Nukruh's page

Perhaps an official combined pdf version of the various FAQ pages, similar to how the PFS source pdf is presented, would be helpful for some.

Not a major issue but the footer entries of Paizo Publishing, LLC need to be changed to the newer Paizo Inc. title.

All character sheets should include a Beard entry.

Thanks for clearing that up. It just looked odd that after checking through all the previous 2 round names that most of those who did not make it in had no voting titles or the lowest one if they had one. I have never been a fan of public voting systems though due to possible loopholes or how many people tend to be influenced by judge opinions especially if shared prior to the actual voting phase being completed.

It seems odd to me at least that people who made it happen to also be really huge voters. You would think that they would be exempt from voting or their votes would be removed from the contest prior to a result phase.

Nukruh wrote:

Many of the odd suggestions so far are treading into corny Saturday morning cartoon land on the worst network you can think of.

Funny you mention it, as the old D&D cartoon had Acrobat, Thief, Cavalier, Ranger, Barbarian and Magician

I enjoyed it during the original run but that does not mean it was any less corny then as it still is to this day. It might go to show how the direction at TSR was all over the place even at those early years. Red Box came out the same year which of course had cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief as the classes. For the D&D cartoon they choose to include some classes that were only available in 1st Edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana to fit the social tropes better. This only further backs my position on the corny factor that many people seem to like to go with even to this day. It is a personal preference thing on my part.

Cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard will probably always be able to get the job done.

All others, especially wacky optimized versions of anything, need not apply for the age old iconic core four positions. Those types are free to get work on their own solo project, a buddy comedy, or in the all too familiar copper a dozen Legion of Unique Snowflakes specials. Many of the odd suggestions so far are treading into corny Saturday morning cartoon land on the worst network you can think of.

Nukruh wrote:

After reading the entire thread it seems to me that what some people want is a form of early preview errata prior to the actual reprint finalization.

I actually don't want this. I suspect such a process would be dysfunctional in the literal sense of that word.

I don't want Paizo to drastically alter their design process. At most I want them to reconsider, based on feedback, some of the principles they apply within that process, such as whether fiddly little mechanics are desirable or whether to calibrate martial feats to such a low power level compared to various other things (like class features or spells).

The process itself? No, let's not take spilled milk on the floor as a reason to get rid of floors.

The method I suggest does nothing fundamentally to change the design process prior to errata being "finalized". Items that are up for design change in a reprint are already known to Paizo, not so much to the public. My suggestion was a possible way to avoid thread debates like this one from taking place after the change has been made and set in print. The method you suggest is the exact definition of altering their design process.

Current process, as far as I am aware of how it works.
1. Playtest of only a portion of a book.
2. Feedback is taken into consideration and changes made as needed.
3. Product is finalized and first print happens.
4. People buy the product and can start looking for issues/errors.
5. Issues/errors are posted to both an errata thread and numerous individual threads. Some rules changes/ responses are added to the FAQ. This information is gathered internally.
6. Paizo makes reprint errata adjustments, prints the new version, uploads errata pdf of what was changed in the reprint to the public.
7. Repeat 4-6.

My suggested method, which only applies to reprints.
1. Months of information from errata thread, specific subject threads, and internal errata document information is gathered and put into a reprint errata preview pdf.
2. One month before Paizo knows they will finalize a reprint for print: Preview errata pdf is submitted to the public for a final one week round of further scrutiny.
- Anything that might be worth holding back can be discussed in threads like this, before it is actually printed. This is where threads like this can unfurl before, not after, the fact. A blog post discussing possible changes, like how it was with stealth, can be done for really "controversial" things that might need to be skipped in a reprint, in favor of something such as temporary PFS adjustments and/or a public revision preview.
- Any other changes such as typos, odd phrasing, and similar that were missed in the previous step 1 errata wrangle can be submitted for the final internal errata changes.
3. Paizo makes final changes and sends to print.
4. Repeat 1-3.

After reading the entire thread it seems to me that what some people want is a form of early preview errata prior to the actual reprint finalization.

In the thread, Jason mentions that they keep an eye on changes for possible adjustments down the line in relation to errata. While this is useful, it seems a bit misplaced in the order of things as the reprint errata changes are already out the door so to speak. One issue with this is that there is no guarantee of further reprints. This makes every initial first reprint the most important one for covering as much as humanly possible, with successive reprints left for refining any corner cases that may need to run the testing long game for possible changes.

