If you share the Google Doc I would be happy to embed that Doc in a page on d20pfsrd.com for ease of future reference. If you were to invite "d20pfsrdcom-collaborators@googlegroups.com" as editor on the spreadsheet then all (100+) collaborators on d20pfsrd.com could also help maintain that spreadsheet. Up to you if you want to though.
If you share the Google Doc I would be happy to embed that Doc in a page on d20pfsrd.com for ease of future reference. If you were to invite "d20pfsrdcom-collaborators@googlegroups.com" as editor on the spreadsheet then all (100+) collaborators on d20pfsrd.com could also help maintain that spreadsheet. Up to you if you want to though.
Here is the current link. I only have about one third of the errata posts so far. I have this indexed by page number. Please let me know if there are any problems accessing / viewing the document:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tk4HudT76te3GZxokw25g4w&output=h tml
This errata includes typos, errors, and rules that require clarification. (I have not included "out of alphabetical order" errors -- there's a lot of these and I think they are outside of the scope of improving the book at this time).
Please let me know if there are any problems accessing / viewing the document:
Just letting you know I did NOT have any problems viewing the document. And it looks rather clear, if a bit longer than I expected.
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 :)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com handles the FAQ's and errata compilation pretty well. I would give it to them.
f 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.
Except the part where Paizo staff has been saying ¨don`t worry the substantive errata update will be out soon... soon...¨
I don`t see how anybody would deny that that builds certain expectations.I definitely get what you´re saying, and don´t deny it has major relevance to the situation here, but by all signs, it would seem that PRPG has been way more of a success than Paizo planned/anticipated. Meaning it is bringing in more money than they could have planned/anticipated. I don`t know if they were planning on putting out the APG by the next Gen-Con before they even started the process, but if the Core product is this successful, it should be able to carry the planned sales (which fund editing staff) for a supplementary product to a less successful RPG (as could be expected if APG was pre-planned at all and not just a reaction to PRPG`s success). The idea that making your product more better and more perfect might benefit it`s sales being tangentially relevant.
Given that, and PRPG`s success, I don`t see why resources couldn`t be devoted to putting out an actually quality product. It seems to me part of the problem was the original editing process, way too rushed squeezing it in before GenCon, and I didn`t get the impression there was a standard Editor-Writer setup with the Editor with full discretion to change passages to fit the Editing guidelines, as opposed to working in type-O fixes according to the writer`s perspective (which brought us things like how Vital Strike was presented).
I also don`t like the attitude that ¨it was like that in 3.5 so don`t complain¨. Obviously the structural design of the game isn`t diverging too much (BW-compatability is a major design goal) but I get the feeling that way too much of the book was basically a ¨dumb¨ transcription of the 3.5 SRD or a mere re-phrasing without a thought as to how the BEST way to phrase things would be, much less connecting the dots as to what 3.5 overlooked. If you`re going to overlook such basic things as digging out of avalanches, why bother describing the mechanics of how they happen in the first place? Any competent GM could ¨freestyle¨ an avalanche scene, and that`s it - saves wordcount while you`re at it, which was often mentioned by Paizo staff.
The thing mentioned about page references (i.e. holding page references as holy so subjects can never shift page #) seems easily solved, either thru a simple straight-thru process at the end of every edit, search vs. ¨page XXX¨ pattern in one pane and flipping to that page to check the reference, fixing the page referece if the subject shifted (obviously, a page or 2 backward or forward). Or mark all the edits (only visible to editors/writers) and wherever word count is added, word count has to be reduced ahead of that section (or else the ¨fat¨ contingent edit must be reverted/shortened). Believe me, there is so much fat that could be cut it is silly - I submitted cases where nearly whole sentences are repeated half a sentence later.
If anyboy is totally happy with the latest Errata/rules as-is, that`s great for you, I guess... I was looking forward to this printing from all the urging from Paizo that ¨this would be the one¨ that fixes all the problems, and planning on buying another copy just for myself. I don`t see that happening at this point, unfortunately for me and Paizo`s accounts.
Creative Director
|
[If anyboy is totally happy with the latest Errata/rules as-is, that`s great for you, I guess... I was looking forward to this printing from all the urging from Paizo that ¨this would be the one¨ that fixes all the problems, and planning on buying another copy just for myself. I don`t see that happening at this point, unfortunately for me and Paizo`s accounts.
If folks want more or think we dropped the ball on this latest round of errata... posting on these boards is a great way to let us know.
At the very least, I know that some folks are disappointed with the errata for various reasons, and I've already let Erik Mona know. It's obvious to me that our current method of issuing and handling and tracking errata isn't perfect and that there's room for improvement. Message heard, and I'll do what I can to continue to improve how we handle this in the future.
