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

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Should reprinted player options be treated as errata?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Pact Wizard (Familiar Folio) wrote:

Some wizards make bargains with beings from other realms in order to gain arcane power. These pact wizards have unparalleled access to extraplanar allies, but these bonds never come without strings attached.

Familiar (Ex): A pact wizard must select a familiar for his arcane bond. The familiar’s loyalty ultimately lies with the pact wizard’s patron, and it reports back to the patron on the wizard’s activities. This ability alters arcane bond.

Pact Focus (Ex): At 1st level, a pact wizard must choose one additional opposition school, even if he is a universalist. A pact wizard can’t pick conjuration as an opposition school. This ability alters arcane school.

Pact (Ex): A pact wizard enters into a bargain with an extraplanar being in order to gain increased wizardly powers. At 1st level, he selects a patron belonging to one specific subtype of outsider for which there exists an improved familiar option (such as devil or azata). The pact wizard can select a subtype of outsider even with a diametrically opposed alignment; in this case, the patron being offers the pact in an attempt to tempt or redeem the pact wizard. A pact wizard whose alignment shifts away from the chosen outsider subtype, who grossly abuses his familiar or any outsider of the chosen subtype, or who commits egregious acts against the alignment of the patron loses all the benefits of this archetype (but keeps the additional opposition school) until he receives an atonement.

Aura (Ex): A pact wizard has an aura corresponding to the alignment of his chosen subtype as a cleric of his wizard level.

Pact Summons (Ex): A pact wizard can select Sacred Summons (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic 155) as a wizard bonus feat. He can use this feat only to summon outsiders of his chosen subtype.

True Form (Ex): At 7th level, a pact wizard’s familiar reveals its true form, automatically transforming into an outsider improved familiar of the chosen subtype.

Pact Wizard (Haunted Heroes Handbook) wrote:

While the art of wizardry is usually a scholar’s pursuit, there are those who seek mastery of arcane power without tedious study and monotonous research. Motivated by foolish ambition, such individuals turn to the greatest enigmas of the cosmos in the hopes of attaining greater power. Though few successfully attract the attention of these forces, those who do receive phenomenal arcane power for their efforts, but become the dutiful playthings and servants of the forces with which they consort.

Effortless Magic (Ex) : Although a pact wizard still uses a spellbook to prepare his wizard spells, his close tieswith his otherworldly patron allow him to do so nearly effortlessly. A pact wizard can prepare all of his spells in only 15 minutes, and his minimum preparation time is only 1 minute.

This alters the wizard’s spellcasting.

Patron Spells: At 1st level, a pact wizard must select a patron. This functions like the witch class ability of the same name, except the pact wizard automatically adds his patron’s spells to his spellbook instead of to his familiar. In addition, the pact wizard can expend any prepared spell that isn’t a spell prepared using the additional spell slot the wizard receives from his arcane school in order to spontaneously cast one of his patron’s spells of the same level or lower.

This ability replaces Scribe Scroll.

Great Power, Greater Expense (Ex) : As a pact wizard grows in power, his choice of patron begins to affect his physical body. At 5th level, the pact wizard chooses one oracle curse, using 1/2 his character level as his effective oracle level when determining the effects of this curse. If an oracle curse would add spells to the oracle’s list of spells known, the pact wizard instead add those spells to the wizard’s spell list as well as to his spellbook.

At 10th level, the pact wizard can invoke his patron’s power to roll twice and take the better result when attempting any caster level check, concentration check, initiative check, or saving throw. He can activate this ability as a free action before attempting the check, even if it isn’t his turn. He can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + 1/2 his Intelligence modifier. At 15th level, when the pact wizard invokes his patron’s power to roll twice on a check, he adds his Intelligence bonus to the result as an insight bonus. When he applies metamagic feats to any spells he learned via his patron or curse, he treats that spell’s final effective level as 1 lower (to a minimum level equal to the spell’s original level).

At 20th level, whenever the pact wizard invokes his patron’s power to roll twice on a check and his result is a natural 20, he automatically succeeds, regardless of whether or not a check of that type would normally allow an automatic success.

This ability replaces the bonus feats a wizard gains at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level.

Two very different archetypes.

Edit: also,

Wild Caller (Advanced Race Guide) wrote:

Often a half-elf’s ties to nature and elven heritage are so strong that they can dramatically affect the nature of his summonings. The wild caller calls eidolons that take more natural and savage forms and summons from nature rather than the Great Beyond. A wild caller has the following class features.

