Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[malak]

Flurry allows you to make multiple attacks as if using Two Weapon Fighting. You can substitute any of these attacks with an unarmed strike if you choose, up to all of them. If a weapon or attack is different than the others, it was the intent to limit that to the maximum number of attacks you could normally take with said weapon while utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting (ie 2 at +6BAB, 3 at +11BAB and so on), with all of those attacks falling into the standard chain of reducing attack bonus (-5 cumulative for each additional attack). It was not the intent to allow you to make more than this using one specific weapon (not unarmed strikes), or to take all of the highest attack bonus attacks with that weapon. This makes the monks attacks, from a baseline perspective significantly better than that of a fighter, who must invest in twice the number of weapon to gain a similar benefit.

That said.. this causes some problems that came to light today as this bounced around the office, namely that it was not common knowledge that it was supposed to work this way and has gone to print without this change. This is obviously a concern and one that I intend to investigate. There is also the problem of the Zen Archer, which clearly does not work with these rules (or rather, it clearly, as its intent, violates these rules). There is also the concern that this system is a bit of a pain to figure out, which is something that does concern me greatly.

We will be evaluating this situation a bit further in the coming days and I would like to thank everyone here for pointing out some of the problems with this ruling.

I hope that clears this up a little for folks. I will see to it that we get to the bottom of this soon.

TLDR; Our new rules make no sense and contradict our own adventure paths/common sense/other feats/... So - wait a few days while we try to find a way to retract SKRs statements without admitting it.

[ishy]

Wasn't that wait a few days post made a couple of months ago?

[GâtFromKI]

I guess "60 days" qualify as "a few days".

from the FAQ:

Feral Combat Training (page 101): What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?

Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.

The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.

—Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12

Therefore, in order to not admit he's wrong in a random post, SKR nerf the monk, makes some archetypes non-functional, destroy some PFS characters. Even if his own FAQ proves he's wrong.

Best. Troll. Ever.

That's why 4e can't compare with Pathfinder: yes, Mearls sucks as much as SKR as a game designer, but he doesn't stand the comparison as an internet troll. I think I'm falling in love.

[Username17]

That's why 4e can't compare with Pathfinder: yes, Mearls sucks as much as SKR as a game designer, but he doesn't stand the comparison as an internet troll. I think I'm falling in love.

Sure he can:

I have a pretty simple question, and I'm actually serious about this. This is not asked in snark.

If you think skill challenges have failed, why is it a bad thing that we're tinkering with them? You basically build a case for the rules' shortcomings, but then seem unhappy that we're working to fix them.

I think that R&D now has the attitude that if something doesn't seem to work correctly, we're going to fix it now, rather than hope that nobody notices. Because the truth is that people do notice, and it doesn't help anyone to push aside problems people are having at their game tables.

That doesn't mean we'll errata the hell out of whatever happens to be the topic du jour. We're more interested in gradual experimentation that leads to a final fix.

I think one of the underlying issues with skill challenges is that there are a lot of ways you can run one, but the right way depends heavily on the DM and the group. They're so broad that even when to run a skill challenge, as opposed to leaving dice out of the scene entirely, varies from group to group.

I can foresee a future set of core skill challenge rules that look a lot more like the sections on encounter building, terrain, and dungeon design. You might have a lot of different ways to resolve skill checks, manage action around the table, and determine the ultimate result of the skill challenge, with a DM picking his approach based on the specific challenge and the way his group likes to play D&D.

I really don't think we'll ever see a precise, one size fits all mechanical framework. Instead, we'll have an arsenal of tools.

As to Mearls' specific complaint that it is somehow unfair to take him to task for having presented multiple systems for skill challenges that are untested and nonfunctional... No. It's not unfair at all.

It's pretty easy to argue with someone when you make up their statements for them.

In that vein, as to Frank Trollman's specific observation that skill challenges are the Ghandi of game mechanics, I can only agree.

There, we agree now! Case closed, comrade.

-Username17

[hogarth]

That's what's going on with D&D right now! Write Psionics Handbook or Iron Heroes or Magic of Faerun? You don't get fired, you get friggin' promoted. Hook-ups for Fuckups! Holy shit, tabletop gaming.

I don't know what to tell you. The pool of people who...

(a) are willing to work for peanuts in a dying industry, and
(b) have a history of churning out RPG products on a regular basis

...is pretty small. I've seen no evidence of a conspiracy to blackball awesome experienced RPG writers; there's just slim pickings out there.

[RobbyPants]

Frank, where did that bottom quote come from in your last post?

[virgil]

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?447 ... nges/page6

I still don't have a clue what he meant with that line.

