Chief Technical Officer
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first section of the FAQ has been posted here.
Right now, it covers only questions that result in changes to the rulebook. It will be updated with questions that result in changes to cards next week.
We will eventually create a revised PDF of the rulebook incorporating these changes, but we don't currently have a timetable to announce for that.
There are several other questions that will likely result in changes to the rulebook currently in discussion, so don't worry if you don't see stuff here yet!
Please leave this thread for discussion about the FAQ itself. If you have a rules question that you can't find an answer for, please create a new thread.
Vic it is great that you are being responsive and updating the FAQ.
My copy is winging its way and I am concerned about the volume of entries in the FAQ.
Some of it is clarifications and some of it is errata both are important it would help if you clearly listed the errata first followed by the clarification. I and i am sure many others use the clarification to make things clearer and don't need to keep referring to it. Errata on the other hand is useful to look up before plying. It sometimes helps to also list the cards with errata.
It may be an idea to respond to the what is a die :- thread in the Faq.
I always read a die is a die, so the answers here fit my "world" but others are still arguing about it on BGG. Some seem to look to the spirit of the rules (mainly miniature gamers (I don't mean height challenged) and rpg gamers) others tend to get a bit codified rule hungry and the latter are having a bit of a feeding frenzy at the moment.
Will the Digital Rulebook be updated ?
Will a second edition be Published ?
Will you be issuing updated cards ? if yes with an expansion or seperately?
and finally define a set of keywords for cards related to their underling use/mechanisms and stick to it.
I am still looking forward to playing and I have prepared my game group, however I may need to hide the FAQ and just create an errata sheet for the cards I have.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of it is clarifications and some of it is errata both are important it would help if you clearly listed the errata first followed by the clarification. I and i am sure many others use the clarification to make things clearer and don't need to keep referring to it. Errata on the other hand is useful to look up before plying. It sometimes helps to also list the cards with errata.
The distinction between "errata" and "clarification" is often a matter of perspective—if you thought something worked differently than we did, even though we might think it's a clarification, you might think it's errata. So we're not making that distinction here.
My philosophy is also that every question that merits an entry in the FAQ merits a change in the rulebook or cards. Even when the rulebook was correct to begin with, if enough people have questions about it, it needs to be clearer. That's why everything in the FAQ (apart from the informational bits about promo cards) has a "Resolution" section.
It may be an idea to respond to the what is a die :- thread in the Faq.
As I mentioned in both of my posts above, there are a number of topics still being dealt with behind the scenes. That's one of them!
Will the Digital Rulebook be updated ?
As I mentioned in my first post, we don't yet have a timeline for that.
Will a second edition be Published ?
Many Pathfinder RPG players know that we incorporate changes into our hardcover rulebooks whenever we reprint them; the same will be the case here. But it's not a new edition—it's just a new printing with corrections. Many RPG players also know that we don't announce reprints until they're available, and that will also be the case here.
Will you be issuing updated cards ? if yes with an expansion or seperately?
All of the Rise of the Runelords expansions have already been printed. We currently have no plan for printing corrected cards. To be frank, I don't think it's going to be feasible to do so.
...and finally define a set of keywords for cards related to their underling use/mechanisms and stick to it.
Can you be more specific?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We currently have no plan for printing corrected cards. To be frank, I don't think it's going to be feasible to do so.
There are very few cards that have printed errors...surely they might be cheap to throw into the print run for next year's base set (which I would hope have the same card back so that the cards can be mingled together), although I'd understand that you wouldn't want to issue reprints / corrections of promo cards. I'd pay a couple of bucks to get a set of 10-15 correctly printed cards, even if it's a year from now.
Vic thanks for the prompt reply. I should have paid a bit more attention to your introduction to the FAQ.
By keywords I am including keys phrases.
So if your intent is to change the type of check then the wording would be ....change a x check to a Y check. This can be expanded in the Rule Glossary Change Check means that you carry out the new check instead of the original in step 1 of a Combat ... etc
Other phrases such as adding a trait could have an entry that clarifies this does not not change the skill check used . The same for die ....
If you have already printed a large stock of the adventure packs then this is probably not much use and any inconsistent wording can be picked up by your card FAQ's.
I must admit I did not have any real issues until I started reading the forum posts. I have read your updated FAQ and it only seems to be a few cards that have any real issues.
I have had a fair amount of experience proofing rules for Games companies and even running FAQ threads , so I should have stuck to my initial view and not been caught up in some of the debates. I have never played a true RPG , the nearest I have come is to campaigns for mini based sci-fi and fantasy boardames. I always like the idea but the whole games master approach put me off.
Vic-
I think there might be a bit of an error in the FAQ. Given it is for a card I have not seen, I am only guessing. But, given the wording of the item, it lends to the thought of it being an error.