Spells: A wild caller does not have access to summon monster spells. Instead, he swaps out those spells on his spell list with summon nature’s ally spells of the same level. This ability alters the normal spell list of the summoner.

Eidolon: The eidolon of a wild caller tends to take more natural and more savage forms than other summoners’ eidolons. A wild caller gains 1/4 his class level as bonus evolution points in his eidolon’s evolution pool, but his eidolon cannot take the following evolutions:

1-point evolutions: basic magic, magic attacks, skilled (while the eidolon can select this evolution, it can only do so with the following skills: Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, Intimidate, Perception, Survival, and Swim), unnatural aura; 2-point evolutions: energy attacks, immunity, weapon training, channel resistance, head, minor magic, undead appearance; 3-point evolutions: damage reduction, frightful presence, major magic; 4-point evolutions: breath weapon, spell resistance, dimension door, incorporeal form, lifesense, no breath, ultimate magic.

This ability alters the normal summoner’s eidolon class feature, but is otherwise identical to that class feature.

Summon Nature’s Ally I (Sp): Starting at 1st level, a wild caller can cast summon nature’s ally a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. At 3rd level and every 2 levels thereafter, the power of this ability increases by one spell level, allowing him to summon more powerful creatures (to a maximum of summon nature’s ally IX at 17th level). Furthermore, at 19th level, the wild caller cannot use gate as a spell-like ability, but can use either summon elder worm or summon froghemoth instead. This ability otherwise functions like the standard summoner’s summon monster I ability and replaces that ability.

Wild Caller (Heroes of the Wild) wrote:

A wild caller summons creatures from the First World and forges a bond with an eidolon with a plant body.

Plant Eidolon: When a wild caller summons his eidolon, the eidolon’s body is created from extraplanar plant material and imbued with the intelligence of a being from the First World. Its statistics are changed from a standard eidolon as follows.

Type: The eidolon has the plant creature type and extraplanar subtype. Unlike other plant creatures, the eidolon is not immune to mind-affecting or polymorph effects, though it does gain immunity to paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.

Base Form: The wild caller chooses one of the base forms listed below for his plant eidolon. When the eidolon is summoned in an environment matching one of these base forms, the wild caller can choose to change the eidolon’s base form to the matching form by sacrificing one daily use of his summon nature’s ally ability as a free action.

Plant eidolon base forms are as follows.

Cactus (desert): Size Medium; Speed 30 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Saves Fort (good), Ref (good), Will (bad); Attacks slam (1d8), sting (1d4); Ability Scores Str 14, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11; Free Evolutions limbs (arms), limbs (legs), sting, tail.

Conifer (forest, mountain): Size Medium; Speed 30 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Saves Fort (good), Ref (bad), Will (good); Attacks 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 14, Dex 12, Con 15, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11; Resist cold 10; Free Evolutions claws, limbs (arms), limbs (legs), resistance (cold).

Mushroom (swamp, underground): Size Medium; Speed 20 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Saves Fort (good), Ref (good), Will (bad); Attack bite (1d6) plus poison; Ability Scores Str 14, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11; Free Evolutions bite, limbs (arms), limbs (legs), poison.

Tree ( forest, jungle, swamp): Size Medium; Speed 20 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Saves Fort (good), Ref (good), Will (bad); Attacks 2 slams (1d8); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11; Free Evolutions improved natural armor, limbs (arms), limbs (legs), slam ×2.

This ability alters the summoner’s eidolon.

Summon Nature’s Ally (Sp): A wild caller can cast summon nature’s ally as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. At levels where a regular summoner would gain access to a new level of summon monster as a spell-like ability, the wild caller instead gains the equivalent summon nature’s ally spell; at 19th level, he can use summon nature’s ally IX or gate. When a wild caller gains a summon nature’s ally spell as a spell-like ability, he adds it to his class spell list (though he must still select it as a spell known if he wants to gain the ability to cast it as a normal spell). This ability alters the summon monster ability.

Fey Friend (Ex): At 10th level, the wild caller gains a +4 bonus on Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive checks against fey. This ability replaces aspect, which is instead gained at 18th level in place of greater aspect.

Two different archetypes, one being about nature, the other about Fey, BUT, they both gain Summon Nature's Ally instead of their normal Summon Monster ability so arguing whether the latter is an upgrade* over the former has far more credibility than the Pact Wizards who only share a name and no abilities.

