jreyst's page

Consider all original material to be closed content -- but I specifically will not object to people using it and/or modifying it for their own personal use, nor will I file suit except (a) in response to any such action threatened or brought against me, or (b) unless someone tries to use those ideas for their own commercial gain.

Unfortunately that is the exact opposite of what I needed it to say lol

As the d20OPenRPG system will ONLY use and provide 100% Open Game Content, anything explicitly declared as closed content can not be used, even with a promise not to sue etc lol.

That does not mean that I can not be inspired by your ideas, and then reword and reconfigure the content into a new form, but I would be prevented from any wholesale copy and paste actions.

Ok, so then it is meant as a CYA saying "we are not releasing anything not already released as OGC, as OGC" etc. but you are not stating that your own personal contributions are closed content.

Got it.

Ok, to clarify, are you saying that you make no claims of OGL status of items from non-OGL sources which you may have used in your documents, OR, that content you have created is specifically not released as open game content?

If its the former, ok, I get that and know what to do.

If its the latter, ok, I'll stop looking at the docs.

And a great deal of it is being integrated into d20OpenRPG :)

You have good building blocks, but I think your talent system is ripe for abuse, and is not balanced well at all.

Oh I readily admit it needs work... which is what I'm doing here :) The entire "costing" system is way up in the air at the moment which is why I'm looking for feedback on it.

For example: How many TP does it cost for Spell Casting (Prepared - Arcane), Spell Casting (Prepared - Divine), Spell Casting (Spontaneous - Arcane), and Spell Casting (Spontaneous - Divine)? 12, am I right, so that still gives me 3 TP to play with and I can cast every spell in the game pretty much.

I haven't added it yet but the intention is to have some "limiters" such as "no more than one Major Talent per level" or "you can not gain a Talent and its Prerequisite in the same level" and also, I haven't gotten there yet but I plan to have a levels of the various spell casting talents to represent access to the next level of spells etc. Meaning, when you get Spell Casting 1 (Prepared - Divine) you get access to just 1st level spells. When you get Spell Casting 2 (Prepared - Divine) you get access to 2nd level spells. Then, if I say that you can only gain Major Talents at odd levels, then you could only gain each level of spell casting at the same progression as it is now, ie, 1,3,5,7,9 etc.

I like the modular design. I think getting rid of classes entirely and just having a pool to buy features from is cool. I just don't think that particular set-up will work well, once people actually start designing characters.

Yeah I love the idea too and we have about a half dozen people working in the various pieces now. Hopefully with enough discussion we can nail down these valid concerns.

I also think in some instances you kind of threw out the baby with the bath water. What about starting everyone off with 2 poor and 1 Good saving throw, and 1/2 BAB, and then make people upgrade from there. I'd try to keep familiar concepts like BAB, HD, and Saves as intact as possible.

I know what you're saying but I think I just wanted to "flatten" the core of everything down to the most common elements then let people customize from there. I always HATED having the saving throws be forced on me in certain increments. If I want a fighter who is great at will saves but sucks at Fort saves for pete's sake let me do it. This way, I can.

I'd love to help you out with your project, it has a lot of potential. the hard part is going to be creating a talent system that allows people to make all the core classes, allows people to tweak classes (like a Wizard with favored Enemy instead of Scribe scroll or a Fighter with Hide in Plain Sight), without allowing players to create uber characters that are far more powerful than the core classes.

100% agree. Therein lies the rub as they say. I think everyone can dream of such a system, thats the easy part. The hard part is making it work. I have no delusions that its there right now. We're in pre-pre-pre alpha phase :) but we prefer to hear feedback early and often instead of throw something out then get feedback and have to back pedal. Since we're wide open all along the way we can get all the feedback and suggestions and corrections we want/need.

Thanks for taking the time to look it over and offer some well-founded comments. I look forward to hearing more from you along the way!

Lot's of updates... deep digging going on... interested in folks impressions thus far.

If you think we're way off base, feel free to say so.

If you think we're about to strike gold, tell us to keep digging :)

Check it out!

Well I think possible math errors deserve double/triple checking before calling them actual "errors" needing investigation by Sean (or anyone at Paizo for that matter.)

However, clear typographical errors, such as misspellings, or missing punctuation don't generally require double-checking I'd think.

