When Should We Errata a Card?

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

This is the story of a man and his horse.

There is a very energetic debate going on the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game forums about the Wrath of the Righteous Base Set character Alain and his trusty equine buddies. The Lancer power of "Recharge a card (▢ or put it on top of your deck) to search your deck or discard pile for a card that has the Mount trait and add it to your hand" allows an already formidable warrior to keep exploring as long as he has at least one Mount in his hand.


"Can do! Can do!" This forum says the horse "can do."

After listening to all sides of the debate for several months, we decided to make a change. As of today's post on the Wrath FAQ, the power has been rewritten as "Recharge a weapon or an armor (▢ or put it on top of your deck) to search your deck or discard pile for a card that has the Mount trait and add it to your hand." That slows Alain down, though not so much that he doesn't get anything out of the power.

Similarly, we saw an exploit with Imrijka that we didn't like much either. So we fixed that too. That only took us a month to consider.

"Wait," you say, "did you say 'only a month?'" Uh-huh. Sometimes we don't make changes until months after we see the first signs of a problem—usually after Vic writes a quick response that starts with the word "Sigh." We don't panic, because you guys are smart. We expect you to make it through house-ruling it your own way, obeying the social contract while you prompt us for answers. We're not coming to your house and writing on your cards.

Instead, we begin a process. Some people don't understand why it takes as long as it does. The reason is that unlike the rulebook—which we've committed to being a living, breathing, evolving document—our cards don't just update themselves. There's a real overhead to errata that you, the player, have to hold in your head. So we don't change something unless we need to. And when we do, there are several types of FAQ entries we could write. We treat them very differently from each other. Here they are.

Type 1: It's So Trivial, We're Not Even Gonna Mention It

We have several human beings that proof our cards. Human beings miss things. Usually pretty trivial things. So maybe we forget how to spell the name Eustoyriax midway through editing an adventure or even a single card. Or maybe there's this extremely little problem on Infinite Rod.


Eustoyriax is happy to to see you.

See that line "You may discard this card to to add 2 dice to any check to defeat a barrier?" You can probably see the double "to" glaring you in the face now. Well, we didn't see that when we were proofing. So when I did spot it, we just fixed it in our file and never mentioned it on the Wrath FAQ page. When we fix mistakes that have no meaningful impact on the game itself, we don't feel a need to bring it up. But if we ever print that card again, it'll be correct.

Type 2: It's Dumb, but Meaningful, and We Should Just Fix It

Sometimes we just bollix up some words. We might banish a card we mean to discard, for example, or call something an Item when we meant an Object. An easy example is the Horsechopper +1 entry.


Seems like something got chopped.

We forgot the Polearm trait. Since Raz and Tontelizi have powers that care about the Polearm trait, it's a meaningful omission. It's an easy fix, so we make it as soon as we can. If the card has already been released, we do it right away, and if the card isn't out yet, we put it in a queue to add to the FAQ on release. (The "change the Item trait to the Object trait" entry was in the queue for seven months before the cards it affected were released.)

Quite honestly, we hate these things. There shouldn't be any of them. But we have thousands of cards, and we screw up some words sometimes. When we mess up, we fess up.

Type 3: It's Bizarre and Maybe We Should Fix It

With thousands of cards, we try hard to see how they will all interact. Sometimes you guys find things that surprise us. Really strange things.

Another errata we issued today was for Rise of the Runelords Adventure 4—Fortress of the Stone Giants. A particularly bizarre combination of cards—the scenario The Ancient Library, the henchman The Headless Lord, and Kyra's Fireflower role in the Cleric Class Deck—produces a situation where, if you can defeat the Headless Lord with a weapon that has the Sword trait, you might be able to put all the armor from the game box into your deck.


Miss Kyra in the Library with the Sword.

This is the kind of thing we have to think about before acting. We'll consider how likely it is to occur, how damaging it is, and how much fun it sucks out of the game. In this particular case, we almost didn't make the change. But then we looked at some of the armor that's showing up in our class decks and realized that's not something we want to see just pop into your hand. So we killed it.