*it is not, it was stated by the author that that they were completely unaware of the first Wild Caller's existence.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My hypothesis is that we are getting perhaps more reprinted compiled RPG line books this year simply because Starfinder is eating up so many resources from the developers. I suspect 2018 may look more "normal" in response.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Some of those are also from older books, Pathfinder Society Field Guide came out 7 years ago.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Some things get reprinted without any changes at all. Some things get reprinted with updates. Some things are wholly new material that just ended up with the same name. How does one really know the difference? The juju mystery, for example, got updated and was dramatically different from its previous incarnation.

I better understand why you think he was being disingenuous, but I'm still not convinced that he was.

It is next to impossible to really make the distinction in the above examples without asking, or having something printed that explicitly calls out the distinction. We're not mind readers. We don't know what the developers don't tell us.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I clicked FAQ. It's obvious to me that the reprints in Adventurer's Guide are meant to be updates/errata on the previous versions and that's how I'd handle it in my home game should something like that come up, but having an official stance from Paizo on the matter would be helpful. If anything else, it wouldn't hurt for such reprints (if they are indeed meant to be errata) to come along with FAQs that update the old source to the new wording as well, so that purchasing the new book just to get updated wording isn't necessary.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

If he had mentioned the Juju Mystery instead I would not have have thought it disingenuous, but his insistence on them having the same name (and only for them having the same) doesn't read that way to me.

Lore Warden and the Juju Mystery are alternates/modifications, whereas Pact Wizard and Wild Caller are two separate things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
skizzerz wrote:
I clicked FAQ. It's obvious to me that the reprints in Adventurer's Guide are meant to be updates/errata on the previous versions and that's how I'd handle it in my home game should something like that come up, but having an official stance from Paizo on the matter would be helpful. If anything else, it wouldn't hurt for such reprints (if they are indeed meant to be errata) to come along with FAQs that update the old source to the new wording as well, so that purchasing the new book just to get updated wording isn't necessary.

Just remember that this thread isn't all about the Adventurer's Guide alone, but these kinds of game additions in general.

However, it would be fair to say that this thread was certainly created as a direct result of the recent uptick in reprinted material. :P

Sovereign Court

I don't think it's bad per se that there's now a book gathering together reprints of stuff that's been out of print for quite a while now. Some of that stuff was getting hard to obtain for people who want a dead tree copy, or just everything in one place.

And some of the contents have been changed - errata to fix mistakes, or true design changes. Also not inappropriate, although I'll have to wait until I see the product to determine which changes I actually like :P

But how to treat different versions? In a home game, who cares. Use the old version of this and the new version of that, as long as GM and players are all happy with it.

In PFS, it's trickier - you have to own something to be allowed to use it. If an option is reprinted differenly in another book, do you need to buy a new book to be able to continue playing your character? That doesn't seem fair. I think in such cases the Fencing Grace approach would be appropriate - issue a clarification to the old book that reprints a text fragment from the new book.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

Okay then, but the Pact Wizards are two very different archetypes.

Whereas the new Lore Warden is a modification on the first, rather than another archetype using the same name, and also has the abilities of the first, same names, or modified names, and modifications, but you can still clearly tell it is a second version of Lore Warden, rather than a new archetype that accidentally used the same name.

Can you PROVE this? Like I've seen some feats and stuff get errata'd to be completely different. Animal soul is one of those I think. It used to let animal spells touch you, and now it lets human spells not touch you. Completely different feats, yet the same. So we can't be "sure" that pact wizard isn't just a major change edit but are two different archetypes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Okay then, but the Pact Wizards are two very different archetypes.

Whereas the new Lore Warden is a modification on the first, rather than another archetype using the same name, and also has the abilities of the first, same names, or modified names, and modifications, but you can still clearly tell it is a second version of Lore Warden, rather than a new archetype that accidentally used the same name.

Can you PROVE this? Like I've seen some feats and stuff get errata'd to be completely different. Animal soul is one of those I think. It used to let animal spells touch you, and now it lets human spells not touch you. Completely different feats, yet the same. So we can't be "sure" that pact wizard isn't just a major change edit but are two different archetypes.

This is why this thread exists, in the hopes that we might receive some feedback from developers on better telling the difference.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Okay then, but the Pact Wizards are two very different archetypes.

Whereas the new Lore Warden is a modification on the first, rather than another archetype using the same name, and also has the abilities of the first, same names, or modified names, and modifications, but you can still clearly tell it is a second version of Lore Warden, rather than a new archetype that accidentally used the same name.