Haven't really asked for playtesting yet as we're still heavily in the construction phase. Any playtesting at this point would be pointless as the furniture is still moving around so much.

I'd guess that in a few weeks we'll start asking for some detailed feedback and will provide online forms for organized responses etc.

Still like to hear what people think "along the way" though, meaning, if its looking good, let us know. If its looking completely unappealing, let us know.

We really want this to be a community project.

I strongly suggest that Paizo make use of content from "non-core" books in their adventure paths and other products. I also fully support the notion of including "replacement suggestions" for those who do not have the necessary other products. However, any product that makes use of "non-core" rules should say so VERY clearly on the cover of the product and/or on the store page so people can not possibly claim they did not know beforehand.

With Paizo making everything available online, for free, its basically absurd to complain about not having access to those other products. Sorry, but that's how it is. I would be stunned if the percentage of customers who do not have internet access either before or during play is greater that 2-3%. Paizo can not restrict the advantages to the very large majority over the limitations of the very small minority. This supports sales of their other products as well as saving space in the base product for putting more info for that ap (or whatever.) It also helps encourage the growth of those other ideas into more places. I too hated how there was an invisible wall between "core" and "non-core" in other systems and that all products only made use of the very small subset of content in the "core" category. Everything in the "non-core" category becomes "fire and forget" meaning, ship it out the door then pretend it doesn't exist etc.

Anyone who complains about Paizo requiring purchase of products is delusional. No other company does what Paizo does and people ought to recognize this and be very thankful for it.

Very good point. The pit spells simply bring this issue to the front, and are not the root of the problem. If the root question were addressed it would resolve all similar questions.

I just looked at the errata document again and as I thought, there is nothing in it about Create Pit. If the spell has changed in the latest printing of the actual book that hasn't made its way into the errata.

This is why I think it would be good to have two tiers of threads. One where the posters try to hash out if something is correct or not, and one where once everyone gives up and thinks something is wrong, they post it to the "hey Sean, none of us can seem to see how this adds up" then you aren't going over every single conversation, only the ones that communally people throw their hands up in the air and say "yeah we aren't sure how that got like that"

So one thread is "the fans try to figure it out" and the other is "they couldn't, among themselves, determine how something happened so now the question graduates to the "no really, we don't get it" thread.

just my 2 cents.

We're getting some good interest in this. If anyone else wants to participate in helping design a 100% OGL, fan-made/maintained d20 system, here's your chance.

Shoot an email to the address in the first post if you want to help out in any way at all!

The Only Sheet wrote:

I posted about this more than once (for the core rules) and I will repeat it here one final time...

You're wasting your breath. Clear rules language is NOT one of Pathfinder's selling points, and never will be. Jason Bulmahn simply has other priorities. Even other Paizo employees like SKR have pretty much given up asking for it.

Watch out or people will make mad faces.

Should it have specified 'gives CHA bonus to attack rolls if CHA bonus is positive' instead? Otherwise low Cha creatures (like animals) actually get worse at attacking when using smite.

Typically "bonus" means positive , "modifier" means whatever.

Meaning, if it meant that a negative modifier would apply it would say modifier, not bonus. By saying bonus, that means only positive modifiers.

Sounds like you need to speak to Kirth and TOZ; this sounds very much like what they've been doing, with the martial classes, at least.

Funny you should mention that... I was looking for a way to contact them to see if they wanted to join forces but couldn't find any emails and I didn't want to spam threads asking for them to contact me. I finally decided I'd just throw this out there and hope they saw it :)

Looks interesting :) not sure i have the time to help properly but a quick suggestion would be to break the casting talents up into groups of 3 levels allowing for partial casters.

As I (we? got some fast sign-ups already!) are in the earliest stages of working out how this will work, your ideas are great. I/we probably will do something along those lines.

I'm excited to see how/where this goes!

As a side-project from my work on d20pfsrd.com, I have started an off-shoot of the Pathfinder/d20 system. It has begun to spin to something I'm starting to like. I know there are several people here who, like me, really enjoy coming up with variant rules and systems so I'd like to see if anyone is interested in helping develop some of the concepts I have begun to lay the groundwork for.

You can see the beginning of it at https://sites.google.com/site/d20openrpg/

There's too much to give a truly representative summary here but I'll give it a shot.

