When is ACG: origins scheduled? Considering they're already rolling the Slashing Grace fixinto that, they might just put whatever else needs done in it.
It'll be awhile to process the volume, especially with the devs decompressing from the horror that was GenCon. In the interim just got to wait.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the Paizo policy of only issuing errata when there's a new printing of the book coming up, some issues might go unanswered for quite a while. Hopefully they won't stick too closely to that rule, and will give us some FAQ stealth-errata.
Well they do issue the errata in the FAQ section long before it goes into print and its own pdf. Happened with Ultimate Combat. Had the errata a full year before the second printing.
Also ACO went to print already. Charging 14 dollars for errata would be moronic and i dont see Paizo screwing over their fanbase like that.
Best to just let them rest and wait.
at any rate, ACG: origins would have already been sent off to the printer by now
FAQs — Frequently Asked Questions. Updated whenever the design team has the time (and bulk) to discuss the issues and write up a whole bunch of changes to the book. I also imagine that it depends on the workload of the web team.
Erratas — Only ever issued when a book is reprinted. You'll have to wait for Paizo to run out of their current printing and order more copies of the book. This usually happens within the first year for a new book, then every year or two afterwards for an older book.
When is ACG: origins scheduled? Considering they're already rolling the Slashing Grace fixinto that, they might just put whatever else needs done in it.New rules content that makes up for design oversights != errata.
I don't know that I'd consider forgetting to include rapier in the +Dex to damage feat "design oversight". I'd call it an error (of omission), which is generally what errata corrects.
That's just my perception though.
|
Gencon has been over for a while now, so that's not really an excuse.
But we desperately need an FAQ to clarify a lot of issues in the ACG. How long does the first round of FAQ's for a book normally take?
Agreed and seconded. Not to say that they don't do some extra work at Gencon. Neither were they building a school from scratch for orphans in Africa. I hope that this time around it's in PDF format for easy download. I really don't want to work my way through all the errata needed for the ACG section by section.
Gencon has been over for a while now, so that's not really an excuse.
But we desperately need an FAQ to clarify a lot of issues in the ACG. How long does the first round of FAQ's for a book normally take?
It depends. They are still getting two books out the door and developing Pathfinder Unchained and the Occult Adventures playtest, so no one really knows when the first round of FAQ is coming out.
Also it's Labor Day weekend, so the office will be closed till Tuesday.
Considering that ultimate combat took ~2 years to get a reprint (and an "errata"), i wouldn't hold my breath if i were you.
The best you could hope for are FAQ entries that will clear out the worst offenders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An actual dowloadable errata document will happen when rhe book gets a second printing.
However, my hunch is Paizo is keenly aware that this book in particular is sorely in need of a thorough FAQ asap and is already hard at work making it happen
Still, it would be nice to have a dev post saying that they are looking at it and apologizng for the editing issues. I don't need an eta. I just want some form of acknowledgement and apology. Hell, we got a whole blot post about the mismatched title for ACG. I just want a two-three sentence post about the editing here for the fans to see so we know that there is something being done. And something later down the road explaining how they hope to prevent this repeating itself for Occult Adventures.
Still, it would be nice to have a dev post saying that they are looking at it and apologizng for the editing issues. I don't need an eta. I just want some form of acknowledgement and apology. Hell, we got a whole blot post about the mismatched title for ACG. I just want a two-three sentence post about the editing here for the fans to see so we know that there is something being done. And something later down the road explaining how they hope to prevent this repeating itself for Occult Adventures.
Several times this. I understand that it takes time and possibly communication with the writers to work out some of the actual clarifications, but some acknowledgement of the abundance of issues and the fact that they will be addressed would be nice.
They have acknowledged that there are issues. In this post Jason Bulmahn says not only do they know there are issues, but that they will be addressing them.
Something to keep in mind also is that Jason Bulmahn (and other staff?) is currently at Dragoncon, also doing pathfinder stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have acknowledged that there are issues. In this post Jason Bulmahn says not only do they know there are issues, but that they will be addressing them.
That was 24 days ago and seemingly addressed minor things before the scope of the poor editing was realized. Not to mention it's not really in a public accessed area that people can read, like a stickied thread or blot post. That's the issue is have. No one would have seen that post if you didn't ljnk it for us.
Also, it doesn't address how this will be prevented for future GenCon releases, which is what I would like to see. I don't want to spend money on Occult Adventures if it's going to have the same editing issues.
Agreed, if this is the quality we should expect going forward from the dev team I wont be purchasing further materials.