But then sometimes we don't. An unthinkable card combo made us question what would happen if you Disintegrated the undefeatable dragon turtle henchman Hirgenzosk in the scenario Into the Runeforge—which, y'know, is never gonna happen—and we figured that wouldn't ever get to the step of shuffling Hirgy into his location deck, but then we had to look at the Jorgenfist Stone Giant, which also worked and then we—man, even I'm confused. Anyway, it all worked as intended so we left it alone because for criminy's sake, we have better things to do with our days.


Turtles all the way down.

Type 4: It's Bad and We Know How to Fix It, So We Will

By far, the largest number of entries in the FAQ are clarifications, not corrections. They come from us not completely understanding what you will do when you read what we wrote. Here's a recent example, once again about cards that have the Mount trait.


All aboard! No, really, all aboard.

These four-legged friends seemed fine to us. But you guys thought they required another character to move with you for you to use their power. We didn't want that, so we quickly came up with another wording: "Discard this card at the end of your turn to move; you may also move another character at your location to your new location." We applied that to all the cards as soon as they came out.

If only it was always that easy.

Type 5: It's Bad, but We Don't Know How to Fix It, So We'll See What We Can Do

This category includes the majority of the issues that are still open in our bug tracking database. (Yep—we deal with these issues exactly the same way that software developers track bugs.) Sometimes the discussion goes on for a while. We know something has to change, but changing it could cause other problems. So we keep working on it until we have an ironclad answer.

We're still trying to figure out what happens when you fail to defeat a villain at the Abyssal Rift. We're still dealing with ripple effects from Fringes of the Eye and Teleportation Chamber. The spell Steal Soul might be causing us to look at all of our Golem monsters all over again. And so on.


Y'all are working my one good nerve.

There's always something vexing us. Don't worry. We'll eventually figure it out. But it can take months. Sometimes, issues that seem small have bigger effects on things we're working on for future sets, so we have to consider (and sometimes redesign) piles of cards you haven't seen yet before we consider the problem solved. A few of these issues have been open for over a year, and a few of them have been closed and reopened more times than I care to remember. Big games can have lots of little holes.

Type 6: It Wasn't Broken Until We Fixed Something Else, and Now We Have to Deal With It

We used to think the powers box wasn't something you'd ever need to look at when you played the Runelords spell Summon Monster. You'd just pull a monster out, look at its difficulty, and throw it at whatever you were facing. But then it became clear that the Veteran trait might matter. If you pulled out a Mercenary in Adventure 6, you wouldn't want him to have a difficulty of 10. And what if you pulled out a Giant when the Giant Lair was in play? We needed to address that in the rules.

So we made a rule that made "passive" difficulty mods work—that is, not those that happened before, while, or after you acted. That ruling was nice and clean, but every single Lycanthrope was worded in a way that didn't work with this change. And that meant there were now eight cards to errata. So we did it in one sweeping FAQ entry.


Gaby just grinned and doesn't know why.

These sorts of changes are likely to become more common as the game becomes deeper. For example, we're going to put the Electricity trait on Lightning Elemental and Comozant Wyrd from Skull & Shackles, and it isn't because there's anything wrong with that set. It's because it will matter next year when Mummy's Mask comes out. It will matter a lot.

Type 7: It's Bad, but The Real Problem is Something Else

This is a tough type of problem. Players think they have found a problem, but the thing that they think is at fault is working just fine. It's something else buried in the system that doesn't work, and we need to figure out what.

At the risk of causing some cardiac events, let's talk about The Elven Entanglement. It's probably your least favorite scenario, at least until you beat it. It's part of a very hard set of B scenarios for Wrath prompted by continued statements from players that the B scenarios in our previous two sets were too easy. So we built a set with a different power curve, one that was hard at the start, but if you beat it, you were well prepared for what was coming your way in adventure 1.