I'm removing "most" class abilities from most classes and making them "Talents" instead and then putting those talents into a big pool that players can construct more free-form characters out of.

The "Talent" pool is in a great state of flux at the moment. Nothing is concrete. I'm still pulling stuff out and rewording to not be class-specific etc.

Also, ultimately this system will be 100% OGC and will not operate under the Paizo Community Use Policy so I am actively removing all content that would not be legal in that scenario.

Anyway, if you have anything constructive to add or would like to help bounce ideas around, shoot me an email at jreyst@gmail.com

Last note: This has nothing to do with other collaborators on d20pfsrd.com and this is purely a side-project I am playing around with but would like to get real traction with.

Completely unimportant but I find it entertaining that two of the most frequent errata posters are also two of the largest contributors to d20pfsrd.com.

That is all, nothing else to see here, move along!

Yes, that would be good to know!

1. Stop production on any additonal products, until current products are correct.

2. Stop Superstar 2011 until current products are correct.
(buy hey, I am just a big fan of making sure things are correct before moving forward)

I'll refrain from posting what I had originally written and instead second those suggestions, even if I recognize they won't happen.

But I think most of us are under the opinion, or assumption, even if it is wrong, that updating the pre-gens would be an insignificant delay on other projects.

I personally find it hard to believe that making them would take an amount of time that would put huge delays on other projects, but like I said, I don't work there.

Thank you.

If I didn't already know it would be a pointless exercise I'd fix them all tonight in the few hours between dinner and bed.

I don't get it, but that may be obvious lol

Stop answering "Ask James Jacobs Anything" questions.

Dismay and surprise that we recognize the pregens are less than optimal and don't encourage people to play with them at local gamedays and conventions? Or dismay and surprise that we've added them to the todo list to improve?

Dismay and surprise that...

1) These are incorrectly built in the first place and,

2) That they were allowed to remain available for download for official PFS games for this long without being corrected

These would take less than one day for someone to fix. I don't understand the delay.

Also, if people are not encouraged to play them, that fact is lost on new players. I directed people to download these pregens, assuming they were correctly built, for a small local game. Only after one of the players started asking questions about Valeros did I start digging. Then I find out that most of them are incorrect in more ways than one, yet they remain available and linked to for "official" play.

If they are wrong take them down or add a text blurb on the main PFS page saying "yes we know these are wrong but we haven't had time to fix them."

Or something.. its embarrassing really. I promote Pathfinder to friends and then they point out that the "official" pregens that are meant for sanctioned PFS play, aren't correct. It makes Paizo look bad.

These friends get an immediate bad taste in their mouth. I can't blame them either. They're stuck thinking... "If the official PC's, built by Paizo, don't follow the rules, how good are their other products?"

Sorry, but that's the situation I ran into.

I'm expressing dismay and surprise, politely, about this for whatever that's worth.

The 7th level version of Valeros (downloadable here) shows the following attack sequences:

Melee +1 flaming longsword +12/+7 (1d8+8/19–20 plus 1d6 fire)

and
+1 frost shortsword +10/+5/+0 (1d6+5 plus 1d6 cold)

but it appears that he shouldn't have three attacks with his shortsword.

Am I missing something?

As far as I can tell, that does indeed appear to be the case.

And if that is true then credit to Mike and d20pfsrd.com would be nice. If its just a strange coincidence then nevermind :)

According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard. And when you complain about simple arithmetic, it is fair to call you unintelligent.

Now I'm not saying all PF players fit this bill, but clearly enough did to get the game dumbed down, to the detriment of people who like playing martial characters, such as myself.

Listen, I have played VERY many times with players who are exceptionally bright or talented in ways other than mathematics and logic. These players routinely have trouble whenever they are forced to do a calculation at the table. Their turn takes longer as they struggle through things. Then another player steps up and assists with the calculation. Or, the player simply gets it wrong. Sometimes understating the effect of his attack, sometimes overstating. Other times he decides to skip it because its a pain to deal with. He just wishes there was something he could do that didn't require on the spot math calculations. He just frigging wants to play. If some people want to feel all super smart and elite because they can whip out what they consider to be idiotically simple math at a seconds notice, go to town, but those players would not be welcome in the groups I run or play in. We want players who want to roleplay and we don't care if they're particularly knowledgeable of the rules or if they are math geniuses. If they can roleplay well, they're in.