That said... this is an enormous book. It's irresponsible to claim that we'll ever be able to "fix all the problems." But it's equally irresponsible for us to maintain that the game is unplayable as-is. It's NOT unplayable, and it's frustrating to constantly battle the perception that Paizo's handling of errata to this date has left folks without a game to play.
If folks want more or think we dropped the ball on this latest round of errata... posting on these boards is a great way to let us know.
At the very least, I know that some folks are disappointed with the errata for various reasons, and I've already let Erik Mona know. It's obvious to me that our current method of issuing and handling and tracking errata isn't perfect and that there's room for improvement. Message heard, and I'll do what I can to continue to improve how we handle this in the future.
That said... this is an enormous book. It's irresponsible to claim that we'll ever be able to "fix all the problems." But it's equally irresponsible for us to maintain that the game is unplayable as-is. It's NOT unplayable, and it's frustrating to constantly battle the perception that Paizo's handling of errata to this date has left folks without a game to play.
We definitely appreciate that you understand our concerns. Having waited so long for so few errata (and having glaring ones still existing, like the Beta references in the Pathfinder Chronicler) has been quite disappointing. (I was also hoping to see the monthly "what damage bonuses does vital strike include" forum queries vanish). Hopefully the list of errata I am compiling may not only demonstrate the need for additional errata, but also motivate someone to prioritize it.
Sadly, I was planning to pick up the revised edition for Gencon -- but so little has changed that it is not worth the re-investment at this time. (I thought the 3rd edition release was going to be "conveniently" timed with Gencon.) I am curious as to how many other sales Paizo may have missed out on by not doing a thorough update though.
|
Creative Director
|
Sadly, I was planning to pick up the revised edition for Gencon. (I thought the 3rd edition release was going to be "conveniently" timed with Gencon.) I am curious as to how many other sales Paizo may have missed out on by not doing a thorough update though.
While I understand the need some folks have for "correct" editions with all the errata... I'm pretty sure that's a relatively small subset of the whole. I would certainly be curious to find out how many sales we've missed by folks waiting for an error-free book to be available, but I'm pretty sure that number would be relatively infinitesimal compared to the rather enormous number of books we HAVE sold.
The demand for errata free books is not as overwhelming as the internet might suggest, in other words.
And waiting for an error-free book, to me, means waiting for a unicorn. Simply put, there's no such thing as an error-free RPG book. EVERY RPG book has errors, simply because of the fact that the industry can't support the extensive proofing and editing cycles, say, that a college textbook has. And guess what? College text books have errors in them too.
We can strive for perfection, but the realist in me knows that we'll never get there. No previous edition of the game has been error free, so it just seems unrealistic to hold out for the unicorn when a perfectly healthy horse will still carry you to where you're going.
If folks want more or think we dropped the ball on this latest round of errata... posting on these boards is a great way to let us know.At the very least, I know that some folks are disappointed with the errata for various reasons, and I've already let Erik Mona know. It's obvious to me that our current method of issuing and handling and tracking errata isn't perfect and that there's room for improvement. Message heard, and I'll do what I can to continue to improve how we handle this in the future.
I guess my question is: How was the errata handled? What was the process?
If folks want more or think we dropped the ball on this latest round of errata... posting on these boards is a great way to let us know.
Ok. What I'd like to know is this:
Did you guys read the errata threads and decide that what has not been fixed in the latest round of errata is not truly errata and/or does not warrant a fix? Users like Quandary and many others have gone far out of their way to take their own, unpaid, time and effort, to post chapter, paragraph, sentence, and word, where something is clearly a mistake. AND they even go on to explain why it is an error, and in some cases offer suggested fixes. You guys are certainly free to fix these things in some other way, or simply to state that "this is not an issue we intend to fix" or EVEN, "yes, we know this is an issue, and it is on out list of things to fix in another round of errata" but not "Here is the errata for the 3rd printing of the book" and leave it at that... as if that's all that is wrong with the book.
That said... this is an enormous book.
Sure. But I highly doubt Boeing could get away with loose wing flaps on a jet by saying "But it's so BIG! Sorry!" No, people pay money for a product and don't want to hear excuses. Sorry, maybe that's rude, but its the truth. This is a strange relationship where the customer finds errors, reports them to the manufacturer, provides suggested fixes, all on their own, and then is made to feel guilty asking for a quality product.
It's NOT unplayable, and it's frustrating to constantly battle the perception that Paizo's handling of errata to this date has left folks without a game to play.