The problem was, The Elven Entanglement—the second scenario in the whole game—looked really broken. Nowhere on either the scenario or the henchmen was there a way to close a location. That meant winning the scenario was super-difficult. So people assumed we meant for the Tangle Traps to have "close the location" text, but we didn't. We intended the Tangle Traps to be "passive" henchmen; they're just vines, so they don't let you close the location. The problem wasn't with them. It was with the cohort Vinst.


All tangled up.

The intent here was that you couldn't close the locations the normal way. Instead, you'd sacrifice an exploration to fight a Fiendish Tree; if you beat it, your buddy Vinst would show up. If he was around when you beat a Tangle Trap, you could auto-close the location, and then Vinst would scamper away. Rinse, repeat. That would have worked... except Vinst was worded as "When you would attempt to close a location," and that attempt would never happen. So people didn't see the point of Vinst in the scenario and never went for the Tree.

It took six months for us to realize what the problem here was. Now we've fixed it. Enjoy your Fiendish Trees.

Type 8: It's Not Necessarily Bad, but Some People Really Don't Like It

And while we're on that subject, let's address the elephant in the room: Are the B scenarios in Wrath really too hard? Well, some people love the increased peril, and they tell us that we finally gave them the challenge they wanted. But other people hate it; they write about unfairness and random damage. They specifically focus on these three cards.


Everyone's favorite cards.

So what to do when some people want one thing and others want another? Well, maybe there's a way we can have our cake and eat it too. We're introducing a new type of errata today: the optional kind. This entry has a different flavor to it. It offers a set of changes that involve swapping some cards from one deck to another, and yes, maybe even giving Tangle Traps the ability to let you close locations. We're not going to make an errata deck for these cards, because we're not requiring you to play this way. (Also, Vic notes, the "close the location" text won't actually fit on the Tangle Trap card.)

Type 9: It's Bad, but Some People Really Love It

I speak often about the dual approaches to game design being the "dessert bar" approach and the "salad bar" approach. Dessert bar games give you very few impediments to success and are pretty much empty calories. Salad bar games are a lot less sweet for you, but you might actually be around longer if you play them. PACG is obviously a salad bar game.

But sometimes we give you too much dessert. In very rare cases, we have to think about "nerfing" something. Nerfing is the process of taking something that is written exactly how we intended but causes a potential power imbalance in the game. It's not something we can just ignore (unlike, say, the asinine Headless Lord thing above), but changing it means actually worsening the play experience for some people. Or at least it means something they've played with won't be the same when they play with it again, and usually "in the house's favor."

We've only done this a few times. Our tone is often very different when we make a change like this. For example, Restoration. We know you don't want to play in a manner that doesn't advance the game at all until you win it in one mirthless sweep. But because of organized play and just general courtesy, we can't let anyone do that. So we nuked it from orbit. Arabundi had a problem like this, and so did Radillo. We nuked those too. But not till after we spent a long time debating whether we wanted to nerf something that some players enjoyed exploiting and other players enjoyed using as intended.


It's nerf or nothin'.

That brings us back to Alain and Imrijka. After weighing what people were doing in play and then testing them over and over ourselves, we decided the game would be better if people were playing a different way. So Alain can't do all of his mounted shenanigans any more, and Imrijka can't ignore the blessings deck entirely. Those were tough choices, but we made the decisions to nerf them and move on.

This won't be the last time we errata something. We've done it before and we hope to have to do it less over time. But whenever we do it, we make sure we're ready to do so before we post anything. Because the last thing we want is someone playing incorrectly because we need to errata our errata.

And I want to end on this note. None of this happens without your help. Your posts to the forums have helped us clarify and correct and just really understand the colossal game we've unleashed on the world. Everyone on the design team really appreciates it... even Vic, no matter how often you make him sigh.