Those of you who want to keep the game complicated to keep out the simpletons irritate the shizzle out of me.

Can someone tell me where I can find the APG Errata (not the FAQ)? I see some posts above claim to be "answered in errata" but I can't find it...?

As you can see, both of them do exactly the same thing. Yet they were described differently.

I suggest, for consistency's sake, you use the same description for both! (To me, the Elf one seems a better explanation)

That seems to be exceptionally common.. multiple different wordings of what is supposed to be the same thing, except when using different wording it tends to lead to different interpretations. I see this all the time in my efforts at maintaining d20pfsrd.com.

Sorcerer Aquatic Bloodline:

Aquatic Telepathy (Su): ...a swim speed or the aquatic or water types...

Same as above. Aquatic and Water are Subtypes, not Types.

Sorcerer Aquatic Bloodline:

Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell of the water type, your effective caster level is increased by one, and summoned creatures with a swim speed or the aquatic or water type gain a +1 morale bonus on attack and damage rolls.

"...of the water type" should say "with the [water] descriptor"

Aquatic and Water are not Types. They are Subtypes.

"...or the aquatic or water type" should be "or the aquatic or water subtype"

Spells do not have "Types" but they sometimes have "descriptors."

These appear to be common errors in the APG.

I really like the positive and helpful comments made thus far in this thread. I personally would like to introduce some sort of mechanic like this for the next campaign I run and seeing the points raised so far has been very helpful.

My first concern also (as mentioned above) is how to use a spell casting-time system with the existing initiative system. I agree that in most rounds, unless a situation is dire, the spell caster is well-served by delaying until after everyone else has gone so that he can not be interrupted. In that case it doesn't matter if his spell has a 1 or 9 "tick" casting time, as since he is already last its just a matter of does the spell go off now, or... now?

So, how would people recommend dealing with that?

I'll reiterate that I fully support this :)

I have always liked that both from a GM and player perspective. Unfortunately I doubt you will find much support for such a notion either here or in your group.

Tier 1 Standard Fantasy (realistic, down to earth): levels 1-4

Tier 2 Heroic Fantasy (Expands to the next level, think Aragorn and the abilities Gandolf displayed): levels 5-8
Tier 3 High Fantasy (Wuxia/Mythology, like Beowulf or Odyseus): Levels 9-12
Tier 4 Epic Fantasy: levels 13-16
Tier 5 Divine (semi-divine if you prefer): Levels 17-20

It actually fits the corresponding spell levels perfectly.

Spell levels 1 and 2
Spell levels 3 and 4
Spell levels 5 and 6
Spell levels 7 and 8
Spell level 9

If we're going to promote/push the "tier" system, which I also fully endorse, I'd want to second the breakdown presented by kyrt-ryder. I like the tier idea and strongly like the idea of tying some things more closely to the tier being played with.

However, isn't this entire conversation unfortunately somewhat pointless? Paizo has made clear they have no interest or intention of releasing anything remotely like a "2nd edition" for like at least 10 years. The kinds of changes many of us discuss or mention in this thread can not really be addressed with "patches" on top of the 3.x engine. They really sort of need an entirely freshly built engine or else the patches will fall off after a short time.

Unless of course the idea is that we all sort of just rattle off what we don't like in the hopes that 10 years from now 1) this board will still exist and 2) Paizo will have some level of interest and capacity to do some sort of data mining out of it. OR, is the theory that Paizo might release a PrC here and a feat there and a maneuver here and a splat book there that patches these concerns? Just wondering what is the practical goal of this? I suppose the more likely idea is that this is just more a therapeutic place for some of us to vent about our disappointments with PF, which I get and appreciate, but I don't know what the real chances are that there is likely to be any real addressing of those concerns.

Lastly, I'll reiterate that while I am dissatisfied with many of the core underpinnings of the system, the way Paizo either did or did not address them, and some other things, for me Pathfinder remains the most enjoyable fantasy medieval game I can find. It is the closest thing to my ideal system I have found and I really have no realistic alternative, which is why I too want to keep trying to push it in certain directions. For me its 90% perfect. That last 10% is a beast to accomplish but I have confidence that if anyone can do it, its Paizo.

