demonic bulk
Con (16) 22 14 base, +2 belt, +4 bloodrage, +2 raging vitality
Int (8) 6 10 base, -2 race, -2 mutagen
Wis 14 12 base, +2 headband
Cha 15 13 base, +2 race
Bab +10, CMB +28 (Overrun +33), CMD 39 (41 vs. Overrun, 40 vs. Trip)
Feats Charge Through, Combat Style MasterB, Greater Overrun, Horn of the Criosphinx, Improved Overrun, Improved Unarmed StrikeB, Power AttackB, Pummeling StyleB, Pummeling ChargeB, Raging Vitality, Two-Weapon FightingB
Skills Intimidate +15, Perception +20, Use Magic Device +15

Alternate Racial Traits Fiendish Sprinter, Maw, Prehensile Tail
Traits Big Boned, Reactionary

Gear furious amulet of mighty fists, mithral breastplate, belt (+4 str, +2 con), headband (+2 wis), cloak of resistance +3, ring of protection +2, eyes of the eagle, gauntlets of the skilled maneuver (overrun), dusty rose prism in wayfinder, wand of mage armor, wand of strong jaw, 500 gp

Let's have a look at the Supercharger's DPR vs an average CR 10 enemy (AC 24, 130 hp): 3 attacks with an 90% hit chance and 2 attacks with an 65% hit chance, each dealing an average of 53 points of damage per hit (106 per crit) = 222.6 average DPR, or approx. 171% of target's hp. Or in less mathematical terms: total overkill. This is not including the additional +4 damage/hit from Witch Hunter which will typically be added vs a large majority of targets at this level.

She also has a pretty good initiative to make it easier for her to charge her enemies before they're able to act, and decent saves due to Superstition.

Of course, her DPR numbers won't be nearly as impressive if sha cannot charge her opponent, but her damage output will still remain high, even if not including any buffs besides bloodrage. Likewise, she'll probably be at least as good as a damage dealer as most martial weapon wielders from 1st level, and will probably surpass most of them somewhere around 7th level. And as mentioned, this is hardly the most optimized UAS build possible.

AoMF is by its very nature a sacrifice item. You are sacrificing a good neck slot item to be somewhat viable with to hit and damage. non AoMF characters will be using something else for the simple reason they can, not because they have to, unlike a UAS user. I do agree if it was slotless it would be different or like a hand wielded magic weapon slots. The other thing is most people except rogues will never duel wield simply because it is a trap feat line, so, no it is not worth the cost for what UAS get. I do not understand where you are getting the multiple magic items you were talking about as it is just more attacks per round which every class eventually gets, some just do more with a single attack than what UAS can hope to do with multiple. (at a lower price since they generally use 1 weapon)What I meant was that IME UAS builds will typically have more attacks than a build wielding a single weapon, and typically a number at least equivalent to that of a TWF weapon build (due to flurry etc, see for example build above). And a natural attack build can have a lot more than that, especially in terms of attacks with enough accuracy to matter. I think a full attack consisting of 4 attacks at full bab and 3 at bab -5, at 5th level, is quite a bit more than even two TWF weapon wielders are capable of at the same level. So if you're going to compare the AoMF price to that of weapons (not including the slot issue), according to this example the AoMF should cost at least [enhancement squared x 10], the equivalent of the five magic weapons that weapon wielders would need in order just to get a magic effect on same number of attacks as the natural attacker's full bab attacks.

But again, I think this just shows how poorly natural attacks are implemented.

The reason i brought casters into the discussion is the fact that UAS were finally given something not retardedly priced that could make them competitive, then because paizo like having their head up someones rear they nuked it into beyond trash. To be honest with you UAS should not receive the -2 to hit when duel wielding as it is natural to strike with both hands vs having to train to strike with 2 weapons, if that was removed I would be complaining a lot less. Brawling is a MUCH needed option especially at the level that you used to get it at for the classes that would UAS, if anything it should have only been expanded to be on clothes or light armor.