Mike Selinker
Adventure Card Game Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I don't see the "optional" erratas mentioned in 8. Good to know about Vinst for my Wrath play through, although I finally managed to beat it without him using Adowyn.


deinol wrote:
I don't see the "optional" erratas mentioned in 8.

? I see it right here.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Quote:
the location scenario The Ancient Library

Your errata blog needs an errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I love the insight. Thanks.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
elcoderdude wrote:
deinol wrote:
I don't see the "optional" erratas mentioned in 8.
? I see it right here.

I see it now. The link in the blog didn't work for me before, and I must have missed it when I was browsing the errata.

I'll probably not use the optional section, the change to Vinst seems enough to satisfy me.


Awesome read mike. Thanks!

Holy cow.. we ground through elven the hard way.. didn't realize vinst was sleeping on the job!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Andrew L Klein wrote:
Quote:
the location scenario The Ancient Library
Your errata blog needs an errata.

Fixed. At least it was correct in the actual FAQ entry...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The thing that's surprising about Vinst was I don't think anyone read that intent in the card. The Tangletrap henchman didn't say anything about allowing an attempt to close, so there was really no way for anyone to know that Vinst could help here. So the players were complaining about how tough the scenario is when you have to empty the location decks but never knew that wasn't really how it was supposed to work. So this is an interesting kind of blind spot problem, not a misprint or weird card combo exploit.

Adventure Card Game Designer

Yup. I should've delved deeper, though.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Mike Selinker wrote:
Yep—we deal with these issues exactly the same way that software developers track bugs.

Side effect of working close to Microsoft

Mike Selinker wrote:
I speak often about the dual approaches to game design being the "dessert bar" approach and the "salad bar" approach.

Interesting - I thought the "salad bar" was an alternative way of talking about the "Chinese takeout menu" approach in which you take x items from column A, y items from column B, etc

Speaking of which, peoples' ideas of dessert seem to be different - Some people believe RotR Sajan and Lini are completely broken, whereas I think it's borderline. (Since exploration velocity matters above the ability to win all your encounters 100%)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Mike Selinker wrote:
Yup. I should've delved deeper, though.

You are allowed to be human (or cross out and insert your favorite race :-) )

PFACG is my all time favorite game in 30+ years of playing games, so on balance I think you are the team are WAAAAYYYYYYY ahead on the quality stakes!
Looking forward to see what Mummy looks like

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That bit about Vinst was really interesting. That makes a lot more sense now. Really the whole post is cool to know. Thanks for clueing us in, Mike & team!


As always, thanks for sharing Mike.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think Type 3 should show Kyra's Fireflower role card instead of the character card, since the power problematic in this set-up is on the role, right?


Recently a new card for RotR was errataed. So it was may be not in the drivethrucards pack. Will it be added?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Perfect blog! Kudos!

As an ex employee from Microsoft I must admit, this is really not far from how you deal with bugs.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Hate to be that guy but...

While I appreciate the undeniable upgrade to Vinst, the errata text now prevents him from being used when a closing attempt is made at an empty location (while he previously had that ability). Is that intended?


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

He was probably never intended to be able to do that.

Adventure Card Game Designer

Zaister wrote:
I think Type 3 should show Kyra's Fireflower role card instead of the character card, since the power problematic in this set-up is on the role, right?

Whoops. My fault. Will fix.


Thanks for this post. I find it the must elucidating peak on to the workings of the game that you have given us this far.


Thanks, great article

just out of interest, when the errata packs for Wrath appear, will they include Tangle Traps with "you may attempt to close" and/or banes with the optional adventure deck numbers changed?

Pathfinder ACG Developer

MightyJim wrote:

Thanks, great article

just out of interest, when the errata packs for Wrath appear, will they include Tangle Traps with "you may attempt to close" and/or banes with the optional adventure deck numbers changed?

That text cannot fit on the tangle trap card, and the errata is optional and only lasts a few nights before it doesn't matter.

So I'd imagine not.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mike Selinker wrote:
Zaister wrote:
I think Type 3 should show Kyra's Fireflower role card instead of the character card, since the power problematic in this set-up is on the role, right?
Whoops. My fault. Will fix.