On a side note, thr Campaign Setting Team and JJ have consistently produced great work and I don't ever see a dip in quality due to Gencon. I will continue enjoying those books while avoiding "core books" such as ACG and Occult Mysteries.
The hardcovers that aren't rushed by GenCon are usually fine. Bestiaries, Ultimate Campaign, Inner Sea Gods... they tend to be unscathed by the crunch. But with GenCon coming a full month earlier in 2015, I am very afraid that Occult Adventures is going to suffer the same fate. That's why I really want some word on what is going to be done to try and prevent the editing issues that we've seen with ACG.
As much as I want to support Paizo, between low money and a sick girlfriend, I cannot pay money for lower quality products due to meeting convention deadlines. I'd rather have a product that has minimum issues but still overall works later, than a rushed product with mediocre editing quality by GenCon.
Aren't there different teams for each type of book? I thought the team who wrote and edited Inner Sea Gods was completely separate from the people who write and edit "core books."
Aren't there different teams for each type of book? I thought the team who wrote and edited Inner Sea Gods was completely separate from the people who write and edit "core books."
There are different teams. Sean held the title of "Gods Guy" at Paizo though, just as Jason is the "Razmir Guy" and Wes is the "Devils Guy" or James Jacobs is the "Demons Guy." So when a campaign setting project involving one of the Paizo peeps' domain happens, they pull that person onto the project. In short, Sean did a lot of work on Inner Sea Gods because it was a topic that interested him and that he was very knowledgable about.
Going along those same lines, James Jacobs wrote the original draft for the alchemist class back in the Advanced Player's Guide and has been championing the Swashbuckler class (or any Dex-based martial character) since then.
They're divided into teams, but they blur the lines on those teams based on personal interest, convenience, and eldritch machinations.
Aren't there different teams for each type of book? I thought the team who wrote and edited Inner Sea Gods was completely separate from the people who write and edit "core books."There are different teams. Sean held the title of "Gods Guy" at Paizo though, just as Jason is the "Razmir Guy" and Wes is the "Devils Guy" or James Jacobs is the "Demons Guy." So when a campaign setting project involving one of the Paizo peeps' domain happens, they pull that person onto the project. In short, Sean did a lot of work on Inner Sea Gods because it was a topic that interested him and that he was very knowledgable about.
Going along those same lines, James Jacobs wrote the original draft for the alchemist class back in the Advanced Player's Guide and has been championing the Swashbuckler class (or any Dex-based martial character) since then.
They're divided into teams, but they blur the lines on those teams based on personal interest, convenience, and eldritch machinations.
*Gathered around Ouiji Board*
Oh spirits of game developers long past, please spell the name of the next person to complete our team!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The core line as been fraught with these issues since the beginning. The first run of the APG let the playtest version of the summoner through, Ultimate Magic had the cantrips hit the editing room floor but left all the references to them in the book. Every book in the core line has had big to major issues with editing, and many many smaller issues with term alignment and other consistency issues. Overall, they just push the books out too quickly.
For this reason I stopped buying first run core books after Ultimate Magic. I just don't trust their process enough to shell out the cash. I just get the PDF now. If some other company were ever to unseat Paizo as the premier TTRPG company this would be the avenue to pursue.
Owen KC Stephens please. I'd love it if he did a lot of work on Occult Adventures and any other Paizo book.
|
|
The core line as been fraught with these issues since the beginning. The first run of the APG let the playtest version of the summoner through, Ultimate Magic had the cantrips hit the editing room floor but left all the references to them in the book. Every book in the core line has had big to major issues with editing, and many many smaller issues with term alignment and other consistency issues. Overall, they just push the books out too quickly.
For this reason I stopped buying first run core books after Ultimate Magic. I just don't trust their process enough to shell out the cash. I just get the PDF now. If some other company were ever to unseat Paizo as the premier TTRPG company this would be the avenue to pursue.
Eh. There've been a few problems certainly (and, IMO, inevitably...any book written by as many different people as an RPG book is gonna wind up with some errors), but nothing like as bad as the ACG. Which is bad enough to be a serious problem.
correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the "teams" were focused on development and creating product, but that they editors were shared between them?
correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the "teams" were focused on development and creating product, but that they editors were shared between them?
That's what I always thought too. I dont remember anything definitive though, perhaps that was just my assumption. On thinking about it, it would make sense for some editors to be 'rules specialists' and others to be 'Golarion lore specialists'.
