Adivion Adrissant

CraziFuzzy's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 1,878 posts (1,881 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,878 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
lud wrote:

I did run a bit of math for the Dwarven Throwers.

Assuming you can send in the clowns and a PC is the clown coordinator:

Attempting Athletics (+10), Athletics (+5), Athletics (+0) gives you on
average a 1.85 net excitement gain.

Attempting Acrobatics (+7), Athletics (+5), Athletics (+0) gives you on average a 1.93 net excitement gain.

So you are better off using your skill with the lower bonus for the first check of the trick.

Not very intuitive for the players!

If you cannot send in the clown, then it doesn't make a difference. (You will get 0.9 net excitement on average)

Really old, I know, but how is using a lower modifier check ever a good idea? I'm not geting how using the +7 ends up with a higher success chance than the +10. Is there some verbiage I'm missing that is being used as the basis for this?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I actually realized after posting this, that I could treat the hermitage as a splinter faith, and use the associated 1st level feat for this use. Now I would just need to determine what non-gozreh domain the hermitage would venerate.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So, I've got a player desiring to play a lightning-themed cleric for Extinction Curse. I thought the natural fit would be Gozreh and he could have left the hermitage of blessed lightning as they started to go down bad paths. Then I realized that Lightning is listed as an 'alternate domain' for Gozreh in Gods & Magic, meaning it is not an option until 4th level and then only after taking the Expanded Domain Initiate feat. Does it make sense to allow members of that particular hermitage to have access to this domain from 1st level? I wonder if I should come up with a specific background for him that might grant that feat instead? I get that it's a 4th level feat, and I understand it is that way because it ADDS a domain to the character - I'm just trying to give access to lightning as his main domain.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Mechanically, the end result is the same. They will likely never fix this, and if they do it's a low priority for them.

That's sort of what ended up killing pathfinder 1, the lack of a desire to fix the little things, thus causing so many little things to pile up. They don't really have the 'we don't errata soft covers' dilemma anymore, and this is literally just removing the prerequisite line.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

And even minor issues should be put on a list of fixes for the next revision of the APG.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Snare Setter has a prerequisite of 'trained in Crafting'. Also grants trained proficiency in Crafting. Is this a chicken, or is this an egg?

Well, it's ok as you become Trained in another skill instead.

So, it's a minor issue.

The issue is the prerequisite, not that it grants something you already may have. As a level one ancestry feat, the prerequisite probably shouldn't even be there.

To be honest, I only noticed this when it wasn't available in pathbuilder for the kobold I was building. Wasn't available because i'd have to add craft from some other source for it to show up.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Snare Setter has a prerequisite of 'trained in Crafting'. Also grants trained proficiency in Crafting. Is this a chicken, or is this an egg?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

WANT: Kobold

HAVE: Triaxian/Lashunta/Android (2020 GM Boon #1)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gisher wrote:
As arcane casters with no special exemptions, they do suffer from ASF. I'd suggest picking up the Arcane Armor Training feat.

Sadly, it ends up making more sense to just look elsewhere. Arcane Armor Training is such a terrible option just to get some bard casting on the investigator.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Questioner archetype for the investigator swaps out alchemy for Bard'ish casting (Bard spell list, Bard progress, Int instead of Cha). No mention is made of ASF. I'm building one of these guys, ultimately trying to be the knowledge king, but don't know if I should be buying armor or mage armor, as it seems unclear whether ASF is a factor here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

i agree with the comments from months ago that the geniekin name is misleading. Planar Scion (insert plane here) is far more applicable, and would, honestly, work to describe every planar influenced ancestry, and frankly, shouldn't be an 'ancestry' at all, but something that is added onto a material plane ancestry.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

2020 GM Boom #1. Triaxian, Lashunta, or Android - as well as a large set of race-specific options from various a number of different sources - but doesn't specify more than book and page number and 'android character options' or 'triaxian options' etc.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gary Bush wrote:
Having not seen the boon, I can't offer any answers.