Can you PROVE this? Like I've seen some feats and stuff get errata'd to be completely different. Animal soul is one of those I think. It used to let animal spells touch you, and now it lets human spells not touch you. Completely different feats, yet the same. So we can't be "sure" that pact wizard isn't just a major change edit but are two different archetypes.
This is why this thread exists, in the hopes that we might receive some feedback from developers on better telling the difference.

The fact that they're absolutely nothing alike and both appeared in softcovers leads more credence that they're two different things rather than the later one being an upgrade.

I don't have the original version but what Chess says of Animal Soul it reads as a modification, rather than two completely different feats.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's not necessarily going to be so clear cut for everyone else I'm afraid. Different people have different thought processes, which can lead to different conclusions. In any case, debating the specific example will only serve to detract from the ultimate goal of the thread. Let's not do that here.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, PFS RPG, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Okay then, but the Pact Wizards are two very different archetypes.

Whereas the new Lore Warden is a modification on the first, rather than another archetype using the same name, and also has the abilities of the first, same names, or modified names, and modifications, but you can still clearly tell it is a second version of Lore Warden, rather than a new archetype that accidentally used the same name.

Can you PROVE this? Like I've seen some feats and stuff get errata'd to be completely different. Animal soul is one of those I think. It used to let animal spells touch you, and now it lets human spells not touch you. Completely different feats, yet the same. So we can't be "sure" that pact wizard isn't just a major change edit but are two different archetypes.

Wasn't Animal Soul actually errata'd? That is not the same as a reprint at all. There is an errata document to tell you that the feat changed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Really, is this all that hard to deal with?

If it is PFS, there is a pretty well defined process that tells you what is legal and what isn't, what versions to use, etc. etc.

If it isn't PFS, until Piazo finishes their ninja training school, they aren't going to be breaking into your house and demanding you use one version or the other. Of course once the Piazo ninjas are fully trained, all bets are off.

As for me, in my home games I consider what is printed in the core lines (with published errata) to be the version we will use if there is confusion.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Interesting thread, getting some sort of FAQ really would help.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, PFS RPG, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm really not sure what a possible answer would look like. What are the ways the PDT could answer this question?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
I'm really not sure what a possible answer would look like. What are the ways the PDT could answer this question?

I can see two desirable outcomes from this:

1) PDT says that it's your game, pick the version that works best for you. The new versions are wholly separate and do not obsolete the old ones, both are equally valid (they just happen to share the same name and have very similar mechanics).

2) PDT confirms that these updates are just another form of errata, and they respond by issuing a clear unambiguous stance that should something be reprinted, the most recent version should be considered the official one. As a bonus, they could issue FAQ/errata for the old sources to bring the wording up to parity.

Right now we have a mix of them; some are clearly intended to be errata and should be used going forwards, but the old source isn't going to see any update whatsoever to inform people of this fact. As such, whether or not you know the update exists entirely depends on whether or not you purchased the new book and read through it, or if you follow these messageboards religiously. In any event, PFS is not a factor into any of this, as they can issue their own clarifications as need be.


skizzerz wrote:
PFS is not a factor into any of this, as they can issue their own clarifications as need be.

PFS is Paizo's most trusted and reliable "playtesting" source, since A. Paizo is hands-on in relation to the gameplay and tables associated with PFS with their official GMs and VCs, and B. They record relevant information that Paizo can look over and, when they notice any irregularities, inconsistencies, or any other stuff that just looks off in relation to what they assume the rules are, they can bring the relevant rules up to the developers to make changes as needed.

On top of that, a lot of rules/options were outright changed and/or nerfed into oblivion due to PFS feedback (instead of them simply issuing bans onto the problematic options/rules), so suggesting that PFS isn't a factor when it comes to issuing "printing errata" is inherently false.


I think the point is that the PDT team weighing in doesn't really matter to people running home games. It's not exactly hard to decide "should I use the old version or the new one" one one's own and arguments like "I like this one better" or "this one's newer" are going to get people to come down one way or the other. I'd honestly prefer to just leave it this way because that's how people are going to play it anyway. I'm reasonably certain some people in home games are going to want to play the old Lore Warden.

For PFS though, they can just say "use the new version" without any input from the PDT. There's precedent, and this makes sense.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the point is that the PDT team weighing in doesn't really matter to people running home games. It's not exactly hard to decide "should I use the old version or the new one" one one's own and arguments like "I like this one better" or "this one's newer" are going to get people to come down one way or the other. I'd honestly prefer to just leave it this way because that's how people are going to play it anyway. I'm reasonably certain some people in home games are going to want to play the old Lore Warden.