The reason i had brought barb into the discussion was besides the DPR they are also about the only martial I ever see in PFS that is not played by a new player since it is a much easier to streamline them being much less MAD than other martials. The rest being casters as paizo has a hard on for them (the casters not the barb). Since most UAS have to have a much higher dex do to only light or no armor generally they must sacrifice str/con to stay alive during a fight thus sacrificing both to hit and damage. So again the neck slot loss is felt much greater than other classes just to make them feasable.Aight. I've never played PFS and most likely never will, but I think I understand what you're saying her.

I do agree POW was an excellent resource, but sadly, because it is not paizo quite a few DM's do not allow it. I truly believe that is an excellent blueprint to how martial characters should have been designed, and even so they should have either increased all arrays to help include the MAD classes or just made them much less MAD.Yeah, it's sad that DSP material, which is generally of a higher quality than Paizo material IMO, gets ignored/banned by DMs simply due to being 3rd party.

darkdragoon

2016-06-03, 12:56 AM

Ultimately it comes down to the significance: the characters that are starving for extra move actions still can't really do much with them. Arguing over how quickly you can take a shirt off etc. is a tooth fairy science experiment.

Similarly if you have a bunch of attacks, you have a bunch of attacks. And still probably less than a hydra. Not whiffing on them as much and getting 2 damage (OH NO TWO MORE WHOLE HIT POINT DAMAGE MISTER PRESIDENT) to some of them is gravy.

Yondu

2016-06-06, 05:20 AM

Kurald Galain

2016-06-06, 05:31 AM

For what it's worth, I've done the math (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423754-Myrrh-Frankincense-and-Steel-Kurald-Galain-s-Guide-to-the-Magus&p=20858667#post20858667) on the new Cunning enchantment (+4 to confirm crits if you have a bunch of knowledge skills) to compare it to a plain extra +1 enchantment.

Cunning gives the same average damage as a regular +1 only when you have a 15-20 crit range (e.g. keen scimitar), and is substantially worse otherwise. Aside from that, Cunning requires you to put 20 - 30 skill ranks in knowledge skills to be worthwhile, and most weapon-using classes simply don't have room for that.

So yeah, it's not particularly worth taking in any case.

Lord_Gareth

2016-06-06, 08:47 AM

Florian

2016-06-06, 08:50 AM

Lord_Gareth

2016-06-06, 08:56 AM

You know, that´s really funny.
I spent a good decade freelancing in the support business. The customer wants this, the customer wants that, so you comply, always thinking about the hours you spent and put that on the final bill.
Now I´m into the production business and I found that I care less and less about what the actual customer feels and it just doesn´t pay enough to cater to their needs. Could we adapt out product line? Sure. Why pays for it? No one. So screw it.

Yeah, nah. This is a terrible attitude to take and is disrespectful of both the work itself and the folks that make it possible to begin with. 'Screw you, pay me' isn't a reason by itself to avoid edits, since it implies that enough money is sufficient to make you compromise standards and artistic integrity.

That's honestly kind of enraging to read, Florian. I can say without a trace of irony that you've managed to do what four years of living in Kansas could not - offend me. Where do you get the gall?

Drelua

2016-06-06, 09:16 AM

upho

2016-06-07, 12:18 AM

What it is the most annoying thing on this matter, is that Paizo closed all discussions on the Errata on their board, claiming that peoples tells bad things about the dev team and they don't want to support anymore the unhappy players....
They refuse all discussions, all criticisim on the job they have done on this Errata and older ones, I don't think it is a right way to communicate with customers, because before being players, we are customers and they seems to forgot it...
I really angry about the way they manage the communication with us, and the way they constantly bash martials options without any explanations and no viable reasons...:smalleek: Seriously?

If Paizo actually is shutting down their own communication channels because their customers are complaining "too much" about their product, it's deeply worrying IMO. Besides being disrespectful and the equivalent of a "cover-ears-and-shout-not-to-hear" behavior one would expect from a 3 year-old being told he's doing something wrong, continuing this practice is just plain suicidal from a business perspective. One doesn't need to look further than to the 4e testing debacle and its serious consequences for WotC to know this. And unlike WotC, Paizo doesn't have nearly the same kind of financial resources as Hasbro, and neither is PF nearly as strong a brand name as D&D. And I would really like PF to survive.

