| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I have to say is that I find it unfortunate to lambast Paizo for putting out a nine-page errata for the Advanced Class Guide. The ACG (despite in my opinion being a brilliant book) was highly flawed at release due to incomplete editing, Paizo acknowledged that and took steps to avoid the same thing happening again, which the Strategy Guide, Unchained and (from what I can tell) Occult Adventures have all benefited from. Knocking them around for the length of their fix for a flawed product is counterproductive.
...
It's not just the length of the fix. If they had pages of editing fixes and FAQ changes/clarifications, the worst response they would have gotten probably would have been "about damn time".
That's not what happened. Instead, along with (only some of) the needed editing fixes they changed a bunch of functional rules elements that for the most part either a)didn't need changing or b)were changed in an extremely heavy handed fashion that destroyed them as options. On top of that, some of the things which could really have used fixing up to make them not terrible (e.g. Eldritch Scion Magus, Swashbuckler Charmed Life) were completely untouched.
In fact, I am looking through the ACG errata doc for major rules changes (not clarifications/editing fixes) that were a)needed, and b)actually resulted in reasonable rules text. The only thing I can see is Pummeling Style(the uber-crit thing was wonky and weird). And they changed how quite a few rules elements work too.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, nothing was actually lost if you think that they were not supposed to be there to begin with.
Do you mean that the Scarred Witch Doctor wasn't supposed to be Constitution based?
An entire paragraph out of nowhere is sure an egregious typo
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, nothing was actually lost if you think that they were not supposed to be there to begin with.Do you mean that the Scarred Witch Doctor wasn't supposed to be Constitution based?
An entire paragraph out of nowhere is sure an egregious typo
What are you talking about? Scarred Witch Doctor was always intelligence based. Always.
And don't you forget it, citizen.
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
I think introducing new members is a great idea, but I also really like the blog posts introducing new staff you're already doing. :)
Adding a "dev tracker" a la the wow forums might be counterproductive, since some paizo staff hardly ever post outside of play tests and the like (Jason Bulmahn) and others post dozens of posts a day (Mark, James Jacobs).
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
I wouldn't mind either blogs or threads, as it is right now they can be hard to find. I've mostly been keeping up because I'm following Mark's "AMA" thread and he's doing a great job of posting an update whenever a new FAQ is up. 'FAQ Friday' is a very welcome addition.
It's rather frustrating that you can't search FAQs on the Paizo boards, the way they're currently organized is counterproductive. At a minimum, having all FAQs listed on a single page so you could do a single ctrl+f search for relevant words would be a great help.
Finally, would it be possible to let the Design Team have direct access to the FAQ reply format? At the moment the FAQ on July 10th suggests that it's possible to sheathe a weapon while moving, which I believe Mark said was unintended. Having the design team go in and fix that language shouldn't be terribly difficult, but it's been up there for 21 days now. From what I can tell they need to petition the website team to change it, which seems like an awkward extra step.
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
Someone suggested earlier separating "errata" and "updates", which I think is an excellent idea. Fixing spelling mistakes or clarifying language on things that most people expect doesn't work (usually) isn't controversial, whereas completely rewriting rules elements a la Scarred Witch Doctor, Divine Protection or Crane Wing (sigh) will likely cause some concern and really shouldn't be described as errata in the first place. If you separate one from the other then you have a much better chance of getting out ahead of controversy.
I also think posting "tentative" updates and errata might be a good idea, since you can then both see how the audience takes to the changes and catch any accidents before they're released officially, like the age slip-up for Tieflings in the ARG errata.
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
It'd be nice to have the most up to date text in plain sight (since most errata will be accepted and put into play) with the original text shown to the side. Hover-over text, sidebar or spoiler tags could all work. Something akin to how D20PFSRD handle FAQs and errata would be useful. An example can be found here.
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
I wouldn't mind, but I have to say this is not a high priority for me. Generally speaking I use the most up to date file and leave in annotations for erratas or rules elements we don't use.
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
One thing I think would be interesting is to use polls very early in the production cycle to see what material the Paizo audience would be most interested in. As an example we know the ACG started off with more than 10 classes, but some were cut before the book was announced. It would have been very interesting to grab, say ~5 of those concepts, do a quick writeup outlining each concept, and have the board vote on which one they think should be in the game.
