Creative Director
|
It's not even really good stout, just passable stout. Now, give me a good solid ale from These people or one of these and your on to a winner...Guinneas is a stout! Eireann go brach! Tá mé lán broid i mo deoch náisiúnta!
It's so filling people used to have it for lunch! :D
Or feed it to pigs!
I don't claim to know much about beer, but I do know I prefer it to pretty much EVERY form of beer I've tasted, "good" beer and "bad" beer alike.
Unless you count lambic as beer, in which case THAT wins, hands down.
You don't have to know much about beer. Guinneas is a beer and a stout and a good one. As a stout I say it's the best.
Hobgoblin isn't a stout. It's a bitter. Some say it's an ale, but really it's a bitter.
|
I don't claim to know much about beer, but I do know I prefer it to pretty much EVERY form of beer I've tasted, "good" beer and "bad" beer alike.
Unless you count lambic as beer, in which case THAT wins, hands down.
If you never tried it, and you see it, try the Innes and Gunn. It's a light ale, aged in oak casks, so it gets hints of whiskey to it. Very, very nice...
I don't claim to know much about beer, but I do know I prefer it to pretty much EVERY form of beer I've tasted, "good" beer and "bad" beer alike.
Unless you count lambic as beer, in which case THAT wins, hands down.
Huzzah! Another Lambic drinker! I prefer Lindeman's Framboise (Raspberry) myself, but my fiancee likes the Cassis...
You don't have to know much about beer. Guinneas is a beer and a stout and a good one. As a stout I say it's the best.
Hobgoblin isn't a stout. It's a bitter. Some say it's an ale, but really it's a bitter.
Yeah, I have to agree here. Though outside of Ireland, guinneas' quality can vary, if you like stout, a proper Irish guinneas in a pub of aul' fellas in rural Ireland is THE stout!
All right, this is actually hard to determine if an actual Errata, a question for a future FAQ, or something else. However, since it has created waves of heated debates (like here or here) since its introduction, I believe its worth making it known.
The real problem rises from this particular sentence:
page 172:
"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can’t use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell."
Now, the problem is that Stealth (by RAW) includes both Hide and Move Silently from previous editions, and Perception includes (among other things) both Listen and Spot. Yet, by RAW, a character cannot simply 'sneak behind' another creature with a Stealth check which involves 'moving silently' only (for example, his target is reading a book while on a bench and so he basically cannot use sight to detect him at all) IF there are both the 'bright light' and 'no cover or concealment' conditions... which is plainly wrong IMHO.
Following the rules, nobody can walk by behind such a character using the Stealth skill in a park during high noon ! At best, a creature can rely on the plain 'Perception check against DC 0' (or DC 5 due to the distraction for reading the book) of the reader, since he cannot use Stealth because, well, there is bright light and no cover...
I personally believe that this is the result of a 'Find All = Hide, Replace = use Stealth' action (or something like that), since the 3.5 SRD has this very same sentence, however only involving Hide checks.
SRD -> Carrying and Exploration:
"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. A creature can’t hide in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover."
The sentence is verbatim to that of Pathfinder except for the substitution of 'use Stealth' with 'hide', which reinforces my theory...
|
Creative Director
|
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.
If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
And probably this means too that if bad-guy X is fighting with somebody, unaware of me (super hidden sneaky rogue), I could cover 2 squares even in "plain sight" and sneak-attack him if he fails his perception check...
Could I ask to state your opinion about this subject since people is killing each other about it?
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.
If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
Thank you for your clarification, James. As I said in one of those heated debates regarding Stealth and Perception, I believe that it would be sufficient to have a small change in the sentence to make it more clear:
"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth based on hiding in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Any Perception checks based on sight are automatically successful by your opponent"
...or something like that.
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.
If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
To continue on that rule, bright light has only for effect to exclude concealment from the conditions that allow stealth ?
Stealth and Perception do indeed work on things other than sight. What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you.
If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you, you CAN use Stealth (and they can use Perception) since a visual element of the situation doesn't apply. But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
Uh oh, you just opened a can of bees here James.