I have heard you say this repeatedly... that people are claiming its unplayable. I don't know who's said that but I don't recall hearing it lately. Maybe it was said a while ago and I missed it. The point though is that sure its playable. I could play it without any books or dice too if I wanted. I could make it all up. I could fudge everything. This is afterall just a game of "pretend your an elf" but constantly hearing out its not unplayable is irritating. It's like saying "yes we know we shipped a car with a chipped windshield, wobbly tires, a re-manufactured engine with left over parts from the previous model year, torn seats, and no clear way to open the trunk... but its not like its UNDRIVABLE!!!"
Come on. You act like us wanting a quality product is asking for perfection. All we are asking for is that if someone else is going to do the work of identifying the problem and reporting the problem, that you acknowledge the problem and then fix the problem. If you don't believe it is a problem, then tell us "we don't see that as an error and do not plan to correct it."
I don't think that's being unreasonable.
While I understand the need some folks have for "correct" editions with all the errata... I'm pretty sure that's a relatively small subset of the whole. I would certainly be curious to find out how many sales we've missed by folks waiting for an error-free book to be available, but I'm pretty sure that number would be relatively infinitesimal compared to the rather enormous number of books we HAVE sold.
You're right. There are so few of us who want a quality product you can feel free to ignore us.
The demand for errata free books is not as overwhelming as the internet might suggest, in other words.
Once again, you're right. Those few of us who are asking for the already reported errata to fixed or at least responded to are probably a severe minority and you can feel free to ignore us.
And waiting for an error-free book, to me, means waiting for a unicorn.
Again you suggest that we are all dancing around asking for perfection. That's absurd. We've already done half of your job for you, which is proof-reading your product for you, for free, after paying for the product, and then telling you where the mistakes are. No one expects 100% error-free but for criminy sake, if someone is going to tell you were the errors are either fix them or tell us you don't see them as errors worth fixing. Right now its in some vague place where we're not even sure if you accept that the errors reported by Quandary and others are even errors worth your time or that you will ever fix. No one wants a unicorn, we just want you to kill the few ticks we pointed out on the horse that we already bought and paid for.
Simply put, there's no such thing as an error-free RPG book. EVERY RPG book has errors, simply because of the fact that the industry can't support the extensive proofing and editing cycles, say, that a college textbook has.
Guess what? College text books don't have legions of forgiving fans who proof read the books after they buy them then contact the publisher on their own time offering pointers to specific things that are incorrect as well as suggestions on how to fix the errors. College text books don't have fans who thank the publishers for errors. College text book publishers don't go around saying "Yeah we know its not perfect but gosh its a big book! What do you want, a unicorn???" That's rather insulting.
We can strive for perfection, but the realist in me knows that we'll never get there. No previous edition of the game has been error free, so it just seems unrealistic to hold out for the unicorn when a perfectly healthy horse will still carry you to where you're going.
Again with the suggestion that we will only accept perfection. That's silly. No one is asking for perfection.
Here is the current link. I only have about one third of the errata posts so far. I have this indexed by page number. Please let me know if there are any problems accessing / viewing the document:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tk4HudT76te3GZxokw25g4w&output=h tml
This errata includes typos, errors, and rules that require clarification. (I have not included "out of alphabetical order" errors -- there's a lot of these and I think they are outside of the scope of improving the book at this time).
I'm about 80% done. I'm hoping to have it completed by tomorrow.
The spreadsheet is now available on d20pfsrd.com at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/unofficial-errata-db
Some requests to Kor:
1) Could you add a "Date Reported" column?
2) Could you add a "Paizo Comment" column? Then if someone from Paizo states that 'not a bug' it can be updated with their response etc.
If you are interested, I (or you) could make a simple Google Form front-end to that DB so that you (or whomever you allow to edit the spreadsheet) can add items from a form interface. Up to you though.
And to Kor and Quandary (and anyone else really), if you are ever interested in forking the PF codebase, I'm ready and willing to assist with a complete snapshot of d20pfsrd.com to begin from. Its as easy as saying "lets do it" :)
... I know that some folks are disappointed with the errata for various reasons, and I've already let Erik Mona know. It's obvious to me that our current method of issuing and handling and tracking errata isn't perfect and that there's room for improvement. Message heard, and I'll do what I can to continue to improve how we handle this in the future.
There were folks who wanted a clearly defined errata submission process long before now. After two rounds of errata, Paizo is still in the weeds. Additional hardbacks due in the coming months will compound the problem.