While you're at it, the same paragraph shows the Runelords adventure deck 6 scenario "Into the Eye", but should probably show adventure deck 5 scenario "Into the Runeforge".

Finally noticed these two issues by after wracking my brain tring to find the combo. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great post. I enjoyed reading it. Hopefully, it will cut down on the number of complaints when mistakes happen because people will understand how/why they happen (also some of them might not be mistakes at all.)

The Horsechopper hyperlink in the post is wrong. I's going to the WOTR Object/Item entry.

There's also a big issue with the FAQ you're missing. It'd be helpful if there was a distinction between Errata that's been corrected on DriveThru Cards vs. errata that isn't available. It's no fun at all reading the RotR FAQ purposefully ignoring 3/4 of the content to find the few things that changed if you bought the cards (a practice which you're trying to encourage with your business partner DriveThruCards.) The red CSS styling link is only good for the most current FAQ update, then it goes away when a new update is made.

I'd suggest different colors for pre/post DriveThru cards via a CSS style, but there are other ways of conveying the information. It just seems easier to me to use CSS instead of cutting and pasting stuff around an HTML file or script.

I'm not sure what continual changes means for DriveThruCards. If RotR cards are still getting updated, I'd like to purchase new cards as it's much easier to just rely on the cards (the way the game is supposed to be played) than trying to remember everything on a FAQ that might apply. I'm not sure what business process would work best, perhaps an annual update cycle - ROTR 2016 Update, ROTR 2017 Update?

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Wow. That changes the terrible Elven Entanglement scenario completely. Vinst's role here was completely obscured by the verbiage on the card(s) - I always thought he was just sort of a gimpy bonus (because really, who would choose to fight a Fiendish Tree just to get an ally that has little practical use in a scenario where henchmen don't close?).

I have held off on buying any of the errata sets from DriveThru because I figure they're not finished making changes.

Hoping that the now-slower release cycle of base sets can help prevent something like Elven Entanglement from showing up in the final set of cards.


Happy to be of service! Kudos for updating before I've even finished running Imrijka through WotR :). Making the change before the Inquisitor Class Deck comes out and people start using her in OP seems correct, though.

Here's hoping that optional errata is the first step toward similar official on-release choices for increasing/decreasing difficulty, as it's tough to find a sweet spot for all groups.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Actually as someone that has purchased the RotR packs when they became available, I'd rather see the individual cards available as purchase options along with them updated in the appropriate packs. I don't want to have to purchase an entire pack if I need to update one or two cards.


That's what I was going for with the dated releases. You'd only have cards from that year in the package, so you don't have to repurchase cards in a complete "mega" set that haven't changed.

DriveThruCards could have web controls or web pages with links for what's needed to get everything, for example:

Rise of the Runelords, 1st Edition
Errata Cards sets from original release (there multiple downloads)
Errata Cards 2016
Errata Cards 2017

Rise of the Runelords, 2nd Edition
Errata Cards (original release)
Errata Cards 2016
Errata Cards 2017

A full set would consist of buying each of the downloads. So to get my RotR 2nd Edition updated in 2017, I'd have to buy Errata Cards (original release), Errata Cards 2016, and Errata Cards 2017. But if I already owned (original release) from a previous purchase, then I'd just have to buy Errata Cards 2016 and Errata Cards 2017 to get everything current.

It'd be nice if the packages were updated to remove cards that subsequently improved in future dated releases, but that might be too much administrative overhead, and you'd lose some product history (what happens if a card needs to be reverted back to it's original printing?) Updating packages would mess with customers using the FAQ who might not have bought all the errata sets - as some customers with an "original release" errata set have the partially corrected cards and others wouldn't - making the package naming scheme broken and tough for customer support to answer questions.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Autoduelist wrote:
The Horsechopper hyperlink in the post is wrong. I's going to the WOTR Object/Item entry.