You just turned rogues into deadly killing machines. They don't even need flanking to sneak attack anymore. All they need to do is get behind someone, roll a Stealth roll (which is part of movement so it doesn't even take an extra action), and then sneak attack their target.
In fact, this statement "If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you" could allow a rogue to sneak attack every round in combat, one-on-one, simply by moving behind his enemy every round (15' of movement and a stealth roll while the opponent is looking the other way).
Since we have no "facing" in Pathfinder combat, I'm taking your statment here about "looking away from you" to mean in non-combat situations. If that isn't what you meant, we're going to need some fairly hefty errata all over the Stealth, Perception, Sneak Attack, and Combat sections of the book. And also some fixing for the Hide In Plain Sight class ability for rangers and shadowdancers.
Or I just need to start using lots of rogues against the PCs...
DM_Blake, you forgot an important part of james' post.
But when that situation can work is up to the GM.
In absence of complete facing rules, the DM has to say whether an opponent turn his back on the rogue or not, so there's no mechanical reason for a rogue to be able to sneak attack every round, only - and just maybe - roleplaying reasons.
Note too that this is only in case of a one-on-one fight without special abilities. But "looking away in combat" is something that is covered by several rules.Flanking for example, assume that the opponent does turn his back on the rogue, that's why creatures with all-around vision can't be flanked.
The situation you describe can also be created without DM intervention - see stealth rules for "Creating a diversion to hide".
There's also this skill trick in Complete Scoundrel that allow to treat an ennemy flat-footed after a successful tumble check to move through its space.
Aside from these "backstab" rules, there's improved feint, or shatter defenses, or hellcat stealth, or hide in plain sight, that allow a rogue (or a roguish character) to do sneak attacks without flanking. And they don't turn rogues into deadly killing machines.
Or you'd be already using lots of RogueX/Shadowdancer1 against your PCs.
Well, all in all, I think you're overplaying the importance of this.
Entry mentioned on Page 221 of the Core Rulebook.
Spellike Abilities
Usually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component
A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell or can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.Entry found for Spellike Abilities (Sp) on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
The above is an issue still as well as the below, even though I will be using them(SLA's) as Supernatural abilities until something official comes along.
The spell like abilities that the classes have still don't have levels.
Vital Strike being a standard action or an option that can be added to another attack is still up for debate.
The disagreement between the Wild enhancement and Polymorph which would
determine whether or not a druid keeps his shield bonus while Wild Shaped.
There is also disagreement within the books about whether or not SLA's can be counterspelled.
That is all I have off of memory. I just wanted to mention things I have seen more than once. The only thing I am up in the air on is Vital Strike. I am thinking of allowing it to work with Spring Attack and Charge. As far as anything that conflicts I will stick with the 3.5 version until something official says otherwise.
Thanks for the recent errata. I will try to wait until September before I start asking for Errata again.
Thanks for the errata.
PS: If something I mentioned has already been handled I apologize in advance.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh oh, you just opened a can of bees here James.
You just turned rogues into deadly killing machines. They don't even need flanking to sneak attack anymore. All they need to do is get behind someone, roll a Stealth roll (which is part of movement so it doesn't even take an extra action), and then sneak attack their target.
In fact, this statement "If you're sneaking up on someone who's looking away from you" could allow a rogue to sneak attack every round in combat, one-on-one, simply by moving behind his enemy every round (15' of movement and a stealth roll while the opponent is looking the other way).
Since we have no "facing" in Pathfinder combat, I'm taking your statment here about "looking away from you" to mean in non-combat situations. If that isn't what you meant, we're going to need some fairly hefty errata all over the Stealth, Perception, Sneak Attack, and Combat sections of the book. And also some fixing for the Hide In Plain Sight class ability for rangers and shadowdancers.
Or I just need to start using lots of rogues against the PCs...
Nope... what I described was merely an opening ambush type attack. Once a rogue stabs someone after he sneaks up on him, OBVIOUSLY (at least, I hope it's obviously) that victim will now know that the rogue is after him. At that point, the game assumes that the victim is keeping an eye on the rouge so that the rogue has to flank in order to keep doing sneak attacks. If there's concealment, a rouge CAN slip into hiding, but that DOES require a place for him to hide. He can't just "go behind the victim" because the victim is now aware of the rogue.
