Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game


Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Is it possible to have something like the Anti-FAQ?

Website Feedback

What a horrible name. What I mean is a list of FAQ'd posts that were answered with "No response required". Sometimes that's as helpful as a FAQ.

You mean like "Is (Insert Action Here) evil?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frequently unanswered questions but then that has problems with an acronym looking like someone is trying to avoid the word filter.

How about we call it "Frequently Asked Questions - Unanswered" or FAQ-U?

Well, not that they're unanswered. Just that the devs thought there was no need for clarification. Sometimes that's useful for figuring out the intent or what the devs think about it (with a little extrapolation, granted).

Example of what I mean here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like FAQ-U. That's a good one.

Or we just need FAQs separate from errata, to just say "Yes, this is intended. No change needed."

I think this is a good idea. If nobody knows if the devs responded they will continue to debate in future threads.


The FAQs are separate from current errata; it's just that a FAQ question leads to a change in the printed book, in which case we call out the to-be-errata in the FAQ response.


Removed some posts. Please don't talk about other posters like that—flag it, and move on.

Actually, this is not such a bad idea. I remember back in 3.5 days many folks were wanting to run old 3.0 PrCs- even after all the 3.5 “splatbooks” has come out. My question was when does the fact that you have NOT redone a PrC mean that it is dead or dropped. Andy was nice enough to respond to my post saying that yes, they need to come up with that list (and that yes, those PrCs were dead), but then 4th ED happened.

So, there are not critical but still unanswered queries that should be answered, like what happens to a eidolons gear when it dies?

Instead of a FAQ what would be nice is a list of “not official but still good” answers from Devs on such questions, like the one Cheapy linked to.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashkecker wrote:
How about we call it "Frequently Asked Questions - Unanswered" or FAQ-U?
Cheapy wrote:

Well, not that they're unanswered. Just that the devs thought there was no need for clarification.

So more sort of Officially Refused Further Explanation : or FAQ-ORFE for short?

Actually, being able to browse a list of posts that resulted in a response that had Staff response: no reply required. could be pretty useful for preventing duplicates. I guess the question is, have duplicates become irritating yet?

Yep, brock has the right idea.

Paizo / Messageboards / / Website Feedback / Is it possible to have something like the Anti-FAQ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Website Feedback

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.