One thing I have to say is that I find it unfortunate to lambast Paizo for putting out a nine-page errata for the Advanced Class Guide. The ACG (despite in my opinion being a brilliant book) was highly flawed at release due to incomplete editing, Paizo acknowledged that and took steps to avoid the same thing happening again, which the Strategy Guide, Unchained and (from what I can tell) Occult Adventures have all benefited from. Knocking them around for the length of their fix for a flawed product is counterproductive.
...It's not just the length of the fix. If they had pages of editing fixes and FAQ changes/clarifications, the worst response they would have gotten probably would have been "about damn time".
That's not what happened. Instead, along with (only some of) the needed editing fixes they changed a bunch of functional rules elements that for the most part either a)didn't need changing or b)were changed in an extremely heavy handed fashion that destroyed them as options. On top of that, some of the things which could really have used fixing up to make them not terrible (e.g. Eldritch Scion Magus, Swashbuckler Charmed Life) were completely untouched.
In fact, I am looking through the ACG errata doc for major rules changes (not clarifications/editing fixes) that were a)needed, and b)actually resulted in reasonable rules text. The only thing I can see is Pummeling Style(the uber-crit thing was wonky and weird). And they changed how quite a few rules elements work too.
No, I'm perfectly fine with people arguing that the changes they made were insufficient, or targeted the wrong problems. I'm referring to the posts that more or less literally went "NINE pages of errata?!? That's way too much! My book is useless now!" I just can't wrap my head around that line of thought.
Pathfinder was made to address the issue of power creep in the previous 3.5 game. No one bothered to think about the consequences of power seep. All new material is balanced around being as strong or weaker than existing options. This has lead to new material being weaker and weaker. Which only highlights martial v caster problem. Sure tons weak spells aren't great but for casters they are just more options, more possible silver bullets. Their power goes up with each released book. For martials, a glut of trap options are presented to them. Spont feats could be an answer, but the quality of feats have degraded as such that they basically do nothing.Whenever I open up a Dreamscarred book I'm bombarded with rules options that trigger my imagination and make me excited to put together cool new character concepts. I've been juggling dozens of ideas, including things that are ridiculously ineffective in Pathfinder - twin spear wielder, for example.
Whenever I open a Paizo book I resign myself to digging through the dregs of the feat chapter for the few genuinely interesting options. I really feel things like Anticipate Dodge, Open Up and Slow Faller make up 80% of the new material that's released, and I'm really not happy with that.
A small point of contention here. Weak options are not the same as trap options. A weak option, especially if it's weak because it's situationally useful is fine as long as the rules are clear about what it does. Trap feats are things like the original prone shooter which don't offer any benefit, or when feats can through certain synergies actually make your character worse.
The issue is the perceived prevalence for the former, not the existence of the latter.
Well, nothing was actually lost if you think that they were not supposed to be there to begin with.Do you mean that the Scarred Witch Doctor wasn't supposed to be Constitution based?
An entire paragraph out of nowhere is sure an egregious typo
What are you talking about? Scarred Witch Doctor was always intelligence based. Always.
And don't you forget it, citizen.
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
Access to developers:
Not a big deal either way. Insights into what they are thinking is nice, but hardly mandatory.FAQ:
a) Keep errata separate from FAQs. FAQs are explaining how the rules work while errata are changes to the rules.
b) Announce new FAQs in the forums, preferably in a dedicated FAQ/errata sticky thread.
c) A blog post or podcast explaining the reasoning behind the decision would be greatly appreciated.
d) End the policy that FAQs are to be construed as narrowly as possible. The underlying rules should be the same in all cases. Exceptions need to be clearly noted in the ability that grants the exception.Errata:
a) Separate FAQs from errata completely. Do not use the FAQ for stealth errata.
b) Occasionally post proposed errata on the boards. This would leverage a much larger pool of theory crafting and play testing than strictly in house...
I could not agree with this more.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
And back open.