Of course, if an NPC is suicidal enough to purposefully ignore a rogue and NOT keep track of the rogue, he WOULD be flat-footed against the rogue. NPCs who don't bother to keep track of their enemies in combat deserve what they get.
The point is that a rogue sneaking up on someone and getting a sneak attack on the first attack in a round is pretty much the way the game is built already; if the rogue wins initiative, his foe is flat footed so, honestly, there's not really a REASON to have the Stealth check situation unless the rogue is trying to get a surprise round in.
Stealth is a HIGHLY situational skill, and it's one that really requires the GM to make decisions and arbitrate at times. The other option: providing tables of situation what-if scenarios with rules for each, is not attractive at all.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We have updated the PDF of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook.
The PDF now incorporates errata to correspond to the third printing of the hardcover.
Errata to the previous printings have also been released as separate PDFs on the Pathfinder RPG Resources Page.
To verify the version you have, please view the credits page. If the bottom of the page reads 'Third Printing, April 2010', you already have the most recent version.
Those of you who have access to the PDF may download the updated version for free here. (If the file shows that it has already been personalized, you'll need to repersonalize it before you can download the new version.)
Also, paizo.com orders for the Core Rulebook are now being fulfilled with copies from the third printing.
[...]Vital Strike being a standard action or an option that can be added to another attack is still up for debate.[...]
Non it not really. It's an attack action. An attack action = Standard action.
VS and charge, no. VS and spring attack, perhaps.This is more of a FAQ.
I agree it's sad/frustrating that the errata didn't clarify more issues.
Especially
- the DC on craft magic items,
- Polymorph and shield bonus while Wild Shaped.
- spring attack. What kind of action is it?
- SPA, can they be dispelled and counterspelled as normal?
There are much more. The errata feels rushed thru.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
[...]Vital Strike being a standard action or an option that can be added to another attack is still up for debate.[...]Non it not really. It's an attack action. An attack action = Standard action.
VS and charge, no. VS and spring attack, perhaps.
This is more of a FAQ.
I agree it's sad/frustrating that the errata didn't clarify more issues.
Especially
- the DC on craft magic items,
- Polymorph and shield bonus while Wild Shaped.
- spring attack. What kind of action is it?
- SPA, can they be dispelled and counterspelled as normal?There are much more. The errata feels rushed thru.
James said it(Vital Strike) could work with spring attack then recanted, then said it could. I agree with him 90+% of the time, but I want the answer in an errata document. It felt rushed to me too, but of course they were being rushed by a lot of posters. I don't know if that had anything to do with it or not.
SLA's can be dispelled. The only dispute was could they be counterspelled.
I had forgotten about the DC on craft magic items. Most of the things that got covered were things I did not really care about or see as an issue. I wish this site had polls. That way we would have more say at what got looked at. Maybe they will put another one out right after Gencon.
Can we close this forum thread out and start fresh?
450+ messages that have already been answered is a lot to dig through.
Whether a new thread is started or not, I should point out that only a minority of the "bugs" reported in this thread have been fixed in the latest round of errata. So saying that everything in this thread has "already been answered" is not correct.
Then there needs to be some master list of issues/bugs, otherwise you'll never know if you've fixed them all in a thread this size.
Programs used to track software bugs could be used to this effect.
I agree that this thread is a very poor way of keeping track of bugs, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for something better. :-)
Whether a new thread is started or not, I should point out that only a minority of the "bugs" reported in this thread have been fixed in the latest round of errata. So saying that everything in this thread has "already been answered" is not correct.Can we close this forum thread out and start fresh?
450+ messages that have already been answered is a lot to dig through.Then there needs to be some master list of issues/bugs, otherwise you'll never know if you've fixed them all in a thread this size.
Programs used to track software bugs could be used to this effect.
It's only 10 pages. I think an intern could run through 10 pages in less than an 8 hour work day. Once the list is compiled Jason can classify the "bugs" as
A. not a bug-player needs to understand the system betterB. FAQ worthy, but not errata worthy-He can answer the question in a sticky since FAQ's explain things instead of change them.