Oh and one more "last" thing (lol)... Others have said it and I'll say it again, there is no other company out there (that I have seen) that treats their customers as well as Paizo does, that makes themselves SO available to the customers... it is an unfortunate side effect of this that the customers (i.e. me sometimes) feel "spoiled" by this great treatment and sometimes forget how much of a bonus this is and begin to treat it as a "right." I'll repeat that I truly appreciate how available Paizo staff are to criticisms and general conversations. Paizo is a company that creates a product, which is true, but in some ways they straddle the line and become friends with many of the customers, which can sometimes blur the seller/buyer relationship. Everyone needs to try to remind themselves of that from time to time, both Paizo AND the customers/fans.

1. I read through the thread and I think 'MAD' is the word I'm looking for. I assume it means 'Mundane-Arcane Discrepancy',

I have not heard that meaning. I typically hear it along with the acronym "SAD." I believe MAD and SAD mean "Multiple Attribute Dependency" and "Single Attribute Dependency." The former refers to a Class that has multiple ability scores that need to be high for the Class to play effectively, and the latter refers any Class that generally can get by with only one high ability score. A Wizard (for instance) really only needs a high Intelligence. Some Classes are extremely hard to play effectively unless you pump up more than one ability score.

I had a lengthy response composed in which I was going to exchange in a tit-for-tat with SKR, quoting posts left and right, but decided that would accomplish nothing other than make me appear even more petty than many already believe me to be. Instead, now that Erik has chimed in, whom I greatly respect, I'll drop the subject. I have posted my response to the title question of this thread ("What is the worst thing about Pathfinder?") and will leave it at that.

Thanks Erik once again though for Pathfinder. Even though I may gripe and complain from time to time, it does still provide me almost limitless enjoyment. Is it perfect? Hell no, but right now, its the closest thing I can find. I just friggin wish the few matters I frequently get frustrated about would improve.

That's about all on that subject! :)

It's that guy's thing, and he's done it for years. I was disappointed he ended up at Paizo. (It's pretty annoying, actually, because he keeps showing up to things I like and then hatchet-jobbing 'em. I liked FR - he toodles in there and hatchets it up. I move on to Paizo and its APs, and look who shows up again. STOP. IT. I thought the tin-foil hat I'm wearing would keep him away.) ;)

I'm cautiously optimistic that the addition of SRM to the mix might help clean some of this up. While I am not a fan of most of 4E, I am a massive fan of the consistency and clarity of the system. That system is rock solid and the designers had/have an appreciation for clarity and consistency. I don't get that impression from PFRPG.

Worst thing about Pathfinder? The dismissive attitude of the developers regarding errata and faq subjects.

A prominent Paizonite recently stated "an rpg is not computer code, GM's are smart, they'll figure it out..." completely dismissing a poorly worded section in a recently released Paizo product. When this designer was called out about how he himself, on his own personal blog, has a rant about how people who are creating commercial products should pay close attention to the mechanics of the system and be sure to use the correct terminology, because the wording matters, he dismissed that too.

This is one of the things that concerns me most about PFRPG. The fact that the designers do not seem to have a desire or interest in simplifying the system or cleaning up the inconsistencies and poorly worded legacy artifacts from previous generations. Instead they would rather continue to release product after product with more and more new layers of poorly worded mechanics and then never release adequate errata or clarifications for the previously released products. Then, when the fan-base begins to get themselves in a tizzy about the complete lack of any sort of substantive errata they complain about how busy they are.

This is my issue.

It is a game with complicated rules and a lot of rules, it has to be written as a instruction manual...

I agree. I think the game rules should be as precise and consistent as possible (and reasonable.) In this case the choice of words was not consistent with the mechanical terms used elsewhere in the rules, which might lead to some confusion. If there is a mechanical term already defined which is applicable it seems like that term should be used and not some casual usage of another word that is also a specific mechanical term with a definition in the game. Sean agreed it should be "descriptor" but seems dismissive of anything more. I'll add a footnote on d20pfsrd.com explaining the deviation from the normally used terms and hope that helps users of the site.

The site template looks so much better now. That's been bugging me forever. Thanks!

https://sites.google.com/site/pathfindertemplate/

I haven't checked the Community Use Package yet so forgive me if I'm mistaken. Did they already release an updated logo with transparent background in the last 20 minutes or did you take Vic's words as permission and do so independently?

Treating things like this dismissively leaves a bad impression.