For PFS though, they can just say "use the new version" without any input from the PDT. There's precedent, and this makes sense.

I know that's the point. But even then, a lot of tables will play the updated rules whether they like them or not, simply because they value playing the game as it's meant to be over the game as they want it to be, and even objectively speaking, some players who are wanting to play a game would view tables not taking updated material as playing with houserules that they, as players, may not be comfortable with playing.

I know my table plays the rules as they're updated, since I personally pushed for the pre-nerf Crane Style feat chain, but the GM insisted that we play the nerfed Crane Style feat chain. Sure, the Monk player didn't get absolutely slaughtered like I assumed he would, but he would've had a lot more fun (and it would've been less of a bog-down due to the implicating mechanics impeding the tempo of the game) if we played with the original rules.

Especially when we weren't abusing the Master of Many Styles archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And now that the Master of Many Styles isn't a broken mess of a two-level dip, I'd love to get the old Crane Wing feat chain back.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I know that's the point. But even then, a lot of tables will play the updated rules whether they like them or not, simply because they value playing the game as it's meant to be over the game as they want it to be, and even objectively speaking, some players who are wanting to play a game would view tables not taking updated material as playing with houserules that they, as players, may not be comfortable with playing.

I play a lot of online games and the usual baseline is the official rules. Without knowing which is correct, these elements must always be brought up and that eats up pre-game set-up time. And if both are official, knowing that is important too since that leaves it up to players preferences. So knowing what the basic plan for these 'updates' is important if for no other reason than knowing where the rules stop and house-ruling starts.

Azten wrote:
And now that the Master of Many Styles isn't a broken mess of a two-level dip, I'd love to get the old Crane Wing feat chain back.

There are several rules I'd like rolled back now that the actual problem has been fixed. Far too often several things get the nerf hammer that didn't need it before they find the true culprit [or the book it's in gets a reprint :P].


6 people marked this as a favorite.

BARBARIAN REMEMBER WHEN ORCS OF GOLARION AM HAVING FEAT CALLED DESTROYER'S BLESSING, AM ALLOWING BARBARIAN WITH MERCIFUL WEAPON RECOVER RAGE ROUNDS BY MAKING 2-3 SUNDER CHECKS AGAINST WHATEVER BARBARIAN DARN WELL FEEL LIKE BETWEEN FIGHTS.

BARBARIAN POINT THIS OUT. SUDDENLY LO AND BEHOLD ADVANCE RACE GUIDE COME OUT, AM LIMITING REGAIN TO 1/ROUND SO BARBARIAN AM ONLY ABLE SUSTAIN RAGE INFINITELY, NOT REGAIN OVER TIME.

THIS AM NORMAL FOR BARBARIAN, WHICH AM BEST CLASS AND AM SO GOOD PIZAO AM HAVING NERF HOW WORLD PHYSICS AM WORKING SO THAT POOR CASTYS AM ABLE TO PRETEND THEY AM ABLE KEEP UP WITH BARBARIAN.

BARBARIAN BASICALLY JUST CONSIDER ERRATA LIKE THIS MORE EVIDENCE OF BARBARIAN/NOT-BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY. THAT AM GAME.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
skizzerz wrote:
PFS is not a factor into any of this, as they can issue their own clarifications as need be.

PFS is Paizo's most trusted and reliable "playtesting" source, since A. Paizo is hands-on in relation to the gameplay and tables associated with PFS with their official GMs and VCs, and B. They record relevant information that Paizo can look over and, when they notice any irregularities, inconsistencies, or any other stuff that just looks off in relation to what they assume the rules are, they can bring the relevant rules up to the developers to make changes as needed.

On top of that, a lot of rules/options were outright changed and/or nerfed into oblivion due to PFS feedback (instead of them simply issuing bans onto the problematic options/rules), so suggesting that PFS isn't a factor when it comes to issuing "printing errata" is inherently false.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear with what I meant. I'm not delusional enough to think that PFS has zero impact on what receives FAQs or errata, I meant that the PDT having an official stance regarding whether or not reprints of things are meant to supplant the old versions as a general statement should not take PFS into account as they can modify the PDT stance via campaign clarifications should they disagree. In other words, such a stance would primarily be for the benefit of home games where the GM wants to know the intent behind such reprints before they issue their own rulings that apply to their tables.


Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago where a product was re-printed without the updated text for something, and that was considered the definitive text until another product could update it again to the corrected text?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, PFS RPG, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I think the source of the rule in question is a significant difference in Paizo's treatment of it but not so significant in the playerbase treatment of it (with one caveat at the end).

The PDT don't formally review or develop those character options which appear in Player Companions at all (as I understand it). As such, expecting the two "streams" of rule-generating books to line up to one consistent, overarching philosophy is always going to be a missed expectation.

I think of it as the Rulebook line setting out a kind of default for the game with the Player Companions offering some more options more concerned with how one might flesh out Golarion than with how balanced the options are within the rest of the Pathfinder ruleset. (Not that game balance is ignored, but just that it isn't such a priority, resource allocation wise).

Even if some database mixes everything together, that doesn't mean that a player option from the Player Companion line is the same sort of rule option as a player option from the Rulebook line.

So, although I appreciate the OP is really looking for Paizo's opinion, my view is that a reprint of a rulebook option should be viewed as an errata. However a reprint of a Player Companion originated option should be viewed as another way of implementing the option in question.

I think many fans' desire for an official 'final word' on rules matters is not as important a goal for Paizo - who are catering to many different markets, not all of which care about inconsistencies like this. Obviously, in a perfect world, everything would be issued across all their product lines with no imbalances, no inconsistencies and no regrets. However, they are limited in staff resources and have many different cohorts of customers to satisfy. Realising we don't live in a perfect world and accepting that these two streams of rule-generating products will occasionally produce clashes means they can put out more product in more niche areas.

The caveat to all of the above arising from the shift in philosophy regarding the rulebook line's previous aversion to including Golarion lore. I don't think there's any reason that change should eliminate the divide in rules options I see, but possibly it's part of some bigger, internal philosophical shift. So I guess it could be different going forward.


Newest version is most updated.

It would be best to define "reprinted". If the rules have changed they aren't a reprint they are an update. Most current.


Furthermore in the case of the lore warden the product discussion literally explains why it's been changed. How could it be anything but errata then?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cavall wrote:
Furthermore in the case of the lore warden the product discussion literally explains why it's been changed. How could it be anything but errata then?

Could you please link to the relevant bits? I think that could be really useful to the discussion.


Ravingdork wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Furthermore in the case of the lore warden the product discussion literally explains why it's been changed. How could it be anything but errata then?
Could you please link to the relevant bits? I think that could be really useful to the discussion.

I presume he meanst this.

Rysky wrote:
It's not every single book they put out, it's everything in Rulebook line, which PDFs are $9.99, so cheaper than the PDF of the Softcover you got that the option originally appeared in.

Doesn't change anything. If it's mandatory to buy and study book's I don't want to use, it's no longer the same game.

Rysky wrote:
This is completely disingenuous and you know it.

It was a hyperbole, made to show that we can't simply go by name. Animal Soul isn't a bad example - the effects are almost exactly opposites, and if it were a reprint instead of an errata, I honestly would've presumed it to be a completely different thing where they just re-used the name.

Rysky wrote:
Evil spells have always been evil, moving on.

The evil part is not the point. When the CRB says "There’s no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.", I really don't think many players will come up with a system that gives us a hard and fast mechanic (with a definite number) that's mostly in the player's hands. Which is why I used it as a comparison - if you take the sidebar in HA as a hard rule, it changes games that don't even use the book, exactly like a "newest version is the only correct one" rule regarding reprints would.


skizzerz wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
skizzerz wrote:
PFS is not a factor into any of this, as they can issue their own clarifications as need be.

PFS is Paizo's most trusted and reliable "playtesting" source, since A. Paizo is hands-on in relation to the gameplay and tables associated with PFS with their official GMs and VCs, and B. They record relevant information that Paizo can look over and, when they notice any irregularities, inconsistencies, or any other stuff that just looks off in relation to what they assume the rules are, they can bring the relevant rules up to the developers to make changes as needed.

On top of that, a lot of rules/options were outright changed and/or nerfed into oblivion due to PFS feedback (instead of them simply issuing bans onto the problematic options/rules), so suggesting that PFS isn't a factor when it comes to issuing "printing errata" is inherently false.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear with what I meant. I'm not delusional enough to think that PFS has zero impact on what receives FAQs or errata, I meant that the PDT having an official stance regarding whether or not reprints of things are meant to supplant the old versions as a general statement should not take PFS into account as they can modify the PDT stance via campaign clarifications should they disagree. In other words, such a stance would primarily be for the benefit of home games where the GM wants to know the intent behind such reprints before they issue their own rulings that apply to their tables.