Your perception does not meet the established definition of those words. I'm sorry, as much of a linguistic descriptivist as I might be, I still believe that words mean things and effective communication requires that the definitions of words be generally adhered to.When is ACG: origins scheduled? Considering they're already rolling the Slashing Grace fixinto that, they might just put whatever else needs done in it.New rules content that makes up for design oversights != errata.I don't know that I'd consider forgetting to include rapier in the +Dex to damage feat "design oversight". I'd call it an error (of omission), which is generally what errata corrects.
That's just my perception though.
Errata
nounError in printing or writing.
In a sentence: The omission of rapier from the +Dex to damage feat was an error, therefore the corrected feat will appear as errata in the subsequent volume.
Admittedly, they won't call it errata, but that is what it is.
Eh. There've been a few problems certainly (and, IMO, inevitably...any book written by as many different people as an RPG book is gonna wind up with some errors), but nothing like as bad as the ACG. Which is bad enough to be a serious problem.The core line as been fraught with these issues since the beginning. The first run of the APG let the playtest version of the summoner through, Ultimate Magic had the cantrips hit the editing room floor but left all the references to them in the book. Every book in the core line has had big to major issues with editing, and many many smaller issues with term alignment and other consistency issues. Overall, they just push the books out too quickly.
For this reason I stopped buying first run core books after Ultimate Magic. I just don't trust their process enough to shell out the cash. I just get the PDF now. If some other company were ever to unseat Paizo as the premier TTRPG company this would be the avenue to pursue.
Yeah the ACG is on a whole new level of poor editing. After UC they were doing better with editing. Ultimate Campaign in particular had little wrong with it.
It wasn't deleted by accident. Therefore, it isn't errata.Your perception does not meet the established definition of those words. I'm sorry, as much of a linguistic descriptivist as I might be, I still believe that words mean things and effective communication requires that the definitions of words be generally adhered to.I don't know that I'd consider forgetting to include rapier in the +Dex to damage feat "design oversight". I'd call it an error (of omission), which is generally what errata corrects.
That's just my perception though.
Errata
noun
Error in printing or writing.
A list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal. In a sentence: The omission of rapier from the +Dex to damage feat was an error, therefore the corrected feat will appear as errata in the subsequent volume.
Admittedly, they won't call it errata, but that is what it is.
You are correct that it was not deleted by accident. Unfortunately, that is not the only kind of error. Forgetting to include text is also an error, thus my earlier use of the word omission. For instance, forgetting text such as "this ability replaces Armor Training 4".
We just got the UC errata a few months ago, over two years after it was released.
Sit tight.
I heard the devs were working on something to put out soon in regards to errata/faq/clarification for the ACG/
We just got the UC errata a few months ago, over two years after it was released.
Sit tight.
Yep, and that's what worries me about the quality of the ACG. I don't want to be debating how pummeling style works in 2016.
I heard the devs were working on something to put out soon in regards to errata/faq/clarification for the ACG/
That's cool if it's true. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if it's just phase one. With the amount of issues, they could do several blog posts of "errata/faq/clarification" and still have some left over. :P
We just got the UC errata a few months ago, over two years after it was released.
Sit tight.
On the other hand ACG appeals to a wider audience than ultimate combat.
Yeah the ACG is on a whole new level of poor editing. After UC they were doing better with editing.
I'm not sure I can agree. ARG had lots of mistakes in them, most of them editing issues where copy and paste created problems or design decision changed but not all of the text was updated.
Add to that all the stuff that did only work if you ignored strict RAW.An example for the first are the kobold feats that are a mix of several editing mistakes. Especially the "special" parts of the feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand ACG appeals to a wider audience than ultimate combat.We just got the UC errata a few months ago, over two years after it was released.
Sit tight.
It does?
It does?On the other hand ACG appeals to a wider audience than ultimate combat.We just got the UC errata a few months ago, over two years after it was released.
Sit tight.
It's pure conjecture on my part but my line of thinking is:
Ultimate combat is mostly gun stuff and asian stuff (especially monk stuff), it may not have been advertised as such but it became appearant quickly after it's release, now a lot of people don't like either the one or the other (or both) in their games so a lot of people had serious incentive not to buy the book, because they didn't care about a large part of the book (asian or guns).ACG on the other hand doesn't have a big portion of it not being liked by a lot of people.
Thus i hypothesize that ACG appeals to a wider audience than ultimate combat.
On the other hand ACG seems to has more issues than ultimate combat (although i haven't checked myself) so this might balance things out between ultimate combat and ACG.
PS. I know that there are a lot of people that don't like the concept of new classes becuase they feel that the game has enough options but i think that a large part of those people also didn't like ultimate combat for the same reason.