Fixed. Thanks.

Autoduelist wrote:
There's also a big issue with the FAQ you're missing. It'd be helpful if there was a distinction between Errata that's been corrected on DriveThru Cards vs. errata that isn't available. It's no fun at all reading the RotR FAQ purposefully ignoring 3/4 of the content to find the few things that changed if you bought the cards (a practice which you're trying to encourage with your business partner DriveThruCards.)

Have a look at the RotR FAQ thread: everything prior to this post was incorporated into the errata deck.

Autoduelist wrote:
The red CSS styling link is only good for the most current FAQ update, then it goes away when a new update is made.

Not quite. At the top of the FAQ, you'll see a sentence that says "Highlight items updated in the past day, week, or month." If you click "day," the red style will be applied to everything updated in the past day, and so on.

Autoduelist wrote:
I'm not sure what continual changes means for DriveThruCards. If RotR cards are still getting updated, I'd like to purchase new cards as it's much easier to just rely on the cards (the way the game is supposed to be played) than trying to remember everything on a FAQ that might apply. I'm not sure what business process would work best, perhaps an annual update cycle - ROTR 2016 Update, ROTR 2017 Update?

DriveThru specifically doesn't want us adding tons of single cards every time we make an update, and we don't have an easy way to say "give me the cards that changed since I bought the deck last." So the plan is *if* we build up a significant number of cards with worthwhile errata, we'll publish those new cards as a pack. However, you'll note that so far, the only RotR cards that have FAQ entries since the errata decks were published in March are Warden of Thunder, Collapsed Ceiling, Avalanche, and the Ancient Library. (The pace has slowed quite considerably.)

We're currently looking closely at Runelords due to Obsidian's version of the game, and there's a chance it might shake a few more things out. If it does, I'll consider assembling an update pack.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Awesome to read this, and even more awesome to finally understand how The Elven Entanglement was supposed to work. It is like errata Christmas :D

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Zaister wrote:
While you're at it, the same paragraph shows the Runelords adventure deck 6 scenario "Into the Eye", but should probably show adventure deck 5 scenario "Into the Runeforge".

Will fix.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Your insights are much appreciated!

Adventure Card Game Designer

Longshot11 wrote:
While I appreciate the undeniable upgrade to Vinst, the errata text now prevents him from being used when a closing attempt is made at an empty location (while he previously had that ability). Is that intended?

It is intended. He was not designed to do that. His role is that if you kill a horrid beastie in his forest, he helps you and then leaves. If you don't do that, he doesn't help you.


Vic Wertz wrote:
DriveThru specifically doesn't want us adding tons of single cards every time we make an update, and we don't have an easy way to say "give me the cards that changed since I bought the deck last." So the plan is *if* we build up a significant number of cards with worthwhile errata, we'll publish those new cards as a pack.

I think we're on the same page, except for the card update frequency which was only an example, not a request. I was suggesting each DriveThruCard update pack would only contain cards that changed since the last update pack was released. So for example, if the release schedule was this:

First release Sept 2015 = all errata items up to Sept 2015
Second release Mar 2016 = all errata items from Oct 2015 - Mar 2016
Third release Oct 2017 = all errata items from Apr 2016 - Oct 2017

Since there are dates on all the errata items an end user can figure out what's covered in subsequent update packs. But I get your point, there's not going to be a lot of update packages for the older games.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Not quite. At the top of the FAQ, you'll see a sentence that says "Highlight items updated in the past day, week, or month." If you click "day," the red style will be applied to everything updated in the past day, and so on.

Thanks. I wasn't being precise in my description of "most current FAQ" update." I see this at the top of the FAQ:

ROTR FAQ wrote:
Last updated: November 03, 2015. Items updated in the past month are displayed in red.