Okay - but I did quote the relevant text - so based on that text, can you provide an answer?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So, the Android boon that was given out this year provides access to "android character options appearing in ... Pathfinder Player Companion: People of the River (page 19)...." On this page there IS a singular trait for androids, but the bulk of this page is the Nanite Bloodline. The bloodline is not limited to androids, but thematically, it's got to be considered an "android character option", right? Some of the powers do mention androids. Just want to get this clarified before leaning my new android character towards it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I know this is meant to be a joke, but it also seems to be made in a vacuum white room scenario. On a character with Scrounger archetype, he could kit out a whole party who was stripped naked. I could see this be really flavourful to a dwarf or goblin character, especially with the Tinkerer background.

The scrounger would gain nothing from this feat, as all he'd have to have done is at one time spent the 1sp for a Basic Crafter's Book, and he'd already KNOW everything in it in his memory - so this feat's ability to craft without it means nothing - as he'd always have it.

in fact, the scrounger dedication feat is so vastly superior to the improvised tool feat - it just makes the improvised one look even worse.

You can't craft things without the formula book. This is evidenced by multiple feats and abilities in the APG that let you do so without said book (they are the exception that proves the rule).

That's explicitly one of the things the scrounger dedication feat does - remove the requirement to actually have the physical formula on hand.

"Additionally, you don't need a physical formula book to remember all of your formulas; you pay the same cost as normal to learn them, but you memorize them all."

This means that he simply has to 'pay the same cost', (meaning the 1sp purchase of a basic crafters book), and he now has all basic items memorized. So having the Improvise Tool feat on a scrounger would be a net benefit of saving 1sp ONLY if you only want to build the few items listed in the feat. It really makes zero sense to take improvised tool on a scrounger (which is the recommendation I was replying to).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I know this is meant to be a joke, but it also seems to be made in a vacuum white room scenario. On a character with Scrounger archetype, he could kit out a whole party who was stripped naked. I could see this be really flavourful to a dwarf or goblin character, especially with the Tinkerer background.

The scrounger would gain nothing from this feat, as all he'd have to have done is at one time spent the 1sp for a Basic Crafter's Book, and he'd already KNOW everything in it in his memory - so this feat's ability to craft without it means nothing - as he'd always have it.

in fact, the scrounger dedication feat is so vastly superior to the improvised tool feat - it just makes the improvised one look even worse.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm fine with special case situational feat - but it needs to feel like it is worth it. This feat makes me think the intention was to let the really good crafter be MacGuyver and craft his way out of hairy situations. Unfortunately, I don't see how it will actually do that.

The intention seems to be that you can use whatever materials you have at hand and make them into a tool to do something more complex - unfortunately, as far as I can tell, you still would require appropriate artisan's tools for whatever material you are working with, as this feat does not remove that requirement. Avoiding the 'You have an appropriate set of tools and, in many cases, a workshop.' requirement of the Craft activity would make this feat far more practical, and come into play far more often. Unless your characters are often getting locked up in a fully stocked smithy that happens to not have a basic crafter's book.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

it also doesn't get rid of the tool requirement, other than for repairing without a repair kit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yes.. I am suggesting that.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It doesn't get rid of the 'raw materials' requirement to make those picks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
What's so powerful about it?

The ability to save 1sp when buying gear.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Improvise Tool. Take a feat to replace the need for a 1sp Level 0 item.

APG wrote:

Improvise Tool

You can jury-rig solutions when you don't have the proper tools on hand. You can attempt to Repair damaged items without a repair kit.

If you have the raw materials available, you can Craft a basic caltrop set, candle, compass, crowbar, fishing tackle, flint and steel, hammer, ladder, piton, rope, 10-foot pole, replacement thieves' picks, long or short tool, or torch without consulting a basic crafter's book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Totus Gnarus wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

I simply don't like that some subscribers have the pdf, and others do not. The physical book being late is fine with me - they are mostly shelf decoration to me - the content is what I purchased, and that I'd expect to be fulfilled when the order enters my cart - not at some arbitrary date when the order ships.

It would certainly be upsetting if come the 30th, any non-subscriber can go onto the site, purchase the pdf, and have it immediately - while subscribers have to wait until their particular order ships.

It's certainly a distinct possibility at this point, and it's not one I'm pleased with. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Paizo is in a position to change it. I'd love to demand that they roster on a bajillion more pick-packers at their warehouse, but that's just not realistic.