That said... this is an enormous book. It's irresponsible to claim that we'll ever be able to "fix all the problems." But it's equally irresponsible for us to maintain that the game is unplayable as-is. It's NOT unplayable, and it's frustrating to constantly battle the perception that Paizo's handling of errata to this date has left folks without a game to play.
I have yet to see anyone claim that Pathfinder is unplayable. When Paizo decided to fork the SRD, they took on a game system to maintain. Official rulings on errata and unclear rules are a part of that. That's part of your responsibilities now.
Another request to Kor:
Perhaps a column indicating when/where the item is fixed? Like "Corrected in Errata for 3rd Printing of Core Rulebook, May 2010" or something. That way, as items are corrected in the future we/you can indicate when/where the correction was made.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Here is the current link. I only have about one third of the errata posts so far. I have this indexed by page number. Please let me know if there are any problems accessing / viewing the document:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tk4HudT76te3GZxokw25g4w&output=h tml
This errata includes typos, errors, and rules that require clarification. (I have not included "out of alphabetical order" errors -- there's a lot of these and I think they are outside of the scope of improving the book at this time).
I'm about 80% done. I'm hoping to have it completed by tomorrow.
Great work Kor.
Will you add:- Bardic performance
Page 35
Changing a bardic performance from one effect
to another requires the bard to stop the previous
performance and start a new one as a standard action.
Page 36
At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a
move action instead of a standard action. At 13th level, a
bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action.
But we got the answer that changing a bardic performance and starting a bardic performance takes the same amount of time. So page 36 should read:
At 7th level, a bard can start or change a bardic performance as a
move action instead of a standard action. At 13th level, a
bard can start or change a bardic performance as a swift action.
and will you add the stuff on:
- the DC on craft magic items. Is it 5+cl or 10+cl? There are two rulings in the book.
- Polymorph and shield bonus while Wild Shaped. Yes or now?
- spring attack. What kind of action is it?
- SPA, can they be dispelled and counterspelled as normal? There are two rulings in the book.
stuff
+1
James you shouldn't take the heat that is meant for Jasons.He said he was going to check out the thread. If he wanted some help he could have asked and got it for free.
People are helping you for free, just look at Kor.
You been saying you can't get the FAQ out because all of your projects.
That's, fine. But now when we get the errata it's really thin. Not much work has been done on the errata...some take it as an insult.
And your answers isn't helping.
My advice, back of and let Jason take the heat.
I hope people keep reporting this stuff. Perhaps this spreadsheet might even help Paizo in some way.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
I don't know if this has been reported yet,
but alot of the Class Abilities like for Sorceror Bloodline '1st level attack powers' are listed as Spell-Like, but don't have any specific spell they're based on. The rules for SLA's seem to assume any SLA is based on a normal spell somehow... Since SLA's otherwise function as a spell being cast, like provoking and needing a Concentration check, not having a source for a Spell Level is a pretty signifigant issue. Either all these SLA's need to be given a reference spell or spell level, be converted to Supernatural Abilities (which don't provoke/ need Concentration), or there at least needs to be some standard way to 'derive' a Spell Level for these things, so people know what to do with the Concentration checks that they are supposed to use.
Same problem with the Cleric's domain powers and with the Wizard's School powers.
|
I have yet to see anyone claim that Pathfinder is unplayable.
I'm not sure the word unplayable was used but there was just 2 posts ago a reference to a deadly flaw in an aircraft design and an automobile which no-one would drive/ buy.
Comparing it to unusable and dangerous products certainly implies the product is unplayable.
But I highly doubt Boeing could get away with loose wing flaps on a jet by saying "But it's so BIG! Sorry!"
...
It's like saying "yes we know we shipped a car with a chipped windshield, wobbly tires, a re-manufactured engine with left over parts from the previous model year, torn seats, and no clear way to open the trunk... but its not like its UNDRIVABLE!!!"
So when James' reply talks about folks saying the game is unplayable he's probably reacting posts like this which compare the game to unflyable aircraft, not the responses with more reasonable tone.
I hope people keep reporting this stuff. Perhaps this spreadsheet might even help Paizo in some way.
That's why Kor is doing it. I don't understand why Pazio don't use their fan base more.
|
Maybe because community-driven efforts result in products full of mistakes, contradictions and design decisions influenced by somebody's own vision of how things should be. :-)
I'm pretty much sure that the "community errata list" will end up with errors that are not errors, errata that is FAQ, and with some mighty flamewar on whether the third sentence on page 322 is an error, design decision or somebody just fails at semantics.
There is a reason why science books don't have an open playtest/errata process, you know.