[John Magnum]

Wow. Reading ahead in that forum, it's really annoying how they're extremely comfortable letting their in-group post a bunch of personal attacks and sniping, but as soon as an outsider comes in to criticize them or Mearls or 4e they break out the GIANT RED WARNINGS and threaten bans. And talk up how totally awesome they are at the same time. Eugh. No wonder Frank chose to refuse to associate with them.

[Username17]

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?447 ... nges/page6

I still don't have a clue what he meant with that line.

Well, he was playing the shifting goalposts game and then strawmanning, and then throwing ad hominems around. It's a basic Denial in Depth program. It goes like this:

• First Mearls' stooges attempted to short circuit the entire discussion by attacking Angelfromanotherpin for having "plagiarized" it by posting it in the first place. This of course is nonsense, because I already gave cart blanche for people to post or repost my work with or without attribution, being an information communist.
• Then Mearls himself asserted that it was unfair to attack him both for making a faulty product and for putting out new versions of said faulty product. This of course is nonsense, because the new versions also didn't work, and some of them cost actual money to receive. You don't get credit for failing to fix problems, especially when those problems are your fault in the first place.
• Then Mearls made the utterly incompatible argument that actually all these competing versions were a good thing, because actually every group needed disparate and incompatible skill challenge rules to fit their specific needs in some ill-defined way.
• Then Mearls put in the blunt position that he refused to even have a discussion on this or any other topic on the grounds that anyone who responded to any of his previous arguments in any way was automatically strawmanning him, and that what was good for goose was good for him making fake quotes of anyone who disagreed with him to be lavish and stupid praise for him personally that he would then "agree" with.
• Also: he attempted to be witty and insulting about the fact that I believe in Creative Commons by referring to me as "Comrade".

Basically he hits all the troll high notes in three posts, at the end of which he has not only made polite conversation wholly impossible, but he has established no less than five layers of denial on the core subject. And it is that mastery of confounding open discussion of obvious problems that has allowed him to rise to head of D&D R&D.

-Username17

[hogarth]

I still don't have a clue what he meant with that line.

He felt that Frank was putting words in his mouth, so he replied with a failed-snarky attempt to put words in Frank's mouth.

[virgil]

Frank, I know you've gotten into discussions with Mearls and Reynolds. Have you ever gotten into a thread with Cook?

I still don't have a clue what he meant with that line.

He felt that Frank was putting words in his mouth, so he replied with a failed-snarky attempt to put words in Frank's mouth.

I recognized the comrade part and the putting words in the mouth part. It's the Gandhi of Game Mechanics part that throws me through a loop.

[RobbyPants]

Looking through that thread, it's pretty obvious why Frank refers to that place as "a fucking hole". The mods alone were pretty terrible, let alone many of the posters.

[hogarth]

It's the Gandhi of Game Mechanics part that throws me through a loop.

Everybody loves Ghandi [sic].

[Lago PARANOIA]

I've seen no evidence of a conspiracy to blackball awesome experienced RPG writers; there's just slim pickings out there.

Really? I'd say that the years of Christmas layoffs, the change in SRD policy, the tightening of the grip on second-party settings, and WotC giving Paizo the boot sufficiently points to, if not an organized conspiracy, then at least a twisted fusion of Grey's Law and the Peter Principle.

Now granted, it's definitely possible that if those things didn't happen then the D&D IP would still be in a rotten shape. But since D&D has been steadily doubling-down on its commitment to firing writers before or after they get sufficient on-the-job training while also not having a particularly efficient way to spot or hire outside talent it's really hard to imagine how it would not be better.

[hogarth]

I've seen no evidence of a conspiracy to blackball awesome experienced RPG writers; there's just slim pickings out there.

Really? I'd say that the years of Christmas layoffs, the change in SRD policy, the tightening of the grip on second-party settings, and WotC giving Paizo the boot sufficiently points to, if not an organized conspiracy, then at least a twisted fusion of Grey's Law and the Peter Principle.

I'm not sure how layoffs at Wizards of the Coast are supposed to contradict my claim of slim pickings.

As far as I know, D&D layoffs are a natural consequence of the cyclical nature of the publishing cycle. I.e., there's a big hump in terms of demand at the beginning of a new edition (for which they hire a bunch of employees), then an ensuing decline in demand as the number of splatbooks reaches the saturation point (at which point they fire some of the people they hired at the beginning).

[Lago PARANOIA]

As far as I know, D&D layoffs are a natural consequence of the cyclical nature of the publishing cycle. I.e., there's a big hump in terms of demand at the beginning of a new edition (for which they hire a bunch of employees), then an ensuing decline in demand as the number of splatbooks reaches the saturation point (at which point they fire some of the people they hired at the beginning).