You know, that´s really funny.
I spent a good decade freelancing in the support business. The customer wants this, the customer wants that, so you comply, always thinking about the hours you spent and put that on the final bill.
Now I´m into the production business and I found that I care less and less about what the actual customer feels and it just doesn´t pay enough to cater to their needs. Could we adapt out product line? Sure. Why pays for it? No one. So screw it.Now I don't know about the particulars of your work and don't want to be rude, but unless I misread something, this is complete and utter BS, from a business perspective as well as from an ethical/social perspective.

If listening to your customers, treating them with respect and catering to their needs doesn't pay, none of your work will soon pay. This has been true for as long as any kind of trade or commerce has existed, but is becoming increasingly important as markets across the globe grow steadily more heterogeneous and information is shared with increasing ease and frequency. In other words, a company which doesn't listen to its customers or treats them in an arrogant, nonchalant, disrespectful or otherwise poor manner will soon find that behavior reflected in ratings and comments all over the internet, not to mention in rapidly dropping sales figures. This is especially true for a company like Paizo, whose products are largely digital and often sold via digital channels to customers who are very active on the internet.

(As someone who worked for more than a decade as a management consultant, often advising on marketing, business development and CRM, I can tell you with certainty that if I had told my clients what you say here I and they had been stupid enough to believe it, I would've not only hurt their business (and lost my job in the process), but also appeared as a nonchalant jerk. There's a reason why customer interaction and feedback is given an increasingly higher priority, to the point of being treated as a matter of strategic importance by many successful businesses today. Some companies now even regard their CRM philosophies and methods as their primary sustainable competitive advantage, not the products or services they offer in and of themselves. Imagine that.)

upho

2016-06-07, 12:45 AM

Yeah, nah. This is a terrible attitude to take and is disrespectful of both the work itself and the folks that make it possible to begin with. 'Screw you, pay me' isn't a reason by itself to avoid edits, since it implies that enough money is sufficient to make you compromise standards and artistic integrity.Not that I disagree with you in any way, but I would like to note that IMO, DSP is generally leagues better than most companies when it comes to customer communication, transparency and artistic integrity, so your standards may be unreasonably high... :smallsmile:

(And FYI, knowing you've been critical of your own behavior and attitude in the past when it comes to forum communication, my highly positive view of DSP is very much supported by what I've seen from you personally as well.)

Yondu

2016-06-07, 01:38 AM

Do you have links, my friend?
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2toa1&page=last?Why-I-think-the-current-FAQErrata-cycle-is
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tojc?The-Jingasa-of-the-Fortunate-Soldier-was#2
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tob6&page=5?So-now-that-Brawling-is-the-worst-armor#211
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2toep?What-I-learned-about-Paizo-and-Errata
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tokr?Please-stop-nerfingerrataing-things
Here my friend the list of topics closed one after another on the last Errata.

Yondu

2016-06-07, 01:42 AM

You know, that´s really funny.
I spent a good decade freelancing in the support business. The customer wants this, the customer wants that, so you comply, always thinking about the hours you spent and put that on the final bill.
Now I´m into the production business and I found that I care less and less about what the actual customer feels and it just doesn´t pay enough to cater to their needs. Could we adapt out product line? Sure. Why pays for it? No one. So screw it.
Dear Florian,
I'm working also in the industry but by the end, you produce what the Customer need, because if you don't listen to the Customer, it will go to the other actors in the market...
Paizo must listen to their customers, expecting that we are kids only playing games, is for my point of view a commercial suicide...

Florian

2016-06-07, 04:14 AM

Dear Florian,
I'm working also in the industry but by the end, you produce what the Customer need, because if you don't listen to the Customer, it will go to the other actors in the market...
Paizo must listen to their customers, expecting that we are kids only playing games, is for my point of view a commercial suicide...

There´re two very distinctive aspects to the whole matter.