TL;DR - I prefer Paizo to spend their time on making new books instead of poring over this thread.
stuff
The general tone in this thread has been sane and the thread aims to be constructive. Jason himself has popped in and said it's a good thread and that we should keep it up.
If most people in this thread has a friendly tone or at least a non-hostile tone and if most people try to help, answers like the ones James been giving will upset some folks. Especially when you look at the poor errata that we all been waiting for AND working for.
I'm pretty much sure that the "community errata list" will end up with errors that are not errors, errata that is FAQ, and with some mighty flamewar on whether the third sentence on page 322 is an error, design decision or somebody just fails at semantics.
Before you post this kind of stuff you should check out the list. There are obvious errata.
And some stuff like "how does Spring attack and Vital strike function" might be FAQ stuff. As for Vital Strike Jason said it was going to be fixed. It hasn't been.BTW the new errata contains a new version of the smite. Hey that's not errata, but it has been designed as an errata.
|
|
stuffThe general tone in this thread has been sane and the thread aims to be constructive. Jason himself has popped in and said it's a good thread and that we should keep it up.
If most people in this thread has a friendly tone or at least a non-hostile tone and if most people try to help, answers like the ones James been giving will upset some folks. Especially when you look at the poor errata that we all been waiting for AND working for.
I agree and I've been staying clear because I respect people's opinions about the issue and agree to a lesser extend. I just wanted to point out that there is an undercurrent that suggests there is something seriously broken with the game system and that's what James was replying to. Joe and John were both saying "No one is saying that!" when in fact that is exactly what has been implied.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the game being compared to a fatal flaw in an aircraft... *shrug* It seems pretty clear to me that the implication is it's an unworkable product.
|
|
Maybe because community-driven efforts result in products full of mistakes, contradictions and design decisions influenced by somebody's own vision of how things should be. :-)
I'm pretty much sure that the "community errata list" will end up with errors that are not errors, errata that is FAQ, and with some mighty flamewar on whether the third sentence on page 322 is an error, design decision or somebody just fails at semantics.
The FAQ I've seen on the D20 site is done well, the items reference back to the original source and are well documented so you can see exactly what is going on.
Edit: Link for reference
There is a reason why science books don't have an open playtest/errata process, you know.
Erm... it's sort of the wrong product/ company to be making this statement with because much of PFRPG and the APG is the product of open playtesting and community feedback.
|
|
There is a reason why science books don't have an open playtest/errata process, you know.Erm... it's sort of the wrong product/ company to be making this statement with because much of PFRPG and the APG is the product of open playtesting and community feedback.
"Hey guys, here are our ideas. PEACH !" =/= "Hey guys, care to check if we got any typos ?"
|
|
I'm pretty much sure that the "community errata list" will end up with errors that are not errors, errata that is FAQ, and with some mighty flamewar on whether the third sentence on page 322 is an error, design decision or somebody just fails at semantics.
Before you post this kind of stuff you should check out the list. There are obvious errata.
And some stuff like "how does Spring attack and Vital strike function" might be FAQ stuff. As for Vital Strike Jason said it was going to be fixed. It hasn't been.
BTW the new errata contains a new version of the smite. Hey that's not errata, but it has been designed as an errata.
I've checked. Most of it is tangential, obvious or tangentially obvious.
I'm about 80% done. I'm hoping to have it completed by tomorrow.
A great work, Kor !
I would like to point out that issue #65
"Summon Monster II has drone ants while summon monster III has soldier ants Drone ants are the CR3 version on soldier ants"
has been solved in the last errata.
"Page 351
In Table 10–1: Summon Monster, change “Ant, drone” in the 2nd Level list to “Ant, giant (worker).” Change “Ant, soldier” in the 3rd Level list to “Ant, giant (soldier).” Add “Ant, giant (drone)*” to the 4th Level list. Make the same changes to Table 10–2: Summon Nature’s Ally on page 353 (do not include the “*” in the Ant, giant (drone) entry on this table)."
Sadly, I was planning to pick up the revised edition for Gencon. (I thought the 3rd edition release was going to be "conveniently" timed with Gencon.) I am curious as to how many other sales Paizo may have missed out on by not doing a thorough update though.
While I understand the need some folks have for "correct" editions with all the errata... I'm pretty sure that's a relatively small subset of the whole. I would certainly be curious to find out how many sales we've missed by folks waiting for an error-free book to be available, but I'm pretty sure that number would be relatively infinitesimal compared to the rather enormous number of books we HAVE sold.
The demand for errata free books is not as overwhelming as the internet might suggest, in other words.