Just real quick, thank you to everyone who responded to my questions! Some of these suggestions do reaffirm what I'd been led to think would be beneficial. Others are definitely ones I wouldn't have expected either, but am pleased to see. As was mentioned, it probably is divergent from this threads original premise, so if you'd like to continue this feedback, drop a line to community@paizo.com and I'll take a look.
I did have to go back and remove some overly sarcastic/gossipy posts and their responses, however. Again, we hear the frustration coming out of this thread, but it needs to be kept civil.
As a heads up, I am contemplating leaving this closed starting this evening and over the weekend because I don't want some of these questions and concerns going completely unaddressed. Understand that we are running on a much leaner crew than usual and it's been an incredibly busy week, and it's not at all motivated by us not wanting you to post your thoughts and opinions, but that I'd to address this as best as possible.
Thanks Chris.
I did have to go back and remove some overly sarcastic/gossipy posts and their responses, however. Again, we hear the frustration coming out of this thread, but it needs to be kept civil.
Wat? Are you saying that the moderation team, a VOCAL MINORITY, is unilaterally deciding which posts get deleted on a forum your company owns?
I mean, it's not like we agreed to allow our posts to be moderated in the process of creating accounts, or anything, right?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main issue with Paizo ever since after the APG is not so much the recurrent and unnecessary nerfs, but rather the glut of worthless options caused by a design policy that values trap, underwhelming and overly restrictive options as voluntary design, not to speak about broken rules that just don't work as written. It's a shame, considering there are always gems of cool content to go along them.
When you peruse supplements, there are way too much unusable rules that actively punish you for picking a specific theme that could have been handled in another fashion. And even then, the new rules that bring something useful get nerfed afterhand, while the crap that needs fixing is forgotten in fear of breaking it the other way in the process. This hurts even more the classes that depend utterly on their class options and talents. Meanwhile, casters keep getting new must-have spells and feats improving their spells, increasing the disparity.
(Just saying, anyone having issues with the martial/caster disparity may like to take a look at the Spheres of Power alternate magic system, only to never go back to vancian spellcasters ever again and cherish its best investment in material to play Pathfinder RPG since the Core Rulebook.)
|
|
Chris, thank you for your patient and measured response to this thread. I don't envy you the job of sorting through all the anger and hurt in this thread to find the gems. I appreciate your light hand with the moderation (letting people get their anger out as long as they meet basic manners in how they express it). I appreciate you asking questions to encourage people to use their anger productively. Thank you.
damn it, another one got out of the sarcasm plane, WE NEED FULL CONTAINMENT!
edit: i feel like all this talk on martial caster disparity might have been a secret ploy to advertise spheres of power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
Introductions are nice but not that necessary. I find a developer responding to a critique of their design much more important. Not attacks, but argumented critique. I'm aware that nobody can answer everything to everyone, but generally explaining some design decisions and especially why didn't they do it some (the one people generally want in a particular discussion) other way. Feedback from main developer Jason Bulmahn on sweeping changes such as these two errata would especially be useful.
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
I'm guessing the blog is more generally visible, but multiple threads for multiple FAQs would probably be more orderly. Announce it in blog, and link discussion threads in it.
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
The why's of course. Why is it changing? Why is it changing now? What were the problems? For who were they problems, PFS or general population? Why do you think is necessary to change it to from OP (in somenones opinion) to something no one will take? Middle ground, please.
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you envision errata being notated here?
My preference would be old version(s) beneath the current one, hidden with spoiler tags and marked with a date/version of change.
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
I buy physical and use PFSRD, so versioned PDFs are not useful to me, but I guess people who don't have constant internet access would find them useful.
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
In short, general feedback thread for FAQs, polls with feedback for errata. Poll for errata should be something like this:
- I like this change, and feel it was necessary.
- I don't like this change, but I do feel a change is necessary.
- I don't like this change, and I don't feel any change is necessary.
- I like this change, but I don't feel it adequately resolves the original problems.I don't know if this is already customary, but we really need to encourage that flexibility. A lot of people who argued about Crane Wing probably feel the same way.
In general, I would like us (as a community) to be informed before the changes are hardcoded and some discussion to be had. It's really not fair to all the people who play the game that changes to THEIR game is made without them knowing upfront. And for many of the forumgoers the game will change, not to say anything about those in PFS.