One is the interlocking nature of Pathfinder as a "product". As the individual lines that make up Pathfinder as a whole grow, a certain intervals a reevaluation and rebalancing has to happen so the intended goal of keeping all rules elements involved "balanced". This is a necessary QA thing and the process to do that will get more convoluted the more material is involved.

Second is sales strategy. To me as an outsider, it seems that Paizo follows a strategy that includes keeping sales of the whole "core" range of products (The generic line, mostly "Ultimate" and "Advanced") as a viable strategy and keep them being a profit center. Again, this includes QA and the job of constantly readjusting "balance" to keep these lines being attractive to gamers.
(Contrast that to what happened with WotC and 3.5E: Newer is better and if you stand in your LFGS, you always pick the newest book when you want power, giving you no incentive to go for the whole range of books)

So yes, in both cases the QA job has to be an entirely internal one and has nothing to do with the customer or what he thinks about it, because its about line/product development. The question, then, rather is: How will changes in Ultimate Equipment affect sales of, say, Ultimate Combat? At this point, we, the customers, are out of the loop because we lack the data to make any meaningful contribution to that.

Yondu

2016-06-07, 07:27 AM

There´re two very distinctive aspects to the whole matter.

One is the interlocking nature of Pathfinder as a "product". As the individual lines that make up Pathfinder as a whole grow, a certain intervals a reevaluation and rebalancing has to happen so the intended goal of keeping all rules elements involved "balanced". This is a necessary QA thing and the process to do that will get more convoluted the more material is involved.

Second is sales strategy. To me as an outsider, it seems that Paizo follows a strategy that includes keeping sales of the whole "core" range of products (The generic line, mostly "Ultimate" and "Advanced") as a viable strategy and keep them being a profit center. Again, this includes QA and the job of constantly readjusting "balance" to keep these lines being attractive to gamers.
(Contrast that to what happened with WotC and 3.5E: Newer is better and if you stand in your LFGS, you always pick the newest book when you want power, giving you no incentive to go for the whole range of books)

So yes, in both cases the QA job has to be an entirely internal one and has nothing to do with the customer or what he thinks about it, because its about line/product development. The question, then, rather is: How will changes in Ultimate Equipment affect sales of, say, Ultimate Combat? At this point, we, the customers, are out of the loop because we lack the data to make any meaningful contribution to that.

I can understand that searching balance in the line of the game, but my main issue is when I see what have been done in the sake of balance, I'm quite astounished...
Still maintaining an overpowered trait but nerfing an magic item because of it is not a responsible way of managing balance, when they decide to nerf dex to damage (Slashing Grace, Fencing Grace) they bash martials ( you cannot TWF, you cannot Flurry, no shield) instead of telling no spell combat and they keep Dervish Dance in the line of what have been done. Imagine the FIFA telling to their players, OK you cannot use the head because it is too powerful when you are close to the goal....
There is no logical explanation given by Paizo on it.
My feeling is that Paizo is the Church of a RPG religion, and they impose dogmas to their players...
With that feeling, I really consider stopping Pathfinder and play another RPG....

Cosi

2016-06-07, 05:49 PM

I can understand that searching balance in the line of the game, but my main issue is when I see what have been done in the sake of balance, I'm quite astounished...

I don't think you can say anything Paizo does is done "for the sake of balance", because they don't have any explanation of what "balance" is supposed to look like. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like they're just changing anything that lets you play in a way they didn't expect.

Starbuck_II

2016-06-07, 08:37 PM

I can understand that searching balance in the line of the game, but my main issue is when I see what have been done in the sake of balance, I'm quite astounished...
Still maintaining an overpowered trait but nerfing an magic item because of it is not a responsible way of managing balance, when they decide to nerf dex to damage (Slashing Grace, Fencing Grace) they bash martials ( you cannot TWF, you cannot Flurry, no shield) instead of telling no spell combat and they keep Dervish Dance in the line of what have been done. Imagine the FIFA telling to their players, OK you cannot use the head because it is too powerful when you are close to the goal....
There is no logical explanation given by Paizo on it.
My feeling is that Paizo is the Church of a RPG religion, and they impose dogmas to their players...
With that feeling, I really consider stopping Pathfinder and play another RPG....