I know what you meant. It doesn't change my stance that issues that PFS has with rules or options aren't always left with PFS to deal with, and we have precedent of this being the case with issues that are extremely problematic that Paizo is given no choice except to go the nuclear option.

I'm not saying that this will be the case, but I will say that for PFS organized play, everything that the Adventurer's Guide publishes (I can't WAIT for them to take Dervish Dance into that book, or even another future book, and apply the nuclear option to it like they so desperately want to) is something that PFS will adhere to, due to the ideal that Hardcovers have more weight in rules authority compared to Softcovers.


I only wished that Paizo did more tweaking of previous rules/options... etc

Realising that a previous option/design doesnt work right and changing it is a good thing..... better thaat than have something unworkable or unbalanced or broken linger on and on..


That and Paizo seems to find the idea of an actual update(pathfinder 1.5 or even 2) abhorrent for some reason....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azten wrote:
That and Paizo seems to find the idea of an actual update(pathfinder 1.5 or even 2) abhorrent for some reason....

Without question it would alienate a large portion of the roleplaying community. Seeing as Paizo is still reliant on our funding their enterprises, it makes sense that they would tread carefully.

Pathfinder came into the mainstream BECAUSE other popular systems reset their rules/versions. Why would Paizo want to do that, potentially creating a new rival for themselves like WotC did?


There is a non-zero chance that whoever the new EIC ends up being may be interested in doing some housekeeping on the ruleset, which is over half made up of 'errata-proof' splay books at this point.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cavall wrote:

Newest version is most updated.

It would be best to define "reprinted". If the rules have changed they aren't a reprint they are an update. Most current.

Well...

As a real world (as in 'this happened') example:


  • Book A has item B printed.
  • Item B gets FAQ with errata
  • Item B is now working very differently
  • Book C gets printed with reprint of original Item B without errata - whoops!

Has happened before - can happen again - I'm pretty sure there are instances where errata has hit the FAQ but didn't make it into the reprint of said book because Paizo is run by humans and they aren't perfect. This is all 100% acceptable and can happen - however apply the stance you take ("If the rules have changed they aren't a reprint they are an update") to the above happening and then ask yourself this:

If something is meant to change shouldn't there be an official word from the publisher to ensure we don't jump the gun and assume something?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, ALL this takes is Paizo deciding that all rulebooks matter, and issuing errata for rulebooks, when it is found to be needed. The current update cycle they use (hard covers sometimes updated when stock runs out; soft covers never updated) is simply bad for the game.

Dark Archive

As someone above pointed out there are multiple markets out there. And in the case of reprinting, it is problematic on multiple fronts. I prefer my books so the updated .pdf model doesn't work terribly well. But more fundamentally Paizo has tried to embrace something of an ongoing evolution model to the game so that books do not become dated. This is appreciated by folks who look at the pile of stuff as something of an investment. I do think they could be upfront and reasonable by doing things like this where they reprint old stuff to try and fix it. However between those who are upset when their favorite power trick gets nerfed and those who feel 'ripped off' if everything isn't new.


I mean, some of the old stuff is already effectively dated/obsolete.

I mean, does anybody use the Variant Aasimar Ability chart from "Blood of the Angels" for anything except "Trying to trade Daylight 1/day for a +2 Racial Bonus to a stat?" (and how cheesy that is happens to be why almost every table will just disregard that chart for PCs).

If you bought that book, it's pretty much useful only for fluff, which it still would be if they made a Pathfinder 2nd edition.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, some of the old stuff is already effectively dated/obsolete.

I mean, does anybody use the Variant Aasimar Ability chart from "Blood of the Angels" for anything except "Trying to trade Daylight 1/day for a +2 Racial Bonus to a stat?" (and how cheesy that is happens to be why almost every table will just disregard that chart for PCs).

If you bought that book, it's pretty much useful only for fluff, which it still would be if they made a Pathfinder 2nd edition.

When I saw those charts released I immediately just told my players we weren't using content from those books without my explicit permission.

One person showed up with a small sized category aasimar with a bonus to dex and trading out the SLA bonus for another bonus to dex and thought that it was just super cool that he "legally" had such a high dex. I told him that his character wasn't allowed in my game and he groused about it for a while.

My biggest problem with some of these options is players feel like they're entitled just because it's published.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've seen three variant aasimar in my games. Every one of them took the extra stat boost from that table. That alone is pretty telling for me as a GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I've seen three variant aasimar in my games. Every one of them took the extra stat boost from that table. That alone is pretty telling for me as a GM.