C. Errata worthy-Put them in the next printing.
Whether a new thread is started or not, I should point out that only a minority of the "bugs" reported in this thread have been fixed in the latest round of errata. So saying that everything in this thread has "already been answered" is not correct.Can we close this forum thread out and start fresh?
450+ messages that have already been answered is a lot to dig through.
For example, the very first post of this thread (here) says:
page 23:
"Defensive Training: Gnomes get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant type."It should read 'giant subtype', like in the Dwarf entry.
but the Gnome entry on page 23 is (sadly) still the same...
Whether a new thread is started or not, I should point out that only a minority of the "bugs" reported in this thread have been fixed in the latest round of errata. So saying that everything in this thread has "already been answered" is not correct.Can we close this forum thread out and start fresh?
450+ messages that have already been answered is a lot to dig through.
+1
Given that maybe only 10% of the errata identified in this thread was amended... I'm almost curious as to whether they even consulted this thread. (I know they must have, considering the amount of Paizo staff posts in this thread, but I'm just in shock still at how long we waited for so little errata.)
This has annoyed me enough that I plan to take the time to condense all this thread's errata into one post and show what was and wasn't addressed. Perhaps, some is not errata and only "rules confusion" that a Paizo staff member could then provide clarity on.
Whether a new thread is started or not, I should point out that only a minority of the "bugs" reported in this thread have been fixed in the latest round of errata. So saying that everything in this thread has "already been answered" is not correct.Can we close this forum thread out and start fresh?
450+ messages that have already been answered is a lot to dig through.+1
Given that maybe only 10% of the errata identified in this thread was amended... I'm almost curious as to whether they even consulted this thread. (I know they must have, considering the amount of Paizo staff posts in this thread, but I'm just in shock still at how long we waited for so little errata.)
This has annoyed me enough that I plan to take the time to condense all this thread's errata into one post and show what was and wasn't addressed. Perhaps, some is not errata and only "rules confusion" that a Paizo staff member could then provide clarity on.
If they come up with an FAQ soon that might help for a while, but if not I won't be happy with the 2 pages of stuff I did not need.
This has annoyed me enough that I plan to take the time to condense all this thread's errata into one post and show what was and wasn't addressed. Perhaps, some is not errata and only "rules confusion" that a Paizo staff member could then provide clarity on.
Reading my mind, Kor. I'll start keeping my own errata / FAQ from here on out.
|
Creative Director
|
Given that maybe only 10% of the errata identified in this thread was amended... I'm almost curious as to whether they even consulted this thread. (I know they must have, considering the amount of Paizo staff posts in this thread, but I'm just in shock still at how long we waited for so little errata.)
This has annoyed me enough that I plan to take the time to condense all this thread's errata into one post and show what was and wasn't addressed. Perhaps, some is not errata and only "rules confusion" that a Paizo staff member could then provide clarity on.
Please do. I'm 100% sure our errata compilation process could use refinement.
As for how long it's taken to get the errata out... I'm not satisfied with that either and I hope we'll be able to do a better job in the future... but there area a lot of hidden factors at play that make getting regular errata updates out simply not possible at this time. We'll be working on making the procedure work more smoothly, but it's not going to happen overnight.
We ARE working on a FAQ though, and hopefully we'll have that up and running soon. I know it gets tiresome just hearing me say something like this over and over, and it gets tiresome for me not being able to say more... but again, there's a lot going on behind the scenes that makes stuff like this more complicated that it would seem.
We ARE working on a FAQ though, and hopefully we'll have that up and running soon. I know it gets tiresome just hearing me say something like this over and over, and it gets tiresome for me not being able to say more... but again, there's a lot going on behind the scenes that makes stuff like this more complicated that it would seem.
Will it be out before or right after Gencon?
Please do. I'm 100% sure our errata compilation process could use refinement.
I'm hoping my amalgamation of the errata will show some of the noticable oversights -- such as the following info that I posted about 1 year ago on this thread:
Page 37
Suggestion
Major error: "Making a suggestion does not count against a bard's daily use of bardic performance".
Daily uses were scrapped in the final release -- this appears to be some left over Beta babble.