There are ways around the nerfs.
A Juggler bard always has a free hand. So they could use Fencing Grace/etc.
But needing all Swashbucklers to be Bards is weird.

Tuvarkz

2016-06-08, 12:12 AM

Yondu

2016-06-08, 01:49 AM

I believe one of Jason Buhlman's posts mentions balancing around the core rulebook. Of course, it happens to be that the core rulebook is extremely imbalanced.

They had modified some issues in the CRB, Black Tentacles is the example, but, the rule itself has not been touched, I've already told in Paizo Forum that casting a spell as a standard action when making a full attack as a complex is already imbalanced, as there is no way to circumvent this for melee characters (that's why rogues seems to be so weak), but you can even cast two spells in one round at level 9 - 10, when melee have a mere + 4 to confirm criticals with a feat...

upho

2016-06-08, 02:02 AM

I don't think you can say anything Paizo does is done "for the sake of balance", because they don't have any explanation of what "balance" is supposed to look like. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like they're just changing anything that lets you play in a way they didn't expect.Totally agree. I'm pretty certain they don't even have any clear definition of "balanced" which they use internally. And it seems that if they sometimes actually do appear to base a nerf decision on mechanical comparisons in attempts at making a proper power level analysis of something, they also always seem to completely miss the bigger picture.

I believe one of Jason Buhlman's posts mentions balancing around the core rulebook. Of course, it happens to be that the core rulebook is extremely imbalanced.:smalleek: If this is (still) true, it would both be horrible and kind of a relief IMO, as I think it would finally explain at least some the many more crazy errata decisions during the last three years or so. But even if it once may have been true, it doubt it still is. For example, the release of the Un-Monk and Un-Rogue seem to indicate that even Paizo finally understood at least the vanilla CRB versions of these classes were just not up to scratch, which in turn should've made them question the soundness of using the CRB as some kind of shiny example of balance the rest of the system should aspire to replicate.

Another odd thing is that I think Paizo have shown with most of their T3 classes (their 6/9 casters besides summoner) that they're capable of making not only new and interesting classes, but also that they actually can get the bulk of their mechanics right. I really like most of these T3 classes, and it often strikes me how well balanced they are to at least my own game's expectations, which is hardly the case with the bulk of the martial classes, and in sharp contrast to a large majority of their nerfs of martial options. (I doubt I even would've continued with PF if not for PoW, which also happens to complement Paizo's T3 classes perfectly IMO).

The only reasonable conclusions I can come up with is that Paizo's errata blunders are typically one or more of the following:

based on knee-jerk (over)reactions to players using stuff in unintended ways
heavily influenced by PFS
overly focused on the earliest levels
based on myopic comparisons to other closely related components, made in a vacuum
failing to take the larger and much more serious balance issues into account, and much less address them

Yondu

2016-06-08, 02:43 AM

The only reasonable conclusions I can come up with is that Paizo's errata blunders are typically one or more of the following:

based on knee-jerk (over)reactions to players using stuff in unintended ways
heavily influenced by PFS
overly focused on the earliest levels
based on myopic comparisons to other closely related components, made in a vacuum
failing to take the larger and much more serious balance issues into account, and much less address them

I've strongly agree with your analysis on Errata, I even point the lazyness of the dev team on their errata management...
PFS does not apply on a majority of gamers, but it seems that PFS make the game evolution.
Instead of applauding the ingeniosity of players of finding news way of using items, they punish them like adults punishing kids doing what they are not meant to do...

Kurald Galain

2016-06-08, 03:42 AM

overly focused on the earliest levels

At least this one is totally fair. Outside of forum discussions, gameplay at level 10 or above is pretty rare. Both Paizo and WOTC are well aware (and have market research to confirm) that almost every campaign starts at low level, and most campaigns end before they hit level ten.

Florian

2016-06-08, 03:48 AM

Actually, I´m a bit unconvinced by those arguments. Those lead to a point-by-point, or rather, round-by-round analysis of actions and capabilities and we´ll land back with the abomination of a Tier system.