You misunderstand. I don't care when my book ships. What I don't like is that for some reason the pdf access is tied to the shipping progress. They don't need more warehouse workers to fix that problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I simply don't like that some subscribers have the pdf, and others do not. The physical book being late is fine with me - they are mostly shelf decoration to me - the content is what I purchased, and that I'd expect to be fulfilled when the order enters my cart - not at some arbitrary date when the order ships.

It would certainly be upsetting if come the 30th, any non-subscriber can go onto the site, purchase the pdf, and have it immediately - while subscribers have to wait until their particular order ships.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So if my order is still pending, I'm guessing that it will be quite a while before I receive either of my subscriptions (Legends and APG). Is there any chance of at least having pdf access if shipping is delayed? It's incredibly frustrating knowing that others have the pdf's already.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Where is the rule that states every weapon is in a weapon group? Because that is quite simply not the case. The weapon groups are clearly defined in the weapon training class feature. Saying that every weapon is in a group is as much a GM variation as simply saying that the thornblade should be in the light blades because it is a rapier clone. Both have the same level of gm interpreation, and therefore table variation.

I was not even asking for the 'pathfinder devs' to come up with a new blog post or anything. It doesn't need to be more than a note in the campaign clarifications of additional resources for pfs. It's really just a pfs problem, anyway - as table variation isn't really a problem in traditional games.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The character in question would not necessarily always be wielding dual thornblades if it was the light blades group, as then the combo of thornblades/leafblade would be more capable, with less penalties. And the problem with your proposed solution, nefreet, is that there is no "Thornblades" group. Just as many GMs will balk at that being on the sheet.

The rules state that weapons not listed in the group fall to gm ruling ("GMs may add other weapons to these groups, or add entirely new groups")- in the case of pfs, that ruling should probably come via campaign clarification, instead on thousands of different GMs ruling individually.

The really sad thing is that the blog post from 2015 showed that at least some developers realized the need for this to be listed with new weapons, yet many new weapons were released in the 4 years of content since then without it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Any chance of an update to this list to bring it up to date with all the weapons released since then? This is of importance as my pfs elven fighter is rapidly approaching 5th level and will need to choose his weapon training - currently dual-wielding elven thornblades - which don't officially have a home n the weapon group list.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I can find no official source stating what group this magnificent weapon resides in. Mechanically, it seems to be closest to a rapier - A one-handed weapon that is finessable and doesn't get 1.5 str when wielded two-handed. I also found a comment from the author stating that she'd put it in the light blades group - but as far as I can tell, since it came out after the 'Weapon Training—And So Many Weapons' blog - that IS in additional resources - there doesn't seem to be anything that clarifies that interpretation and makes it an actual pfs rule.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Long ignored thread - but I will point out that I have used this feat to good use when building a character with some weapon progression intended. I have a dual wielding fighter - crit fishing, so using dual leafblades at early levels, so the two-handed penalties are lessened because light. At later levels, as the two-weapon penalties are mitigated some, can switch to using thornblades instead. By using Ancestral Weapon Mastery, I'm able to have that weapon focus on the leafblades early on, and shift it to the thronblades once changing gear (around level 4 or so), without having to retrain the weapon focus.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Animism wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

<snip>

Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.

If you're suggesting that Paizo will invent time travel, then I'm all for it! (Otherwise, there'd be no possibility of Pathfinder 3rd edition ever being released...)

Psst. It's 2020 now, so...

:p

Heh... phone keyboards suck it seems - but I'm guessing you got my point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

All that has to be done to fix pg. 278 is to delete the entire first paragraph of the Critical Hits section. It would then say:

CRITICAL HITS
If you critically succeed at a Strike, your attack deals
double damage (page 451). Other attacks, such as spell
attack rolls and some uses of the Athletics skill, describe
the specific effects that occur when their outcomes are
critical successes.

That is all that is needed since critical success is already defined elsewhere.

Though honestly, I'm not sure that section even needs to be there. Critical hits are not a property of the weapon, they are a result of the STRIKE action, which is already well defined on pg. 471.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Anyone else disappointed at the introduction of four more classes already? I feel like they have already decided to stop innovating and just go back to the old way of throwing more stuff on the page, and people will buy it. The new system was supposed to bring about new ways to create different characters from similar blocks. There should be no need for 'middle-of-the-road' or 'hybrid' classes like investigator or swashbuckler with the more modular class options and multiclass archetypes. The 'Witch' should be built with as a wizard with different focus spells (hexes) and the occult tradition - no need for a separate class.