Please do. I'm 100% sure our errata compilation process could use refinement.This has annoyed me enough that I plan to take the time to condense all this thread's errata into one post and show what was and wasn't addressed. Perhaps, some is not errata and only "rules confusion" that a Paizo staff member could then provide clarity on.
How about a specific errata subforum for each core book? Inside the subforum, each problem has its own thread, instead of trying to put it all in one long thread.
So inside the Paizo Products subforum would be another subforum called "Paizo Product Errata".
Inside that would be a subforum for each book the staff feels will need errata.
Like this:
Paizo Products
--Paizo Product Errata
----Pathfinder Core Book 3rd Printing Errata
----Pathfinder Bestiary 2nd Printing Errata
Here's how I imagine it would work:
1. Each thread a user creates is a report of a single item. This allows comments on a problem to be isolated to a specific thread and not be mixed in with other reported problems.
2. The title of the thread cites the problem. That way the forum's list of threads acts as a list of every problem reported. This would allow someone to scan the list of reports and see if the problem they found has already been mentioned. The list of reports could probably also be exported and used as a checklist by the authors of the errata.
3. Each report follows a specific format for easy reading and referencing. Reports that don't match that format can be flagged and then fixed or deleted. (I favor deletion: Learn the rules or lose the post.)
EXAMPLE FORMAT
Part One: Thread Titles
Thread titles use the following format:
Pg. ### - Subject of Problem
Example:
Pg. 37 - Bard's Suggestion Ability
Part Two: Thread Body
The reported problem uses the following format:
Pg. ### - Subject of Problem (repeats the thread title)
Problem Text: Quoted Text
Description of Problem:
Suggested Solution:
Examples:
Pg. 37 - Bard's Suggestion Ability
Problem Text: "Making a suggestion does not count against a bard's daily use of bardic performance."
Description of Problem: Bards do not have daily uses in Pathfinder. This appears to be a remnant from the Beta draft of the rules.
Suggested Solution: Remove reference to the daily performance limit.
Pg. 23 - Gnome Defensive Training
Problem Text: "Defensive Training: Gnomes get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant type."
Description of Problem: "Giant" is a subtype, not a type.
Suggested Solution: Change text to read:
"Defensive Training: Gnomes get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype."
Pgs. 112, 548 - Item Creation DCs
Problem Text (pg. 112): "Successfully creating a magic item requires a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to 10 + the item’s caster level."
Problem Text (pg. 548): "The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item."
Description of Problem: Item creation DCs don't match.
Suggested Solution: Edit incorrect number to reflect correct DC.
If possible, when it comes time to create the next errata, the lucky fellow doing it could be given the ability to lock a thread and move it to a subforum called "Added to Errata" so the reporter would know the issue has been seen and addressed.
Thoughts?
How about a specific errata subforum for each core book? Inside the subforum, each problem has its own thread, instead of trying to put it all in one long thread.
So inside the Paizo Products subforum would be another subforum called "Paizo Product Errata".
Inside that would be a subforum for each book the staff feels will need errata.
Like this:
Paizo Products
--Paizo Product Errata
----Pathfinder Core Book 3rd Printing Errata
----Pathfinder Bestiary 2nd Printing Errata
This is a darn fine idea!
(Although I have already compiled the first 150 posts of errata into a an Excel Spreadsheet that formats it all for posting into the forum.)
Can you put that spreadsheet on Google docs?
(Although I have already compiled the first 150 posts of errata into a an Excel Spreadsheet that formats it all for posting into the forum.)
I actually experimented with it last night (I'm not really familiar with google docs). I was trying to figure out how to make it viewable by anyone. I see the "share" option, but near as I can tell, I have to type in individual e-mail addresses. Plus it looks like, only other google mail users can look at it? If there is a way to make this publicly viewable to anyone, please let me know. Thanks.
|
Can you put that spreadsheet on Google docs?
(Although I have already compiled the first 150 posts of errata into a an Excel Spreadsheet that formats it all for posting into the forum.)
I actually experimented with it last night (I'm not really familiar with google docs). I was trying to figure out how to make it viewable by anyone. I see the "share" option, but near as I can tell, I have to type in individual e-mail addresses. Plus it looks like, only other google mail users can look at it? If there is a way to make this publicly viewable to anyone, please let me know. Thanks.