This method might help both the public and publisher with the reprint errata process. While I understand that errata threads exist, they are usually a mixed bag of actual usefullness—as are internal documents for somewhat similar reasons. It seems that releasing preview errata for a one week round of public scrutiny may be a boon for all involved. For time frame, a month prior to hitting the old Send to China for Print button might not be a bad thing. This should be more than enough time to make the final InDesign adjustments based on a fresher consensus.

Note: This is based on the fact that errata is not done through a pdf living document structure in favor of a less reliable FAQ section.

If none of this is the case feel free to ignore this reply.

To be fair the core rulebook doesn't actually state that as the reason they cannot wear metal armor. As far as I know it's just a commonly accepted reason. Could just be one of the tenants of that particular druidic order or something. So any answer other than "No, they can't wear metal armor at all" would be GM fiat based on the particulars of the world your in. If your situation came up in my game I would totally allow it.

Since it is a hypothetical, thus open to interpretation, I tried to keep it open in the reasoning for the rules with the term "modern" as a counterterm for the more common classic "natural/in tune with nature" justification.

This thread got me thinking hypothetically about multiclassed druids who started life as Sorcerer or Wizard in a family of magical armorsmiths that create fanciful mundane armors with spells and further enchant them with further mystical knowledge. What would be the place of magic in the scheme of how armor works if you are the one that created the metal armor through magic and not through the "modern" methods, which is what the restriction is there for? Would the logic now be changed somehow that because it is shaped to fit a humanoid the restricting factor is still in place? If so that throws out the whole concept of wearing any type of armor shaped for a humanoid.

Sorcerer 10 or Wizard 9 / Druid 1+
5th Level Spell Known: Major Creation or Fabricate
Skill: Craft (Armor) 10+ ranks, with the more you have the fancier the metal armors you can reliably make.

I see no reason that this could not be a loophole on some level.

People asking questions is not a problem I have, that is the point of the forum after all. That rather lengthy explaination of what you think I think is interesting though but not even close. You based it as a question, which I could answer but I would just be further "invading" according to you by doing so. Meandering close to the topic on hand never happens in threads on forums! The rules organization stuff organically went that route after my first reply, which was in response to the original question, based on other replies.

I still don't understand your problem. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

We've given you answers, and shown that you needn't crack open a 3.5 book to find them. Pathfinder is completely playable as its own game. No prior knowledge of 3.5 is necessary.

But if your excuse is "OMG this book has so many pages there's no way I could ever read everything", then there's nothing we can do for you.

You don't seem to understand my whole point that I was making so all I am left with is a cycle of replies in the hopes that the words make sense in your brain at some point.

I made no excuses for myself on finding the information or drawing conclusions as to what means what, what could mean what, what I think means what, and so on. I have read the book cover to cover and have played 3.x systems long enough to draw conclusions in light of what I consider useful missing information in the CRB. There is nothing any of us can do if someone (and I am not speaking about myself) has an issue with finding stuff in the book, that is up to Paizo to fix somehow.

I believe that in this case the term [most] refers to the existence of circumstance bonuses that do stack, and will be noted. As in, [unless otherwise noted] circumstance bonuses do not stack.

Unless you read Chapter 9, not everyone reads cover to cover, you have no idea that is the case.

Also, why do you need a definition? Are context clues not enough? The name is circumstance, meaning it involves the details of a specific situation, as in it is a bonus to this circumstance. Effects that produce a circumstance bonus will be clearly labeled as such. Effects that produce circumstance bonuses that stack are indicated.

I have no need for it but it could be clearer for those who might, someone on d20pfsrd thought it was important enough to pull from the 3.5 SRD. Someone at Paizo decided it was not worth copying the Glossary entries for "X bonus", and 8 more pages to the CRB. Context is a funny thing as it is not always as cut and dry depending on the reader. Waiting all the way until Chapter 9, which is about magic, after a few chapters of many mentions of a term (circumstance bonus) to add in some specifics is a stretch. Not all circumstance bonus mentions prior to Chaper 9 are related to magic.

As the APG was written from scratch, it was possible to add in a fair bit of context for stuff like Boasting Taunt. A large portion of the CRB was not written from scratch though and is missing specific things that 3.5 had which helped to explain certain things better without "guessing".