And waiting for an error-free book, to me, means waiting for a unicorn. Simply put, there's no such thing as an error-free RPG book. EVERY RPG book has errors, simply because of the fact that the industry can't support the extensive proofing and editing cycles, say, that a college textbook has. And guess what? College text books have errors in them too.
We can strive for perfection, but the realist in me knows that we'll never get there. No previous edition of the game has been error free, so it just seems unrealistic to hold out for the unicorn when a perfectly healthy horse will still carry you to where you're going.
I did not expect for all the errors to be fixed at once, and hopefully nobody did, but there have been some things debated that we do consider to be important, and would like an answer too. While I did want errata I think it would have been better to put out a substantial amount of it, because now I feel the next printing wont be available until this newest one sells out. If you and Jason are debating on how certain rules were meant to be interpreted that is fine, but we should know that. Right now we have no idea how you(Paizo) decided to choose what to fix, and what to not fix.
PS: Thing like the contradiction on shields being active Wild Shape form, and whether or not SLA's can be counterspelled are the types of things I was looking forward too.
Basically book contradictions, and printing errors should take priority for errata, IMHO.
Things that are vague could probably be covered under the errata or and FAQ as you see fit.
While I understand the need some folks have for "correct" editions with all the errata... I'm pretty sure that's a relatively small subset of the whole. I would certainly be curious to find out how many sales we've missed by folks waiting for an error-free book to be available, but I'm pretty sure that number would be relatively infinitesimal compared to the rather enormous number of books we HAVE sold.
I missed that. I am waiting for a certain questions to be answered before I buy the book. I have the pdf, but I would the hard copy. If I print it out and put it in a 3 ring binder the pages will tear eventually, and I dont want to have to deal with the maintenance. I am now also weary of the quality of the advanced player's guide.
I have never been to GENCON, but does not having a product out at GENCON really affect sales that much, or is there another reason for it. I think the "release by GENCON" schedule is causing more problems than it is solving.Edit: I don't think the errata alone will drive in a lot of sales for the core book, but it might affect sales of future products if people know you have an errata process in place. The Bestiary errata was done quiet well.
Sadly, I was planning to pick up the revised edition for Gencon. (I thought the 3rd edition release was going to be "conveniently" timed with Gencon.) I am curious as to how many other sales Paizo may have missed out on by not doing a thorough update though.
While I understand the need some folks have for "correct" editions with all the errata... I'm pretty sure that's a relatively small subset of the whole. I would certainly be curious to find out how many sales we've missed by folks waiting for an error-free book to be available, but I'm pretty sure that number would be relatively infinitesimal compared to the rather enormous number of books we HAVE sold.
For me, it's about buying a second copy. I checked the errata thread here against the latest printing. Since a number of things pointed out in the thread were not covered in the latest printing, I have decided not to purchase a second copy at this time.
I'll wait for a 4th printing if Paizo is eventually fortunate enough to be able to do so. If it doesn't happen, then I'll just keep using the 1st printing that I have.
I would guess, however, that I am indeed in a very, very small minority with this approach. If I were buying the Core Rulebook for the first time, then I would not wait.
|
|
I missed that. I am waiting for a certain questions to be answered before I buy the book. I have the pdf, but I would the hard copy. If I print it out and put it in a 3 ring binder the pages will tear eventually, and I dont want to have to deal with the maintenance. I am now also weary of the quality of the advanced player's guide.
I have never been to GENCON, but does not having a product out at GENCON really affect sales that much, or is there another reason for it. I think the "release by GENCON" schedule is causing more problems than it is solving.
This is the gaming industry. If you want to be on the top, and compete with FFG, WW and WotC then you need to have a major product on the floor at GenCon, period. Not only will the sales help you cover the costs of the show, but it will also help you convince major distributors to buy lots of those books. You want the Alliance/Diamond folks to come over and see your books vanish, so they will ask for a major shipment right away. Some rather popular vendors such as Amazon, not to mention all the LGS, take their stuff from distributors. So, you need to hit it big.
Paizo is playing with the big boys now. What the big boys have is multiple times as many employees as Paizo - WotC is a 600-pound gorilla, and FFG and WW are not far behind. Paizo, on the other hand, can fit all their permanent workers into one elevator (OK, not Jason).
It's GenCon or death. Having exhibited there once I do know what great impact the show has on a minor company from backwater Europe. I can only imagine what impact it has on a top 5 publisher in the industry.
I missed that. I am waiting for a certain questions to be answered before I buy the book. I have the pdf, but I would the hard copy. If I print it out and put it in a 3 ring binder the pages will tear eventually, and I dont want to have to deal with the maintenance. I am now also weary of the quality of the advanced player's guide.