Does it matter to me? No, not really that much. However, it would be easier for people new to the game if the terms used were consistent and correct. This is one of those points where "you and I know it because we've been playing this game for 30 years" but I fear someone just picking up the book, new to the game, might see the word "Type" in regards to a spell, start looking through the books to find which ones have that "Type" or try to find the definition of "Type" in regards to spells, find nothing, then see "descriptor" and MAYBE conclude that is what the designers "meant." Seems like you could cut out that entire bit of potential confusion and frustration by using the correct terminology.

Just saying. It has no effect on me or my games, but others might get confused by it. This might warrant an FAQ or errata entry, but as always, that's up to you guys to decide.

Well fireball is van evocation spell with the fire descriptor as an example. So if your above Druid could somehow cast fireball it would be a cold spell. Same with your other examples. The apg added a number of spells thAt are earth fire water etc that do things other than damage. Aquious orb fir example

Umm.. I get that lol

What I'm saying is that these two examples use the word "Type" when that does not appear to be applicable to spells. The correct term would be "descriptor." Besides being incorrect, it also confuses things because "Type" and "Subtype" are already existing terms that refer to monsters.. not spells.

If I am mistaken, and "Type" is a mechanical term regarding magic, someone please let me know.

I do not believe that there is any such thing as a "type" or "subtype" when referring to spells, however, I have found two references in the Druid Alternate Class features section that do, which I believe may be in error:

At 4th level, an aquatic druid gains a +4 bonus on saving throws against spells of the water type or the exceptional or supernatural abilities of creatures with the aquatic or water subtype.

Snowcaster (Su) At 9th level, an arctic druid can see normally in ice storm, sleet storm, or similar natural snowstorms. In addition, she can prepare any druid spell with the fire subtype as a cold spell, with an identical effect but inflicting cold damage instead of fire damage.

I'm guessing these should have been worded:

At 4th level, an aquatic druid gains a +4 bonus on saving throws against spells with the water descriptor or the exceptional or supernatural abilities of creatures with the aquatic or water subtype.

Snowcaster (Su) At 9th level, an arctic druid can see normally in ice storm, sleet storm, or similar natural snowstorms. In addition, she can prepare any druid spell with the fire descriptor. When prepared this way the spell has the cold descriptor instead, but with otherwise identical effects other than inflicting cold damage instead of fire damage.

Thoughts?

Or... cut out the middleman and cut straight to just telling players they level when you want them to. If you want normal progression early tell them

"From levels 1-5 you will gain a level after every 3rd session. Then from levels 6-10 you gain a level after every 4th session. Then levels 11-15 after every 5th session, and finally, from levels 16-20, after every 6th session."

Feature Request:

Add an option to "Generate Random Spellbook" which would follow the rules for random spellbook determination, then spit out a list based on "Caster Level" option (or something appropriate) and then format the page of output in one page for GM's to use as reference when running NPC's.

Good idea?

I'm currently a player in two PF games with GM's who very rarely houserule. My last character in one of the games was a half orc cleric of war and strength. The idea was he buffs himself then becomes a machine of death (add in that Enlarge Person has a ONE ROUND casting time... ugh). Note I said that WAS the idea. I didn't realize until I was half-way through the first session with the PC that he couldn't use those domain abilities on himself. I was flabbergasted. WHAT? So yeah, if and when I GM again, that babies getting houseruled. It might be the FIRST house rule on my list lol

I may be wrong but I believe if you activate an ability that lasts a round, it lasts until the end of the following round. So if you activate it in the middle of your turn, then at the end of your next turn it is gone, thus allowing you to use it with your following standard or full round action.

If you activate an effect with a one round or greater duration, the effect ends just before your initiative in whatever round is the last round of its duration. In the case of an effect with a one round duration, it comes into effect as soon as you finish activating it, then ends just before your next turn. If it requires a standard action to activate it, and it has a one round duration, then you can never benefit from it. Yes, I know. It sucks but I've complained about this in a different thread and never got a response from anyone at Paizo. I have a hard time imagining that it was the intent that a cleric of the god of strength can't benefit from this ability. Perhaps it should have been a Move action to activate, therefore allowing the cleric to actually, I don't know, get strong and then do something about it. But alas, it has not been deemed errata or FAQ worthy so do with that what you will.