Also, and this is the kicker, the OPs question was whether or not racial and class bonuses stack, not if there was a definition of circumstance bonus in the CRB.

I am pretty sure I used the halfling racial traits and barbarian class abilities as a decent contextual example to give insight to the original question. Circumstance bonus only came into the discussion as a further example of how bonuses as a whole are defined and presented in the book.

Add "most" to my list of doubt causing words in the absence of a defining entry for what it refers to, in this case the lack of a circumstance bonus entry in the CRB.

When you add in "and as a general rule", "Generally speaking", or "Usually" you sort of put doubt behind the rest of the rule entry without further explaination. The Bonus, Stacking, and Bonus Types entries were carried over almost word for word from the 3.5 Player's Handbook. The difference, as I have stated before, is that the 3.5 PHB had entries for all the "x bonus" in the General Guidelines and Glossary section.

Without knowing you can find it on the pfsrd or in the 3.5 PHB, you do not know what certain bonuses actually entail in relation to bonuses and stacking.

This is from the 3.5 PHB, I dare you to find either in the CRB.
circumstance bonus: A bonus granted because of specific conditional factors favorable to the success of the task at hand.
Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same benefit. For instance, a magnifying glass gives a +2 circumstance bonus on Appraise checks involving any item that is small or highly detailed, such as a gem. If you had a second tool that also granted a circumstance bonus from improved visual acuity (such as a jeweler’s loupe), the circumstance bonuses wouldn’t stack.

competence bonus: A bonus that improves a character’s performance at a particular task, such as from the bardic ability to inspire competence. Such a bonus may apply to attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, caster level checks, or any other checks to which a bonus relating to level or skill ranks would normally apply.
It does not apply on ability checks, damage rolls, initiative checks, or other rolls that aren’t related to a character’s level or skill ranks.
Multiple competence bonuses don’t stack; only the highest bonus applies.

Alchemical bonuses can be found in the CRB. You needn't look further than the humble antitoxin.

Trait bonuses came later, in the APG, and it wouldn't make sense to mention them in the CRB, since Traits aren't a part of the Core Rules.

You are still not making the proper connection to the point I was making in my previous posts. Trait bonuses of course did not exist until APG but they have their own section which defines them and clearly states the stacking rules for them. I can't really explain myself better than I already have - explicit entries for certain bonus types do not exist by themselves, even if the wording "x bonus" is part of another entry in the book such as your antitoxin example which is as follows.

Chapter 6 Equipment: Special Substances and Items, page 160
Antitoxin: If you drink a vial of antitoxin, you get a +5 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saving throws against poison for 1 hour.

Where does that mention what alchemical bonus means? It doesn't, as it just states that you get something called an "alchemical bonus". In fact, it is the only place in the whole book that the words "alchemical bonus" can be found.

Feel free to double check my work by searching the Core Rulebook for these terms.
Alchemical bonus: 1 entry, no definition
Circumstance bonus: 32 entries; no definition
Competence bonus: 53 entires; no definition
Deflection bonus: 13 entries; no definition
Dodge bonus: stopped counting due to; definition on page 179 Armor Class, Other Modifiers
Enhancement bonus: stopped counting due to; definition on page 179 Armor Class, Other Modifiers
Insight bonus: 10 entries, no definition

I could go on listing the remaining bonus types but it just further reinforcing what I posted earlier.

While the d20pfsrd (PFRPG) site has the information located on it, that information is from the d20srd (3.5) site which is not sourced from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. It is merely a kindness of whoever added it to the d20pfsrd page.

I put all references from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook above. The other information, Bonus (Alchemical)—Bonus (Trait), which is nested under the pink background header labeled (From d20srd.org) section is referenced from d20srd. Those entries are not in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook as far as I have been able to see in a bunch of searching.

All of those entries were in the 3.5 Player's Handbook in the General Guidelines and Glossary section, pages 304-314 (10 pages total).
Pathfinder Core Rulebook moved very little of that section to Chapter 1 Getting Started: Common Terms, pages 11-13 (about 2 pages if condensed). With that comes a whole bunch of term explainations, and rules associated with them, that got lost in translation during the 3.5-PFRPG conversion.