LOL Not everyone jumps on the stats... I made up a character not long ago with the +5' move on a tiefling. That and tribal scars lets my Kinetic Knight move 30' in heavy armor. ;) Nice but not game breaking.

In the past I've used Channel energy, swim speed, never appear to age, energy resistance, bonus to saves, healed by neg/pos energy, ect. There are LOTS of cool abilities other than the stats: In fact, the only time I ever took the stat was to offset the penalty to stats, making the tiefling have 2 positive bonuses like an aasimar.

PossibleCabbage: I use the chart all the time and 99% of the time don't use the stat bonuses. Asking for free stat points is a good way to make SURE a DM isn't going to use the chart. Taking a cool but realistic pick is much more palatable to most I've met.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I use the chart for actual rolling-on. Usually, being a fairly generous GM, I let players exchange their SLA for two sets of five rolls, taking the best of each roll. I'll allow picks for thematic results (at my discretion).

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
In fact, the only time I ever took the stat was to offset the penalty to stats, making the tiefling have 2 positive bonuses like an aasimar.

This is the only time I ever had someone ask for one. He wanted his paladin (who was a human turned into a tiefling) to have her Intelligence back to normal. I was fine with it. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
I use the chart for actual rolling-on. Usually, being a fairly generous GM, I let players exchange their SLA for two sets of five rolls, taking the best of each roll. I'll allow picks for thematic results (at my discretion).

Hmm... I've always used the chart for "thematic results". Your set of rolls though piques my interest. I don't mind random choices when there is an option of several of them so I it'd be interesting to try your method some time. :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I always liked "If you stand atop a grave and meditate for 10 minutes, you learn the name of whoever lies buried below."

And the talking to birds one. And the insects not stinging you one >_<


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Sadly, ALL this takes is Paizo deciding that all rulebooks matter, and issuing errata for rulebooks, when it is found to be needed. The current update cycle they use (hard covers sometimes updated when stock runs out; soft covers never updated) is simply bad for the game.

Some of this content is reprints from soft covers, though. I think that, given Paizo's release model, this at least makes it easier to issue erratas and FAQ's for that content, particularly given that it is often left untouched after release until it is reprinted into a rulebook.

While the model isn't great, reprinting this ancient as f&#+ content is better than just leaving it to stagnate with deficiencies and poor rules text.

For that matter, what exactly is the confusion here? This is a rulebook with content wholesale reprinted from old content, but altered or updated in some cases. That's the new version. This isn't difficult to grasp. Do whatever you want in your home games, but as far as books go the most recent reprint should be the accepted version.

For society play, that is a very specific crowd and the PFS team should make their own judgement call on how to handle that. But it definitely shouldn't prevent republishing material if the devs believe it will allow for a healthier game state. I HIGHLY doubt greed is a motivator for this, particularly since most of this republished content is at least 6 years old or so. Why should they not touch up old content? To invalidate a purchase you made 6 years ago? Give me a break....


Rysky wrote:

I always liked "If you stand atop a grave and meditate for 10 minutes, you learn the name of whoever lies buried below."

And the talking to birds one. And the insects not stinging you one >_<

I've seen all of those in play too and they worked well. In fact the grave one was a HUGE help in one game, saving a LOT of searching time.

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
While the model isn't great, reprinting this ancient as f!%+ content is better than just leaving it to stagnate with deficiencies and poor rules text.

For me, it's the unknown factors. You have devs come in and say 'we'll change this in the new reprint' then put it in a new book and it's unchanged [glorious heat]. Or you update it in book A but book B still have it officially listed as something else: for instance, you can use the PRD to look up a rule and depending on which book you look it up in, it's a different rule or worded differently. You end up wondering, was the change [or non-change] meant to be or an accident/mistake? It's why a note like 'this replaces 'x' from book Y' would do wonders as it lets you know what's up. Heck, just a sentence in the front of the book that says 'all reprinted material as [fill in blank]' solves questions.

I'm all for reprints but it should be clear what that means for the base content: if they change an FAQ, they remove the old one while a reprint doesn't force a notation that origin changes. That leads to multiple 'correct' versions like the way the PRD is set up.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I had a tiefling 'kobold' in a game who rolled on the chart that he could eat ash. Made a great running gag through the adventure. He always talked about food being undercooked, and really liked the burnt pieces they left in the fire.

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Should reprinted player options be treated as errata? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.