Check the credits for the 3.0E core books and their 3.5E counterparts. Then check them for the 3.5E books and their 3.0E books that have a clear counterpart to them, such as Manual of the Planes/Planar Handbook and the Psionics Handbook/XPH. The 3.5E books have more people working on them. Monster Manual IV has a larger staff than Monster Manual II.

D&D, at least for 3E, has been increasing the size of their book staff while also letting go of experienced writers. And not even in a consistent way; fuckups like Cordell and Wyatt last way longer than anyone else.

[GâtFromKI]

@Frank: don't you read my posts? Don't you understand that I'm in love with SKR? That I'm becoming a Paizil?

And how do a Paizil react when someone explain that Mearls is better than SKR in the field of trolling? Yeah, I will simply put my fingers in my ears and sing "LALALA".


----
From page 36 in this thread (yes, it was one year ago):

How not to write game rule text.

Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard’s Charisma bonus (Fortitude half), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word. This performance replaces suggestion.

This one paragraph is going to need at least two separate pieces of errata, if not three. It's unclear if you can target the same target multiple times, it doesn't say what the save DC is, and it (incorrectly) implies you can somehow continue this performance.

This is awfully petty, but it was something that caught my eye.

I have an official answer to this! It's here, and the answer is "no reply needed".

WTF? Why is there a FAQ button in the first place if the answer when 8 peoples press the button is "no reply needed" ? Obviously, some peoples are confused by this ability!?!

Does Paizo want to say that paizils are stupid as they don't understand simple rules?

[OgreBattle]

Basically he hits all the troll high notes in three posts, at the end of which he has not only made polite conversation wholly impossible, but he has established no less than five layers of denial on the core subject. And it is that mastery of confounding open discussion of obvious problems that has allowed him to rise to head of D&D R&D.

-Username17

so basically they attacked him like a Fighter, but Mearls evaded the situation like a Wizard

[...You Lost Me]

... how is Frank not banned from there?

[hogarth]

D&D, at least for 3E, has been increasing the size of their book staff while also letting go of experienced writers. And not even in a consistent way; fuckups like Cordell and Wyatt last way longer than anyone else.

I'm still not getting your point; sometimes I'm slow that way. Are you saying that there's an author (or authors) who was fired from WotC and who is dying to work for Paizo and who is a much better author than Sean K Reynolds? Who is it?

[Username17]

D&D, at least for 3E, has been increasing the size of their book staff while also letting go of experienced writers. And not even in a consistent way; fuckups like Cordell and Wyatt last way longer than anyone else.

I'm still not getting your point; sometimes I'm slow that way. Are you saying that there's an author (or authors) who was fired from WotC and who is dying to work for Paizo and who is a much better author than Sean K Reynolds? Who is it?

Being a better author than SKR is such a low benchmark that I think you'll find the answer is "all of them". For fuck's sake, you're casting a net that includes Penny Williams and Dave Noonan.

-Username17

[hogarth]

D&D, at least for 3E, has been increasing the size of their book staff while also letting go of experienced writers. And not even in a consistent way; fuckups like Cordell and Wyatt last way longer than anyone else.

I'm still not getting your point; sometimes I'm slow that way. Are you saying that there's an author (or authors) who was fired from WotC and who is dying to work for Paizo and who is a much better author than Sean K Reynolds? Who is it?

Being a better author than SKR is such a low benchmark that I think you'll find the answer is "all of them". For fuck's sake, you're casting a net that includes Penny Williams and Dave Noonan.

...and in that case it's the "dying to work for Paizo" bit that's the likely hurdle.

P.S. I have no idea who Penny Williams and Dave Noonan are, but I'll take your word for it that they're great writers.

[ScottS]

It's the Gandhi of Game Mechanics part that throws me through a loop.

I asked about this the last time it came up. The only guess I've been able to construct since then, is that he was referencing the usual "when ridicule fails to kill a movement it begins to command respect" meme from Freedom's Battle.

[fectin]

This isn't hard actually: Mearls claims Frank's major tactic is deliberately misquoting/misrepresenting his opponents' positions. Based on that, he uses the same strategy and agrees with Frank's "quote", which strongly approves of 4E. It's a bit more hamhanded than you may be used to seeing here, but it's fairly straightforward.

[Finkin]

P.S. I have no idea who Penny Williams and Dave Noonan are, but I'll take your word for it that they're great writers.

"Great writers" by way of comparison to SKR, at least. That's a list that isn't too difficult to get onto, and probably even includes my 8 year old.