Can Sajan use the Amulet of Fiery Fists when he uses Dexterity for his combat check?
Yes.Resolution: On the item Amulet of Mighty Fists, change the power to:
"Reveal this card to add 1d8 with the Fire and Magic traits to your combat check; you may not play a spell with the Attack trait or a weapon on this check."
I suspect that in the resolution, you should be modifying the Amulet of Fiery Fists mentioned in the question, and not Amulet of Mighty Fists. Unless, you want to really upgrade the mighty fists later in the campaign or something. But, I assume it is actually a different amulet.
Just wondering what all the play testers on page 22 caught. It seems to me that there are a lot of nagging questions. Great game btw been waiting for this for months now glad to be a part of it.
I'd also like to chime in for a moment and add my vote to correctly printed cards being included in future expansions. Certain companies (like FFG for Elder Sign and Wiz Kids for Mage Knight) have included corrected cards in their expansions, which is a gesture of excellent customer service.
Here's hoping!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wondering what all the play testers on page 22 caught.
About a thousand things.
I think a corrected cards in some manner would be cool but I'm actually OK. Most of the rules make sense with the "spirit" of the game and was how I interpreted them till I read the messageboards.
I would like to speak up for testers everywhere though. When you have been testing something through several versions you start to get an understanding of the product. After a while you don't see something that newer people might because you have grown with the product and you like the developers just have a feel for how it should work.
I honestly think with a few minor exceptions they did a really good job. I suspect some of the doubts I do have will make more sense when we have seen more of the cards.
Most of the rules make sense with the "spirit" of the game and was how I interpreted them till I read the messageboards.Yeah, cards which just need clarification I wouldnt bother with, but the recharge check being wrong on Detect Magic, and the Warhammer missing the MAGIC trait, Scorching Ray saying "BASIC" - they are the ones I would 'fix'.
Warhammer still seemed obvious to me. The other two definitely could use a re-print. I can see having to explain those everytime I introduce a new magic user to the game.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warhammer still seemed obvious to me. The other two definitely could use a re-print. I can see having to explain those everytime I introduce a new magic user to the game.Most of the rules make sense with the "spirit" of the game and was how I interpreted them till I read the messageboards.Yeah, cards which just need clarification I wouldnt bother with, but the recharge check being wrong on Detect Magic, and the Warhammer missing the MAGIC trait, Scorching Ray saying "BASIC" - they are the ones I would 'fix'.
I just went ahead and used a Sharpie to mark the changes on the cards. I bought the game to PLAY, not to collect, so I don't mind marking up the cards with OFFICIAL errata. If I wanted to collect them, I'd buy a seperate set and leave them in the original packaging, but I'm not that type of collector.
I just went ahead and used a Sharpie to mark the changes on the cards. I bought the game to PLAY, not to collect, so I don't mind marking up the cards with OFFICIAL errata. If I wanted to collect them, I'd buy a separate set and leave them in the original packaging, but I'm not that type of collector.Warhammer still seemed obvious to me. The other two definitely could use a re-print. I can see having to explain those everytime I introduce a new magic user to the game.Most of the rules make sense with the "spirit" of the game and was how I interpreted them till I read the messageboards.Yeah, cards which just need clarification I wouldnt bother with, but the recharge check being wrong on Detect Magic, and the Warhammer missing the MAGIC trait, Scorching Ray saying "BASIC" - they are the ones I would 'fix'.
I think this is a great reminder for me. This is a game I play, and want to play more. This is not a collection on a shelf.
My handwriting is awful. I think I'm going to buy a pack of avery mailing labels and print off replacement text that would be similar in size to the test that it is replacing. Then just print, cut, and stick on the cards, covering the original text only.
The problem is fighting any OCD whims, of scanning the background colors, matching fonts, etc. to make them blend more. That said, it would still be stickers on cards, so still noticeable.
I know that after future reprints, if they offered a limited run of reprinted cards to replace originals, I would buy them. But, I can live with them "fixed" or "clarified".
The only caveat is the character sheets. I really find those irreplaceable. I just cant get myself to write on the character cars because I know that I will reuse them for more than one play through...or (gasp) if a character dies.
Minor error in the FAQ:
In the FAQ the errata for Scorching Ray is in the section Base Set, while it is part of Burnt Offerings.
Without promo cards there are now 20 errated cards and I think there will be more after the adventure decks get released. With duplicates that sums up to over 60 cards (ok, Blessing of Gods takes a big part of that). So I would really like a replacement pack, it is ok if this gets released after the whole cycle. I would of course also pay a few bucks for it. If that is totally not possible then a PDF with corrected card images for printing and labeling I could live with :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I updated an answer in the FAQ; if you have it set to show you things that were added recently, it isn't highlighted because it's not a new answer.