And I think that errata is the wrong term. These are revisions of the game. Errata is something like missing paragraph (like in Battle Cry feat) rather then complete nobody-will-take-this-now nerf (like Divine Protection). Or changes for I don't know why like Scarred Witch (since it became more powerful IMO).
As a heads up, I am contemplating leaving this closed starting this evening and over the weekend because I don't want some of these questions and concerns going completely unaddressed
May I suggest that closing the threads before flying to gencon does sound exactly like the worst kind of bait and switch we all anticipated?
Maybe leaving it open to vent a bit it's the better solution.Besides, getting "someone" to give a look at this thread even during the event could be a good idea to at least make the community know that the issue is being given proper consideration instead of being swept under the rough of having to sell the new book at the convention.
Just a suggestion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you did actually. By creating an account here, you agreed to abide by whatever rules the house decides to make. This is a private venue, not a democracy.
The header "sarcasm dragon" doesn't suggest you anything?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
May I suggest that closing the threads before flying to gencon does sound exactly like the worst kind of bait and switch we all anticipated?
Maybe leaving it open to vent a bit it's the better solution.
Besides, getting "someone" to give a look at this thread even during the event could be a good idea to at least make the community know that the issue is being given proper consideration instead of being swept under the rough of having to sell the new book at the convention.
Just a suggestion.
For clarity, I'm not abandoning the thread for Gen Con. As it is I am the only current "someone" available, and while I'm happy to address issues and questions here, I cannot in good conscience give our community exhausted and delirious responses resulting from the very long hours worked in this past week holding down the fort. Unfortunately not actually a robot :)
For clarity, I'm not abandoning the thread for Gen Con. As it is I am the only current "someone" available, and while I'm happy to address issues and questions here, I cannot in good conscience give our community exhausted and delirious responses resulting from the very long hours worked in this past week holding down the fort. Unfortunately not actually a robot :)May I suggest that closing the threads before flying to gencon does sound exactly like the worst kind of bait and switch we all anticipated?
Maybe leaving it open to vent a bit it's the better solution.
Besides, getting "someone" to give a look at this thread even during the event could be a good idea to at least make the community know that the issue is being given proper consideration instead of being swept under the rough of having to sell the new book at the convention.
Just a suggestion.
Everyone needs rest. It's been a long week for us all, I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is that if this thread goes on for another three days with little to no moderation or official replies (which is a valid concern, since there is a skeleton crew at Paizo HQ right now) it'll flame out and be locked. If we temporarily close it and reopen it on Monday, there'll be moderators on hand to give replies and keep it productive(ish).
The one concern I have is that if this thread is (temporarily) locked, that could make more people upset and that concern will just pop up in another thread. Though I suppose locking that thread when it spins out of control and then continuing to have a productive tone here might be better... Hm.
Slight sidetrack but I really appreciate you taking the time to post replies here Chris, you're doing a really great job - especially considering how tired you must be after the Con prep. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that you (Chris) need to worry about addressing the issues in this topic right now. It's enough to know that the team will look and respond to the issues once they return.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you did actually. By creating an account here, you agreed to abide by whatever rules the house decides to make. This is a private venue, not a democracy.
I did have to go back and remove some overly sarcastic/gossipy posts and their responses, however. Again, we hear the frustration coming out of this thread, but it needs to be kept civil.Wat? Are you saying that the moderation team, a VOCAL MINORITY, is unilaterally deciding which posts get deleted on a forum your company owns?
I mean, it's not like we agreed to allow our posts to be moderated in the process of creating accounts, or anything, right?
brah, you just took sarcasm dragon seriously.
you can't just do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately not actually a robot :)
should have upgraded with the rest of us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They made a point of promising to release the ACG errata early, I'm guessing in part because the ACG officially hit the markets at GenCon 2014.
Releasing the ARG on Thursday(?) though, might not have been the best call.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another note for Paizo / Chris:
Pushing out a errata that everyone damn well knows is going to be controversial five minutes before the entire staff leaves to go to GenCon doesn't exactly paint Paizo in the most positive light.