Something is fundamentally wrong if you need to go all the way back to the 3.5 d20 SRD, even if they add it over on d20pfsrd, instead of it being in the Core Rulebook itself.

Sorry if I was being edit happy on my post but stacking rules tend to do that it seems.

Found in Chapter 1 Getting Started: Common Terms section.
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

Found in Chapter 1 Getting Started: Common Terms section.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.

Found in Chapter 9 Magic: Casting Spells section.
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

The stacking system as a whole is left wanting in how it all works together. It appears that all instances of allowed similar stacking include some form of text to cover that they do indeed stack. Circumstance bonuses are not mentioned in the common terms section, index, or anywhere except in entries that they are mentioned in. Seems like someone forgot to add that so as to better define it in relation to bonuses. Type is another word that is used in a vague manner well before it is explained more in Chapter 9 and is otherwise also without an explicitly solid definition.

Fearless: Halflings receive a +2 racial bonus on all saving throws against fear. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by halfling luck.
Halfling Luck: Halflings receive a +1 racial bonus on all saving throws.

Barbarian
Indomitable Will (Ex): While in rage, a barbarian of 14th level or higher gains a +4 bonus on Will saves to resist enchantment spells. This bonus stacks with all other modifiers, including the morale bonus on Will saves she also receives during her rage.

Rage: While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves.

Rage Power Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

Hopefully this debacle is covered in the Strategy Guide, a future rework of the Core Rulebook, or a Rules Compendium.

Rest assured, goblins are not the focus of this year's Free RPG Day offering.

** spoiler omitted **

I supposed there is always next year.

Enough with the goblins for RPG Day this year! I suggest a kindly turn in direction which should please at least one specific person with the chance to open the joy to many others in the world.

We Be Flumphs! There should be no need to explain what this LG take on the already popular We Be series would involve as it almost writes itself. Who wouldn't want to embody a flumph in the quest to assist the locals against an approaching evil from the Dark Tapestry.

Flumph plush to follow.

I always side with the idea that next time someone invents D&D they get to use whatever measurements are the most popular in their country of origin. Might take a bit before the reset of humanity for such an event but you never know, it could happen.

One thing that did not get noted in the Changelog is the very last page. There is now an inventory tracking form. This should make optional GM audits much easier.

Is there a reason that it is titled Inventory Track Sheet instead of Inventory Tracking Sheet?

I picked this up the other day and I am in the process of reading through it. So far I have spotted a good number of sentence errors while having only read through Brazen Clutch, which will be the main mention in this post. According to the recent PaizoCon Behind the Scenes panel, at least up to 4 people supposedly read through content. Perhaps this product was worked on after the additional people started looking through it. For me it should only take one person seeing these errors to have them corrected, or perhaps my standards are higher than others. Going forward I hope to see less of these issues but they still keep popping up enough to bother me to this day.

These lines are what keeps confusing me with the focus of the product and Vic saying it is not a Rules Compendium.

- Guidelines to help you navigate every aspect of the game, from dungeon exploration to combat to venturing into the wilderness.
- Comprehensive guide to complex Pathfinder RPG rules systems like combat maneuvers, attacks of opportunity, action types, and modifier stacking.

The first enty does not say it as much as the second one but it still holds some weight here as it covers an area of the rules used in play.

I just saw the preview images in the catalog. I am saddened by the use of larger fonts (and all the layout adjustments larger fonts bring) to stay within the Beginner Box layout even at 160 pages.

Now that I saw it, this seems to be a confused product. On one hand it wants to bridge from Beginner Box to the Core Rulebook but at the same time it seems like it will step on the Beginner Box and make it somewhat obsolete. On the other hand since it is not a rules compendium it might not bridge the gap enough. It seems like it wants to be a rules compendium hidden behind a "helpful" how-to guide. I say "helpful" here since opinions on what to go with tend to be subjective as opposed to objective and can lead to preconceived influences which do not take all the available options (everything non-CRB) found outside the initial product (CRB) into account.

An example of this would be Archetypes found in APG. If that system is not explained in here, you miss out on a major aspect of what the character creation process has become outside of the CRB.

I expect the look of this book to fall somewhere between the Beginner Box and Ultimate Equipment, but more of the former than the latter.

Hopefully the font falls on the small side of the fence. I do enjoy more words.

This is *nothing* like a Rules Compendium; that's a totally different concept, and one that's best suited for the end of an edition's lifecycle.