The resolution has changed for this question. The replacement text used to read "After evading or resolving all checks against a summoned card, return it to the box..."; it now reads "After evading or resolving all checks against a summoned card, banish it..."
(It's a really minor mechanical distinction: banishing includes the act of shuffling.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
You changed Speed's recharge ability to include Divine. Does that mean the check to acquire should also include Divine? If so how about a sub skill?
The check to acquire should include Divine. I've updated the FAQ entry, though, as above, it's not highlighted as new.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
You changed Speed's recharge ability to include Divine. Does that mean the check to acquire should also include Divine? If so how about a sub skill?The check to acquire should include Divine. I've updated the FAQ entry, though, as above, it's not highlighted as new.
I've updated it further, as I'd left out some stuff that needed to change.
Thank you. We appreciate all the hard work you guys do and the awesome game! =)
I think they'll need to wait until the velocity of new FA-questions slows down to close to nothing. If they adopted a PDF now, it'd need to get updated too often to make it worthwhile.
What they need is a "Printable Copy" button that turns only the FAQ section into something nice.
It would eliminate any hyperlinks like "back to top", the links at the top which direct send you down to the answers below, and the links for other Paizo products.
I agree this would be the best solution.
But, in the mean time. I'd suggest those with a Windows PC do the following (Works on multiple browser types, but does rely on the Windows print dialog window, but likely has equivalents in other operating systems.)
On the FAQ web page, scroll down to where the "Rules Questions" section starts just past all the hyperlinks. Carefully start highlighting (clicking & holding) at the start of the word "Rules". Make sure not to click too far left because you'll actually start highlighting the big column on the left that includes the product links, etc. Then scroll down all the way to the end and stop highlighting at the end of the last answer. Again, do not go too far, though you have a bit more leeway at this end.
Once all highlighted, select print in your browser menu or, even better, press Ctrl+Shift+P. The shift is the key, it will take you to printing from the Windows Print window, select the option where you print only the selected portion. Ta da.
Go to the top of the page and click on "week" or "day" if you want more recent ruling highlighted in red.
What they need is a "Printable Copy" button that turns only the FAQ section into something nice.
It would eliminate any hyperlinks like "back to top", the links at the top which direct send you down to the answers below, and the links for other Paizo products.
I agree this would be the best solution.
But, in the mean time. I'd suggest those with a Windows PC do the following (Works on multiple browser types, but does rely on the Windows print dialog window, but likely has equivalents in other operating systems.)
On the FAQ web page, scroll down to where the "Rules Questions" section starts just past all the hyperlinks. Carefully start highlighting (clicking & holding) at the start of the word "Rules". Make sure not to click too far left because you'll actually start highlighting the big column on the left that includes the product links, etc. Then scroll down all the way to the end and stop highlighting at the end of the last answer. Again, do not go too far, though you have a bit more leeway at this end.
Once all highlighted, select print in your browser menu or, even better, press Ctrl+Shift+P. The shift is the key, it will take you to printing from the Windows Print window, select the option where you print only the selected portion. Ta da.
I have actually created a PDF based on Questions and Just resolution , I would be happy to pass it on.
I have actually created a PDF based on Questions and Just resolution , I would be happy to pass it on.
My man!
Anyway, think of how clean the 2nd base set is going to be after all these little changes they've picked up. No matter how good your Beta testers are, there is no real substitute for good ol' nit-picky rules lawyering players.
I have actually created a PDF based on Questions and Just resolution , I would be happy to pass it on.My man!
Anyway, think of how clean the 2nd base set is going to be after all these little changes they've picked up. No matter how good your Beta testers are, there is no real substitute for good ol' nit-picky rules lawyering players.
If someone from Paizo gives me permission I will put it on BGG , with recommendations to check the FAQ on here and a link to it.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I've updated one response in the FAQ, adding Mirror Image to the question and answer.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I added a couple more minor questions yesterday.
We have also undone this:
Resolution: On page 10, under Playing Cards, after the list of actions, add the following paragraph: “Sometimes a card will tell you to perform one of these actions with a second card; for example, a card may tell you to discard an ally to add 1 to a check. Using the second card in this way does not count as playing it.”
…in favor of this:
Resolution: On page 10 of the rulebook, under "Playing Cards," change the following:
"Playing a card means activating a card's power by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing the card."
to
"Playing a card means activating that card's power by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing that card. Doing something with a card that does not activate that card's power does not count as playing that card. For example, if Kyra discards a spell to activate her healing power, it doesn't count as playing that spell (meaning she also can't recharge it)."