The ARG errata was an unfortunate timing issue so I can accept that the intent wasn't to drop a bomb and run off. The ACG errata however was specifically timed to blow up in people's faces right before Gencon. We know from Mark that the errata document has been finished for a couple months now but they didn't want to release it yet, and the new printing isn't for sale yet so that wasn't the trigger. Essentially, this debacle occurred (unintentionally I'm certain) by design. I would like to see the decisions which led to that design be reevaluated and avoided in the future.
Also, that is just the tip of the problem as it were. The actual issues are the substance of those errata documents. I don't want anyone to get the idea that the issue here was merely timing. The issue was quality of work; the insult on top of that injury was the manner of release.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the mechanical problems in the game are due to a large subsection of the gaming population optimizing too much, and judging the game's options based on that.
Not just players, either, but DMs and entire gaming circles.
If you look at the base line Bestiary, published Iconics, published designer characters, etc, you can immediately see that the game is being run in a manner that is for all intents and purposes, lighter.
Many players don't even look at 15 point buy. And I include myself in this group. My players use rolled stats that are probably similar to 70 point buy, and I buff up monsters all the time with gear and resources.
But to use an analogy, if you are designing a car that you expect to drive between 30-50 mph, and you test it at 60 mph (for optimizers), you might determine you have a satisfactory, well built machine. Then when your average customer starts it up at 80mph, and the real vocal ones like to drive around 150mph, you're going to have a lot of complaints. Is the answer to make them a car that can handle 80? One that can handle 150? Or make it so that your car can't even go faster than 60?
I don't honestly know the answer to that question. I do know that you max out point buy at 102, and they suggest 15. And that's just right from the get go. I wonder if a lot of 'nonviable' options don't become more viable in an environment where losing initiative isn't the same as a TPK.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lower point buy does nothing but widen the gap, though. Monks are virtually unplayable on a 15 point buy, but once you get up to at least 25 points the class is usable even without pinpoint optimization. Meanwhile the only full casters that care about how many points you get are Shamans and (to a slightly lesser extent) Arcanists.
|
Of course, the whole point is moot anyway. We know for a fact Paizo doesn't think there IS a magical/mundane disparity in power (which takes us right back to incompetent, sadly), since they've actually said as much.
"It's a myth propagated by people with agendas" after all.
So your explanation doesn't hold up very well unless they're lying about their motivations (taking us back to evil, methinks).
Paizo has said no such thing. James Jacobs said that. James, while an employee of Paizo and an important one to boot, is not Paizo.
James does not set policy for the design team. If he did we would have had the Swashbuckler much sooner.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another note for Paizo / Chris:
Pushing out a errata that everyone damn well knows is going to be controversial five minutes before the entire staff leaves to go to GenCon doesn't exactly paint Paizo in the most positive light.
The ARG errata was an unfortunate timing issue so I can accept that the intent wasn't to drop a bomb and run off. The ACG errata however was specifically timed to blow up in people's faces right before Gencon. We know from Mark that the errata document has been finished for a couple months now but they didn't want to release it yet, and the new printing isn't for sale yet so that wasn't the trigger. Essentially, this debacle occurred (unintentionally I'm certain) by design. I would like to see the decisions which led to that design be reevaluated and avoided in the future.
Also, that is just the tip of the problem as it were. The actual issues are the substance of those errata documents. I don't want anyone to get the idea that the issue here was merely timing. The issue was quality of work; the insult on top of that injury was the manner of release.
You are misrepresenting what Mark said. Mark said that the Design Team was done with the errata a while ago, I don't remember the exact timing, but that it still had to go through editing. Paizo puts a lot of effort into their editing and layout even for free products like an errata, the ACG being a noted and acknowledged exception. After the editing debacle of the ACG the last thing they were going to do was not put every available minute into the document to make sure that spelling and grammar did not create more confusion. They also promised repeatedly that the ACG errata would be out before GenCon.
It is more than a little disingenuous to misrepresent Mark like that.
I think that assuming malicious intent on the timing is a waste of time and energy for everyone involved.
stuff
I play at 15 PB, that's where the disparity is clearest. same with suboptimal options, casters have a low build floor, unless you pick REALLY bad spells, you're basically golden, martials get a feat, get stuck with it, and need more to even be interesting.
my group solved this by making "thematic feats" that can only be spent on non-combat options.