What we do know is that the intended goal is to balance everything based on the CRB. What we also know is that the intended balance of the CRB is based on the four primary roles established for general D&D, making balance spotlight-based instead of performance-based.

Now, looking at the APs as an example of how the intended balance should work, it´s easy to find the above mentioned roles again, mostly coupled with 3 to 5 specific skills to use in a given AP and disregarding a lot of options that don´t deal directly with those roles.

Based on "what is expected", not on "what is possible", we actually do come to the point that certain classes tend to "over-perform" in their given expertise.This is especially true on the lower levels, those levels that most people actually game at.

Cosi

2016-06-08, 07:29 AM

I believe one of Jason Buhlman's posts mentions balancing around the core rulebook. Of course, it happens to be that the core rulebook is extremely imbalanced.

Another odd thing is that I think Paizo have shown with most of their T3 classes (their 6/9 casters besides summoner) that they're capable of making not only new and interesting classes, but also that they actually can get the bulk of their mechanics right.

I think there's an important point here, in between the lines. From my (admittedly imperfect) perspective, it looks like classes are mostly balanced around their closest core equivalents. So 9th level casters are balanced pretty close to the Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer, 6th level casters are balanced pretty close to the Bard, and non-casters are balanced pretty close to the Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue. It's not that they're better at balancing 6th level casters, it's that the template they use for 6th level casters is a class some people consider balanced.

Totally agree. I'm pretty certain they don't even have any clear definition of "balanced" which they use internally. And it seems that if they sometimes actually do appear to base a nerf decision on mechanical comparisons in attempts at making a proper power level analysis of something, they also always seem to completely miss the bigger picture.

Yeah. As long the Fighter is getting Weapon Training at the same time the Wizard is getting time stop, the game will never be balanced and no amount of changes to armor enhancements or hat charges is going to do anything to stop that.

At least this one is totally fair. Outside of forum discussions, gameplay at level 10 or above is pretty rare. Both Paizo and WOTC are well aware (and have market research to confirm) that almost every campaign starts at low level, and most campaigns end before they hit level ten.

No, it's not. Most games do not have Bards in them. That doesn't mean you can hold yourself to a lower standard when designing the Bard. Most games don't have anyone with Greenbound Summoning in them. That doesn't mean you can hold yourself to a lower standard when designing Greenbound Summoning. Most games don't have anyone with a Shocking Burst weapon in them. That doesn't mean you can hold yourself to a lower standard when designing Shocking Burst. If you are going to put something in the game and ask people to pay you money for it, it should be good. No matter how niche it is.

Kurald Galain

2016-06-08, 07:53 AM

If you are going to put something in the game and ask people to pay you money for it, it should be good. No matter how niche it is.

That's a rather silly line of reasoning that would lead to worse game design overall. Obviously, designer time is limited, so designers are going to focus on what the audience cares most about. This applies equally to movies (few people care about accurate physics in an action film), and computer games (many players will ignore the plot of a puzzle game), and of course to RPGs as well (MUCH more people use the lower levels, therefore they get more designer attention). Every design decision comes at the expense of something else.

Cosi

2016-06-08, 02:02 PM

That's a rather silly line of reasoning that would lead to worse game design overall.

No, it wouldn't. Putting out 40 options with a ten percent hit rate generates less than half the hits that putting out 10 options at a one hundred percent hit rate does. You get more usable content by doing a few things well than by doing many things poorly. For example, take a look at Complete Warrior. Do you really think the time someone spent writing the Ravager wouldn't have been better spent on making the Hexblade or the Samurai usable? Have you ever seen someone play a Ravager? Can you even tell me what the Ravager is without looking it up?

Obviously, designer time is limited, so designers are going to focus on what the audience cares most about.

Occam's Razor time. Which seems more likely:

1) The designers did extensive market research, and concluded that some of their work can be shoddy because people don't care.
2) The designers did not do extensive market research (because they are lazy), and did shoddy work because they are lazy.

The first hypothesis does not look particularly good to me.

But ignore that for a second. Designer time isn't limited. There are hundreds or thousands of people willing to test the game for you. All you need to do is put out a beta doc, set up a system for reporting bugs, and set up a system for proposing fixes. Have someone filter out the terrible solutions, and you can fix those problems with basically zero work from designers.