Oh well - let the bloat begin so we can get pf3e in 2016.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
For what it's worth, the chance that a nat-20 results in anything other than a success or crit-success by sheer nature of the value obtained is staggeringly low. Its pretty much only happens with things you are Untrained in.

Not really - the third MAP can bring it about a not-inconsequential number of times.

CrystalSeas wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
- Jason Buhlman even making a point to highlight a time when a natural 20 changed a miss to a hit, instead of it being a critical hit.
Got a link to that?

Yes, here (from about 13 posts up).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Except that they have stated elsewhere, and have ruled on streamed play, that it does not stand as the specific RAW implies - Jason Buhlman even making a point to highlight a time when a natural 20 changed a miss to a hit, instead of it being a critical hit. Paizo not fixing something in the book has NEVER been an indication that they feel the book is right. Many of the 'higher-ups' at Paizo don't seem to think 'rules' are as important as many of the players do, so they don't bother fixing things like this in their 'rule' books.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WytDvil wrote:
This is a major typo that really effects how the game is played. How did no editor catch this? Does the editor play the game? Loving the system but that's an unacceptable oversight that shouldn't have made it to production.

Quite often, it appears that the do not really care about 'accuracy' as much as literary flourish - which should embarrass anyone making a 'Rulebook'. I do think that in tis case, it will eventually be corrected in an errata - so that attacks are handled just like every other check - but for now, the editors will likely say 'the GM should be able to decide what to do'.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So, I have a Magus (Kapenia Dancer) 6/Inquisitor (Living Grimoire) 1, and an looking at spending some gold. I immediately went to the babe Baldric, them had a question on the rules for it. As it's written, it affects Inquisitor differently than noon-inquisitors. My character IS an inquisitor, so it should treat me as 5 levels higher for proposed of babe and greater bane - however, my archetype years away babe and greater bane.

As actually written, this item would do nothing, as if I was 5 levels higher, I still wouldn't have to bane ability. Should my character be considered a non-inquisitor, and just get a non advancing 5th level bane ability, or should I just skip the item for great if table variation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Lamia has no athletics score listed in its statblock, which implies it is Untrained in Athletics. This, however, makes its Grab ability have a very easy DC15 escape DC - quite low for a Creature 6.

Is this an oversight, and should they actually be Trained in Athletics (+13, so DC-23)? What makes me say this is that the Lamia Matriarch appears to be Expert in Athletics, with its +18 Athletics modifier.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
James doesn't write and edit rules. He's the creative director and his answers on rules are "what I would do at my table" and not "Paizo's official response to rules questions"

I'm aware of his role, but the author in question deferred the 'final word' to him as the role of "editor" of the book in question (Inner Sea Magic). Of course, it comes down to an actual GM to make a ruling in the end, but as this is PFS, and given the contention just in this thread (not including all the other threads in this forum on the topic) you can't expect any two GM's to rule on the capabilities of my character in the same way without a pfs campaign clarification, which I highly doubt to ever exist at this stage of pfs1's life..


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

FWIW, I have (since I started this thread) had a conversation with the author about it - and his intention was mostly how I described it - a magical burst of movement and attack in any direction - a'la Starkiller's Force Dash combined with Alucard's afterimages. Unfortunately, while he completely intends it to be able to be used upwards, and isn't really limited by terrain or anything, he deferred to James Jacobs for an actual ruling on how it works, and James has since said that it can't be used upwards. So when even the people writing and editing the rules are contentious about it, I'll definitely avoid its use at a pfs table, which is a shame, because the spell is a lot of fun, and one of the best 'gish-flavor' spells in the ruleset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They could just change the rules that they made? It's not like it's an external law beyond their control.

And therein lies my biggest dislike about them having their game design tied to the print cycle. Rules that are acknowledged as being poorly worded or in some cases not usable are often not dealt with for reasons such as not physically fitting on the page they originated on due to word count/space, or because the book is not going to get a re-printing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, I don't care if they can get them into 'actual print'... I'm down for audible exclusive releases if possible.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
When is Paizo going to hire a technical writer to make sure rule interactions are actually clear and concise?

Please try asking again without sounding like a jerk and without insulting myself and my coworkers.

Or better yet, don't try and take your insults elsewhere.