I have never been to GENCON, but does not having a product out at GENCON really affect sales that much, or is there another reason for it. I think the "release by GENCON" schedule is causing more problems than it is solving.This is the gaming industry. If you want to be on the top, and compete with FFG, WW and WotC then you need to have a major product on the floor at GenCon, period. Not only will the sales help you cover the costs of the show, but it will also help you convince major distributors to buy lots of those books. You want the Alliance/Diamond folks to come over and see your books vanish, so they will ask for a major shipment right away. Some rather popular vendors such as Amazon, not to mention all the LGS, take their stuff from distributors. So, you need to hit it big.
Paizo is playing with the big boys now. What the big boys have is multiple times as many employees as Paizo - WotC is a 600-pound gorilla, and FFG and WW are not far behind. Paizo, on the other hand, can fit all their permanent workers into one elevator (OK, not Jason).
It's GenCon or death. Having exhibited there once I do know what great impact the show has on a minor company from backwater Europe. I can only imagine what impact it has on a top 5 publisher in the industry.
Thanks, I did not know distributors were there. I thought it was just a show put on for roleplaying fans, and to tell other companies, "look at what I made".
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Things the giant subtype being listed as the giant type can be saved for last. Things that affect gameplay should be given priority. If you like I can list put the game affecting things at the top after Kor finishes the list.
Top of the list(example):
Can spell-like abilities be counterspelled, or not? Page 221 - Magic chapter: "Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. Page 554 - Glossary: "Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): ...Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal."
Bottom of the list(example):
"Giant Form II: This spell functions as Giant Form I except that it also allows you to assume the form of any Huge creature of the giant type." It should read 'giant subtype'.
Edit: I would probably just make 2 or 3 categories such as essential(things that contradict, see the Top List example above), questionable(things that might be put in an FAQ, but I am not sure), and a 3rd catergory if I think of one.
Things the giant subtype being listed as the giant type can be saved for last. Things that affect gameplay should be given priority. If you like I can list put the game affecting things at the top after Kor finishes the list.
I was thinking adding a column for "type" and then enter "typo/misspelling" or "missing word" or "3.5 relic" or "contradiction" or "FAQ" for each "bug".
Then maybe a "severity" column and allow sorting by severity, so that a critical error that affects MANY things, can be filtered to the top etc.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
The spreadsheet is now available on d20pfsrd.com at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/unofficial-errata-db
Thanks to all who are taking their time to do this. I really hope that the folks at Paizo take notice and either use it as a basis for future errata or create something similar of their own.
Me? I woulda bought a new hardcover of the 3rd printing, even though my pdf automatically updates, because I want a physical book with the most correct rules possible. But from what I've seen, the newest errata and the 3rd printing offer very few improvements over the 1st and 2nd. Oh well, maybe the 4th.
On why it matters, I play a lot of Pathfinder Society. I GM too. And in the PFS we're supposed to provide players with as close to a standardized rules environment as possible. But every time I've played or GMed, there has been some quibble over rules where both parties have provided textual support. Clear, correct rules do matter. I recently GMed at a con where we have 3 or 4 tables going in the same room. I overheard unclear rules being adjudicated in different ways at different tables. So what happens when a player at one table is able to use a shield while in wildshape and another player at another table isn't? Sure, in home games, you can do whatever want and rely on GM's judgment. But with PFS, Paizo has created the expectation of a level playing field and, right now, the core rulebook doesn't always support that.
What I don't get is the continued clinging to the occasionally-updated-pdf model as the way to handle errata and FAQs. We long ago discussed the creation of FAQ and errata forums where fans could post a question or a possible error, but after that, only authorized Paizo folks could respond. (I even thought we had James' buy-in on this one.) Instead of circular discussions - which can be enlightening but also incredibly frustrating for someone looking for a definitive answer - we'd get official responses. And if they didn't know yet, maybe they could open it up to debate for week or so, then close the forum and provide a ruling. But all the official FAQs and errata would be contained in a single forum and folks new to the boards would know right were to look. Right now, the uninitiated have to search through hundreds of contradictory threads looking for answers. And THAT is no way to support new players and GMs. It would update continually. Maybe establish Tuesday as Ruling Day and somebody would go through and make some decisions. Not all of them, but a batch, and then hit another batch the next Tuesday. Finally, where it was time to do a new printing, all the errata and some of the FAQ could be incorporated into the next printing.
