Question on Witchguard Archetype from People of the North

[Dulcee]

If I were to play a Witchguard (Ranger Archetype) from the People of the North Player Companion, which version of the Defend Charge ability should I use?

As is written in the book:

Player Companion: People of the North wrote:

Defend Charge (Ex): A t 4th level, a witchguard forms a bond with a spellcaster he has sworn to defend. Once per day, this bond allows the witchguard to spend a move action to grant an adjacent spellcaster a +2 dodge bonus to AC and a +2 circumstance bonus on concentration checks. At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, these bonuses increase by 2. The bonuses last for a number of rounds equal to the witchguard's Wisdom modifier (minimum i).

At 4th level and every 3 levels thereafter, the witchguard can use this ability one additional time per day. This ability replaces hunter's bond.

However, Developer Rob McCreary posted this 2 years ago:

(source link)

Rob McCreary's correction wrote:

... there were copy/paste errors in the ability text. The corrected text should read (changes highlighted in bold):

Defend Charge (Ex) At 4th level, a witchguard forms a bond with a spellcaster he has sworn to defend. Once per day, this bond allows the witchguard to spend a move action to grant an adjacent spellcaster a +2 dodge bonus to AC and a +2 circumstance bonus on concentration checks. At 8th level and every 4 levels thereafter, these bonuses increase by 2. The bonuses last for a number of rounds equal to the witchguard’s Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). At 7th level and every 3 levels thereafter, the witchguard can use this ability one additional time per day. This ability replaces hunter’s bond.

Even though that was posted 2 years ago, I couldn't find it in the official FAQ or as errata anywhere. Should I still consider this an official change and play it this way in Pathfinder Society? Or should I be using the original printed version since it hasn't been "officially" changed yet?

[Sarvei taeno]

you have to use what is documented in the book if there is no faq or comments from official developers editing the book

[graywulfe]

Given that Rob McCreary is an official developer. I would say his version is correct...

I would use that version anyway as it is the more restrictive and you will suffer less from table variation until a clarification is printed.

[Preston Hudson]

I did not find any FAQ updates to the book but, with Rob McCreary's correction posted, I have marked this as a request for FAQ.

[Secane]

FAQed.

Since gms and players are expected to follow any official rulings, this should be given more prominence and be reflected in the FAQs.

[Fomsie]

There have been a number of cases where an author has commented that some portion or ability of an archetype they created was mis-worded, typoed, poorly edited or just plain left out. Never has their word on the subject been anything more than a suggestion of intent, however. Unless there was an official FAQ or errata, which is almost unheard of for a soft cover splatbook.

Similar things were written by the authors of the Titan Mauler Barbarian and the Archaeologist Bard as well as a few others I can't remember the name/wording of off of the top of my head.

[Andreas Forster]

I would be in favor of the corrected version posted by Rob McCreary, not only because he's a developer, but because it makes more sense.

It's an ability you get at 4th level, so why would it include increases that happen at 5th level (1 level later) and every 5 levels thereafter or 4th level (the same level you get the ability at) and every 3 levels thereafter?

Still, I agree that an official FAQ would be in order.