Also, most of the biggest problems with the game are either fairly easy to solve (weakly balancing a class can probably be done in a day if your design team is good at the game), or only need to be solved once (planar binding is hard to balance, but once you've balanced it you can trivially balance animate dead).

Renegade Paladin

2016-06-08, 04:39 PM

Except that PFS scenario encounters are designed to be hideously easy and that as is now, paizo classes remain overall more on the far too strong, above the curve or below the curve categories rather than balanced. Most of this errata seems to be balanced around low-optimization games with people that have little to no system mastery (To the point where so many trap choices are picked that often a fullcaster might actually be not gamebreaking).
This would be like balancing DotA2 around 1-3k mmr pub matches or balancing WoW around LFR.
Tell that to Storming the Diamond Gate. :smalltongue:

When I played that nightmare of a scenario, we were saved by one thing and one thing only: My habit of spamming detect magic before entering any room if I'm playing a caster. I found the alarm on the stairs and dispelled it. If the final encounter had warning of our approach, it would have been fatal.

Starbuck_II

2016-06-08, 07:16 PM

Tell that to Storming the Diamond Gate. :smalltongue:

When I played that nightmare of a scenario, we were saved by one thing and one thing only: My habit of spamming detect magic before entering any room if I'm playing a caster. I found the alarm on the stairs and dispelled it. If the final encounter had warning of our approach, it would have been fatal.

Don't forget Bonekeep. Every encounter is way above CR.
Thing is you can't leave and come back as module ends and story plays as you had memory wiped. So it has to be done all at once (or sleep there and risk random encounters).

Anlashok

2016-06-08, 07:35 PM

I didn't find bonekeep very hard. Just.. narrow in terms of what sorts of character worked in it.

upho

2016-06-08, 09:52 PM

At least this one is totally fair. Outside of forum discussions, gameplay at level 10 or above is pretty rare. Both Paizo and WOTC are well aware (and have market research to confirm) that almost every campaign starts at low level, and most campaigns end before they hit level ten.First, I'm sorry for not being more clear; "earliest levels" was referring to level 1-5, not the earliest half of the levels Paizo claims the system is designed for. There are unfortunately several examples of options/combos in Paizo's products, and several examples of errata, that confirm an over-focus on level 1-5 (far above what could be deemed reasonable according to market research statistics AFAIK) by ignoring the negative impact the option has on games above 10th level (or sometimes even 5th).

Second, I'd like to make an educated guess: While the game/campaign level statistics you mention are indeed well known and still accurate AFAICT, from an overall game quality perspective as well as from a business perspective, in practice these statistics should be reflected in quantity priorities, not in quality priorities. Because by having different quality standards for different levels, Paizo also erodes the value of the investments (mainly hours of work) already made in designing for those levels given lower standards, and for including those levels in the base system in the first place. (One may of course make the argument that the quantity of options also impacts the quality of the game, which would generally be true in IMO, but doesn't have much impact in this case since higher level games also benefit from a large majority of lower level options.)

In addition, the indirect negative impact the different quality standards may have on Paizo's business is potentially severely aggravated by increasing the number of dissatisfied buyers. To see how this works, let's add two other highly relevant and well researched (extrapolated) statistical relationships of general consumer behavior to the statistics you mentioned. The first relationship says a dissatisfied buyer will on average tell more than ten potential buyers his negative opinion of Paizo's products, while a satisfied buyer will on average only tell one potential buyer his positive opinion. And the second relationship says hearing a negative opinion is at least five times as likely to affect the average potential buyer's purchase decision a than hearing a positive opinion is. Not very strange, considering other research says purchase decisions are generally significantly more influenced by the desire to avoid a loss than by the desire to profit.

Judging by this, improving early level game quality at the expense of late level game quality is significantly more likely to have a negative net effect on Paizo's business performance than a positive effect. And from a more long-term perspective, it might very well actually have been wiser to simply not include the higher levels in the first place, catering only to the larger market of early level games.