Unfortunately, the current implementation doesn't address my observation. Since the date changes, the CSS feature is only good for the current month - 1. I was proposing a CSS styling feature for a fixed date in time: the DriveThruRPG errata card coverage date. Since each errata item has a date attached to it already, you could use a server or client side script to apply the CSS styling to identify pre-and-post DriveThruRPG cards update packs.

A different option would be a view that lists the errata in date order, so users can figure this out for themselves without having to parse the HTML from paizo.com.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Have a look at the RotR FAQ thread: everything prior to this post was incorporated into the errata deck.

This is good to know. Perhaps this would be a good FAQ question? "What date does the first set of DriveThruRPG errata cards cover?"

A: June 24, 2015


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's possible my explanation might be lost on a few people because of the technical implementation details. Let me try another approach.

I notice the Pathfinder RPG line has a set of detailed errata documents that provide information about changes for each printing of the source book in question.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Rise of the Runelords has 2 print editions, and to be honest, 3 print editions if you include the DriveThruRPG errata cards. Why can't we have an errata document for Rise of the Runelords so it's easy to tell which FAQ items apply to a specific printing of the game? You can do this with CSS styling on the web page or you can take some other approach: PDF files, separate web pages, etc. The nice part about this is once you've categorized the data for everything released prior to the DriveThruRPG cards, all FAQ questions released after that point becomes "new" for every customer and doesn't need categorization beyond the red "new for the month" CSS style Paizo.com already uses.

It's not a data issue because it's already been provided.

It's not a manpower issue, because you have people in the community who can help out.

This request may seem unimportant or trivial compared to the other work or problems Paizo has to deal with internally (for example, other product releases, problems with manufacturing, supporting freelancers contributing to Paizo's products). The problem is that customers don't see your progress on those issues, so if you're writing blog posts explaining how you deal with product errors, and you've had some bad product launches (Rise of the Runelords first printing comes to mind), ignoring customer requests like this one that seem useful and easy to accomplish to an external observer makes you look out-of-touch, especially if it's work you're already doing for another set of customers.


Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The FAQ for the Card Game are the errata documents for it. In the RPG space, the FAQ and errata are two entirely separate beasts (FAQ are meant to clarify existing rules but will never change wording in the rulebook or introduce new rules, whereas errata are actual changes to the wording). I'm incredibly happy that PACG didn't go this route, because it is the cause of much consternation on the RPG forums by the side arguing against the interpretation the FAQ goes for claiming it's errata and not a clarification and inventing new rules and therefore shouldn't exist, blah blah blah.

I'm not saying your request doesn't have any merit, I'm just pointing out a case where your comparison might be slightly misinformed :)


Except it's not a misinformed comparison. I was asking for FAQ questions to identify which printing they apply too. It's something Paizo already does with the RPG. If you check the links above, you'll see I already did that work for Paizo and I was told it couldn't be released under the CUPs.

I provide a technical explanation and I don't get a relevant answer to my question.

I provide a non-technical explanation and I get complaints about the analogy.

I can't do anything to help you Skizzerz as I'm out of words. Hopefully, my observations resonate with someone from Paizo or Lone Shark.


Great stuff. I really appreciate the optional errata for the B scenarios. Has there been any discussion about adjustments to the Army barriers?

Adventure Card Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We like those as is.


Gotcha. Not to be a pest, but is there a tactic for these cards that a lot of us seem to be missing? These barriers seem nearly unbeatable by a good number of party configurations in 6 player groups. If that is by design, is there an approach to the scenarios in which that they appear that I'm just not seeing?

Again, not trying to be a pest. I really appreciate that you guys spend as much time on the boards as you do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll add my voice to those requesting an optional change to the army barriers for 5-6 character parties (for example, letting the last two characters duplicate checks, or allowing a party to defeat an army by discarding a blessing from the blessing deck for each failed check). As things stand, to succeed in Wrath with 5-6 characters you need to review the army barriers when you choose your party. That shouldn't be necessary.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Where is the art for Steal Soul from?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That was commissioned specifically for the card game.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I see. Thank you!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: When Should We Errata a Card? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.