I meant no insult - it just seems that in many cases, 'narrative freedom' gets in the way of clear rules. PF2, so far, is a vast improvement in this regard because it has a strong structure to the rules from the beginning, but even then, there are times when the rules get more literary than they are precise, requiring more interpretation than simply parsing - if that makes sense.

The goal of a technical writer is to ensure that there is only one way to interpret a bit of writing - which can make for a far more durable rule system. It's not beautiful or flowery, but it serves the purpose of being RULES that way.

Interestingly, my question on technical writing was inspired by the same issue that Tallyn just asked about - spells like Bladed Dash are very colorful and descriptive writing, but I've never encountered two GM's who interpret the spell's effects, capabilities and restrictions in the same way.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
When is Paizo going to hire a technical writer to make sure rule interactions are actually clear and concise?

Please try asking again without sounding like a jerk and without insulting myself and my coworkers.

Or better yet, don't try and take your insults elsewhere.

I meant no insult - it just seems that in many cases, 'narrative freedom' gets in the way of clear rules. PF2, so far, is a vast improvement in this regard because it has a strong structure to the rules from the beginning, but even then, there are times when the rules get more literary than they are precise, requiring more interpretation than simply parsing - if that makes sense.

The goal of a technical writer is to ensure that there is only one way to interpret a bit of writing - which can make for a far more durable rule system. It's not beautiful or flowery, but it serves the purpose of being RULES that way.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Publish or perish is still the law of the market.

I fully support the idea of all hardcovers, no softcovers, so that errata can be reprinted in a more timely manner.

I'm not sure that rule really holds true like it used to. I'm guessing they sell far more pdf's than actual books these days, and that trend is likely to shift deeper into the digital direction.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Rysky wrote:

I know there was a few (and posted Errata, not printed Errata), and granted yes they were very few, but it did indeed happen.

If you mean developers commenting in discussion threads, sadly, I've never met anyone who considered those actual rule changes. Only if it was on a given product's faq page.
Adventurer's Armory errata.

Yeah - though I believe that was one of the first companions that was released after Pathfinder actually became its own game (and before they were even branded as 'Player Companions.' Had they continued to care for their products like that, the game WOULD have been far better - and forum discussions would have been cut in half. An RPG game system needs to be a living system that accepts corrections and clarifications as they are found to be needed - threads like this very one do nothing good for the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

Are you sure of that? As far as I've seen, no softcover has ever had a FAQ page made, and no errata has ever been out. The only clarifications that might have come about from any softcover would be specific to pfs, on the campaign clarifications page - and those are few and far between.

Paizo doesn't do FAQ or errata unless they're doing a reprint (because they want the dead tree to be the most up to date and correct version)

Softcovers don't get FAQ or errata

Therefore no faq for you.

They were doing PFS campaign clarifications as a backdoor faster/more frequent faq but then people complained pfs ruined everything by breaking their characters.

Oh, I know the reason they don't do the faq or errata for softcovers - the problem is, it's a stance that hurts the game as a whole. I'm hoping that they've maybe changed that view a little going into pf2, but I find it unlikely. They still feel that making books is more important than putting good rules IN those books.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

I know there was a few (and posted Errata, not printed Errata), and granted yes they were very few, but it did indeed happen.

If you mean developers commenting in discussion threads, sadly, I've never met anyone who considered those actual rule changes. Only if it was on a given product's faq page.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cavall wrote:

It is nice to know that a magus with a lot of int damage could use a scroll of this and add his charisma if its higher.

By nice I mean will never come up but funny.

It's also a Bard (and consequently Skald) spell, thus the Charisma in the spell text.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
RAWmonger wrote:
You guys won't believe this but they actually just officially errata'd Bladed Dash and have assured us "Bladed Dash is no longer a source of contention at tables."
Except, being from a softcover, it is immune from actual rules clarifications (no FAQ or Errata for soft covers - because Paizo).
That has more to do with them moving on to P2 than it originally being in a Softcover, they did Errata and FAQs for stuff with them.

Are you sure of that? As far as I've seen, no softcover has ever had a FAQ page made, and no errata has ever been out. The only clarifications that might have come about from any softcover would be specific to pfs, on the campaign clarifications page - and those are few and far between.

1 to 50 of 1,878 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>