In the upper right hand corner is a 'publish' button. If you then select 'publish as webpage' This should give you a URL to copy/paste (there should also be a checkbox asking if you want to automatically republish on edit, I'd select yes, so that anyone who has it bookmarked will see changes you make automatically next time they log in
|
Pathfinder Chronicler still uses Bardic Music (and daily Uses for Bardic Music with Epic Tales)...
I know what a tedious kind of work collecting errata is (I have done it for the German Core Rulebook). It is best to appointed someone, and he does a general daily check of the boards and fills an errata table to be analyzed later by the developing team. I have done this on three different boards (even collected some German errata here on the Paizo boards).
I have to say I´m very disappointed with this errata.
Tons of issues which seem 100% clear in need of Errata
(Spring Attack has no action type, Gnome ability vs. Giant TYPE which doesn`t exist anymore, Avalanche not telling you if it is possible of how to dig one´s self or one´s allies out, as Cave-In DOES say) have been posted here FOREVER, and most include practically all the information necessary for an Intern to open the Word file and edit the rules text to what they should be.
Right after the 1st printing, I posted asking what guidelines Paizo would have for qualifying /acting upon Errata issues but received no response... to which I scaled back my postings of these issues, until after a while I saw others posting and thougth I could help to improve the game by posting these issues. It appears this has been a waste of time. I wish Paizo wantd to make the game as well written as I would want a game to introduce to new players, where inexcusably bad wording isn`t accepted and maximal clarity to non-rules experts is the design goal. I don`t see that unfortunately, even on rules issues Paizo staff have commented on extensively.
The most productive thing at this time would seem to be to release an OGL re-working of the Pathfinder rules, but actually edited for errata and clear wording. I don`t know if I have time for that now myself, and it could create headaches whenever Paizo does release these Errata updates, but it would be something I wouldn`t cringe at when I read or give to newbies to learn the game.
I have to say I´m very disappointed with this errata.
I had composed a lengthy post along much the same lines but instead of hitting the "Submit Post" button I hit the "Cancel" button after I decided... "why bother"
I had composed a lengthy post along much the same lines but instead of hitting the "Submit Post" button I hit the "Cancel" button after I decided... "why bother"I have to say I´m very disappointed with this errata.
Yeah, like I said, I already gave up once because there was no responce for the longest time that anything would come of errata I reported. To me, it seems clear that Paizo's time has gone towards the APG rather than putting the work needed into fixing the Core Rules... which seems like it was rushed to make GenCon in the first place. .... /shrug
The most productive thing at this time would seem to be to release an OGL re-working of the Pathfinder rules, but actually edited for errata and clear wording. I don`t know if I have time for that now myself, and it could create headaches whenever Paizo does release these Errata updates, but it would be something I wouldn`t cringe at when I read or give to newbies to learn the game.
I've also mentioned a desire to do this in the past. If there are others out there with the same desire/inclination I'd be more than happy to work with you to accomplish something like this. I'm extremely frustrated by the lack of any real errata or faq process with Paizo and would be more than happy to help develop or support something as you describe. Anyone interested in doing so can contact me offline at jreyst@gmail.com.
And I also agree that it appears Paizo's focus is clearly on getting new product out the door and not adequately supporting existing "core" product. I'm basically at a breaking point now.
I know we'll likely get a new post from someone at Paizo shortly explaining how frustrated they are also by this process but after the 77th time hearing that and how its going to get better and that there are mysterious things behind the scenes preventing improvement blah blah blah it just gets old. Sorry, but it does.
Paizo, keep yourselves on schedule and figure out the errata along the way. I'm not extraordinarily happy with the errata, but I also don't think a lack of it is that detrimental to my game. I do not believe that the majority of the "errata" noted on this thread has any effect on any game I will ever be in.
If people really believe that everything on this thread needs to be covered in errata, they should just take up the offer to start building their own. That way they don't have to continue complaining everyday whenever errata doesn't meet their expectation, they can have their own errata just the way they want it.
|
While I had just written a semi-angry post about the errata, I hit cancel after seeing Gorbacz's message. While I think that the eratta process (and the non-existant FAQ) is the single largest glaring issue with Pathfinder right now, I'm going to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt and just say: "This needs to improve."