One other thing, on the issue of page numbers being made incorrect if new text pushes old text onto the next page... it seems like a job for an intern to go through the master document and replace all the static page number references with links to headers and whatnot. It will take a while, but once it's done, text pushing wouldn't be a problem and page numbers would auto-update.
|
Creative Director
|
Paizo is playing with the big boys now. What the big boys have is multiple times as many employees as Paizo - WotC is a 600-pound gorilla, and FFG and WW are not far behind. Paizo, on the other hand, can fit all their permanent workers into one elevator.
I'm not so sure about that... I haven't seen many 30-person elevators.
AKA: Paizo has more permanent staff than you might think...
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Conflicted Error:
Page 360
Touch of Idiocy
Your successful melee touch attack applies a 1d6 penalty to the target’s
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. This penalty can’t
reduce any of these scores below 1.
This spell’s effect may make it impossible for the target to cast
some or all of its spells, if the requisite ability score drops below the minimum required to cast spells of that level.
Page 555
Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain
Ability Penalty does not affect the ability to cast spells. Only spells DC:s and skill checks are affected.
In the case of wisdom: will saves
In tne case of charisma: the DC to resist your channeled energy.
I've checked. Most of it is tangential, obvious or tangentially obvious.
Most of it perhaps, but not all of it.
There is a thread with +220 post on the topic of shiled bonus and wild shape. And there are more stuff that needs to be adressed.DC on craft magic items.
DC on concentration checks using SU and SPA.
etc etc.
You might come as condescending to some people.
good stuff
+1
Conflicted Error:
Page 360
Touch of Idiocy
Your successful melee touch attack applies a 1d6 penalty to the target’s
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. This penalty can’t
reduce any of these scores below 1.This spell’s effect may make it impossible for the target to cast
some or all of its spells, if the requisite ability score drops below the minimum required to cast spells of that level.Page 555
Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and DrainAbility Penalty does not affect the ability to cast spells. Only spells DC:s and skill checks are affected.
In the case of wisdom: will saves
In tne case of charisma: the DC to resist your channeled energy.
This is one of the things listed on the various lists that doesn't fall under needing clarification, typo, or error. It seems to be some phrasing or mechanic one doesn't like.
I don't see any conflict between the two. With the way that is written, "normal" ability penalties don't take away spells, but the spell specifically deals with that saying that it can interfere with spell casting.
|
Paizo is playing with the big boys now. What the big boys have is multiple times as many employees as Paizo - WotC is a 600-pound gorilla, and FFG and WW are not far behind. Paizo, on the other hand, can fit all their permanent workers into one elevator.I'm not so sure about that... I haven't seen many 30-person elevators.
AKA: Paizo has more permanent staff than you might think...
I thought that same thing when I read that ...
|
Paizo is playing with the big boys now. What the big boys have is multiple times as many employees as Paizo - WotC is a 600-pound gorilla, and FFG and WW are not far behind. Paizo, on the other hand, can fit all their permanent workers into one elevator.I'm not so sure about that... I haven't seen many 30-person elevators.
AKA: Paizo has more permanent staff than you might think...
Maybe if it were zero gravity and we didn't have to stand side by side, it might be packed like a can of sardines, but I bet we could all fit in an elevator....
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Conflicted Error:
Page 360
Touch of Idiocy
Your successful melee touch attack applies a 1d6 penalty to the target’s
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. This penalty can’t
reduce any of these scores below 1.This spell’s effect may make it impossible for the target to cast
some or all of its spells, if the requisite ability score drops below the minimum required to cast spells of that level.Page 555
Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and DrainAbility Penalty does not affect the ability to cast spells. Only spells DC:s and skill checks are affected.
In the case of wisdom: will saves
In tne case of charisma: the DC to resist your channeled energy.
This isn't an error at all. The spell Touch of Idiocy has additional effects over and beyond those normally inflicted by an ability score penalty. That's why it specifically spells that out in the spell description.
|
|
This isn't an error at all. The spell Touch of Idiocy has additional effects over and beyond those normally inflicted by an ability score penalty. That's why it specifically spells that out in the spell description.
Thanks for the clarification. An example why, despite our griping, we all still love you guys.
Would it ever make sense to add the words "Unlike normal ability drain, ..." to the front of something like that? Not strictly necessary, but it might help people who read it and say "Hey, that's not what it says on p.xx."
I've checked. Most of it is tangential, obvious or tangentially obvious.
Most of it perhaps, but not all of it.
There is a thread with +220 post on the topic of shiled bonus and wild shape. And there are more stuff that needs to be adressed.
DC on craft magic items.
DC on concentration checks using SU and SPA.
etc etc.
You might come as condescending to some people.
If SU=Supernatural abilities, then I can tell you Supernatural abilities don't require concentration checks.