Ultimate Equipment Errata

[Lord_Gareth]

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 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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[Lord_Gareth]

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]

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]

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. 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.

[Florian]

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]

"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]

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]

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. 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]

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!

[Elricaltovilla]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Thank you. It felt good reading that.

[Cosi]

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]

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

[Kiton2]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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. >_>

[NightbringerGGZ]

Thank you. It felt good reading that.

Thanks for the compliment.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.