That being said, I really hope the process gets better soon. If that means a slower schedule of getting books out, as a buyer I think that's ok.
Paizo, keep yourselves on schedule and figure out the errata along the way. I'm not extraordinarily happy with the errata, but I also don't think a lack of it is that detrimental to my game. I do not believe that the majority of the "errata" noted on this thread has any effect on any game I will ever be in.
If people really believe that everything on this thread needs to be covered in errata, they should just take up the offer to start building their own. That way they don't have to continue complaining everyday whenever errata doesn't meet their expectation, they can have their own errata just the way they want it.
The problem with that is nobody will want to accept it, and we won't all have the same rules. If Bill from California, Ted from Arkansas, and Tim from N.Y. play they should not have to have a debate on how the rules are supposed to work. I have my own rules, and I am sure others do to until the errata is out, but I would rather do things as intended.
If I(We) really had time to make up all my own rules I could make my own game, and I would not be paying Paizo to do it for me. I do think a lot of the stuff can go into the FAQ that will come out later. Some of it can probably be covered by us. I would like to see the list so we can go to the rules section and hammer it out. Anything that is really unclear would be handled by the professionals.
|
Take a chill pill guys. Paizo is against having an errata independent of printings - it has it's good sides (there is no "my PDF says X, your PDF says A, my book says Y, your PRD printout says Z, the errata says B, oh wait which errata is it ?" problem), and bad sides (infrequent errating). Gotta live with that.
Now, Paizo is a small company that needs to swim to survive, swimming means releasing new products on time and releasing the GenCon products on time, else they will tank it and there will be no 4th printings. It's the bloody gaming industry, one of least profitable entertainment industries in existence. If you have a backlog and need to clear it ASAP in order to have the APG at GenCon, I would personally go damn the torpedoes and put the errata on priority B or C. Even if it means that the players have no idea how to dig out of avalanches.
Take a chill pill guys. Paizo is against having an errata independent of printings - it has it's good sides (there is no "my PDF says X, your PDF says A, my book says Y, your PRD printout says Z, the errata says B, oh wait which errata is it ?" problem), and bad sides (infrequent errating). Gotta live with that.
Now, Paizo is a small company that needs to swim to survive, swimming means releasing new products on time and releasing the GenCon products on time, else they will tank it and there will be no 4th printings. It's the bloody gaming industry, one of least profitable entertainment industries in existence. If you have a backlog and need to clear it ASAP in order to have the APG at GenCon, I would personally go damn the torpedoes and put the errata on priority B or C. Even if it means that the players have no idea how to dig out of avalanches.
Agreed 100%.
|
Creative Director
|
As I mention above... we KNOW our errata process can improve, and we KNOW that we need to get a FAQ up. We're doing the best we can to solve those issues, but since at the same time we have to keep to our print schedule and handle countless other equally important (or, in the case of getting product to print, MORE important) tasks, errata and FAQs simply can't happen in the blink of an eye.
The most productive thing at this time would seem to be to release an OGL re-working of the Pathfinder rules, but actually edited for errata and clear wording. I don`t know if I have time for that now myself, and it could create headaches whenever Paizo does release these Errata updates, but it would be something I wouldn`t cringe at when I read or give to newbies to learn the game.I've also mentioned a desire to do this in the past. If there are others out there with the same desire/inclination I'd be more than happy to work with you to accomplish something like this. I'm extremely frustrated by the lack of any real errata or faq process with Paizo and would be more than happy to help develop or support something as you describe. Anyone interested in doing so can contact me offline at jreyst@gmail.com.
Currently, in the errata list I am compiling, I have also included a "Status" line, to reflect if the issue is still outstanding. Hopefully between Paizo forum posts, and future FAQ and errata, all the status indicators will be changed to "resolved". I plan to post the revised errata list monthly in the forum, however I will be maintaining a live Google Doc's version. Once I have everything all set up, I may hand off the project to someone else, as I am still keeping busy with developing my character generator... and somewhere in between trying to finish my orc story :)