I believe that this book will help *extend* the lifecycle of the current edition.

I guess that being someone who likes a quicker to get to rules reference book (compendium/quick guide), no matter where it falls in the lifecycle of the system, we will have to disagree here. They usually make many rules explainations easier for less technically experienced players. For veteran players it allows them to have a shorter gap to bridge when explaining the rules to others. Think big, why expect your system to ever have an end while holding back on presenting a compact version of the systems core rules just because that is how some others have done it in the past?

Did you remove time for sleep and work from those percentages?

Those activities do not matter in the above percentages. It is up to the person to take the information above, along with all other schedule specific knowledge, and factor what to do with the data when presenting an argument for the cause to their significant other. Or not.

But will this book contain information on Aroden?

Not spoilers of course, but a write-up, domains, classes, and the like. Not everyone might play in the current era and there's always time travel.

This makes perfect sense. Some additional "Dead" deity entries would be nice for non-Golarion campaigns which might have more than 1 such being that still "lives" on. Who is to say that Aroden might be gone only from the people of Golarion and just kicking along somewhere else? Gods are odd things.

I could not help but figure the percentages of time that 6 or 8 hours of gaming every 2 or 3 weeks would be. Travel is not factored in since you can see it would not really change much from the low numbers anyway.

6 Hours every 2 weeks
1.78%

8 Hours every 2 weeks
2.38%

6 Hours every 3 weeks
1.19%

8 Hours every 3 weeks
1.58%

Pick one and defend it in your aim to win the day with math.

I was hoping that this would be more along the lines of the 3.5 Rules Compendium (surprisingly also 160 pages) with a focus on newer or less experienced players but with information (single page on a subject) that is easier for GMs/players to get to quicker than with the Core rulebook.

I have to agree on not finding the title fitting for the product. Most people seem to evoke video games in their mind when they see Strategy Guide. If presented similar to the Beginner Box (much larger fonts/less words per page) or Ultimate Equipment (very close to traditional video game strategy guide layout), the divide from the usual layout starts to get pronounced. Perhaps it is the presence of video game books in someone's past resume starting to merge into the products. I prefer more Paizo, less Nintendo, in my book presentation. In a less related way, there is also the possible Strategy Guide for Pathfinder Online that might show up down the road where such a presentation would be more fitting.

Pathfinder RPG Rules Compendium gets my vote for a name change. That is unless WotC grabbed up using that like they have with even less vague words/combos in the past.

I take it James L. Sutter is locked in a basement somewhere while working on a massive 400 page planar hardcover to complement this? It has been almost 4 years since a book, an OGL version no less, covering the planes has been released.

I would hate to tell some of the famous men that enjoy the hobby that they are being childish in doing so, although some may see that as a strength of it, and that they need to find something manly instead. Just saying.

*Insert picture of famous person that your significant other probably likes here.*

My quest to point out errors continues it seems!

The Skull & Shackles Adventure Path Rules PDF has "REIGN OF WINTER" in the header text instead of "Skull & Shackles". Not a huge issue at all but my brain gave me no choice but to post about it.

On the other hand there has been what I consider a Huge issue in some newer products. I have seen a few instances of mixed gender use within the same paragraph in some newer products. I can't point out specific instances as I always forget to make note of them when I run across them.

Going off Elves of Golarion (Birth on page 9), Golarion-based elves spend a century or so being raised. This would point toward the extreme length that such an insular natured community, that already suffers from few births, would view as childhood. At least that is what I take away from the whole situation.

Nukruh wrote:

1 non-core product, Adventurer's Armory, has seen a reprint due to errors.

Actually, AA was reprinted because it sold out lightning-fast*, within a window of time that the management decided, "this is still new enough that if we do a reprint, it'll still sell pretty well."

* I don't recall how fast it was, but I think it was less than six months. Certainly less than a year, which is unusual—one of the reasons why Paizo doesn't reprint most books is by the time the available stock is low enough to start considering a reprint, the book is over a year old and the sales have trickled off to a very small number. For example, if there are 200 copies left 12 months after the release date and Paizo has been selling 50 copies per month for the past 3 months, there's not much interest in reprinting that book because Paizo doesn't expect that 50/month rate is going to increase, and doing a second printing of 1,000 copies would mean Paizo would be sitting on copies of that book for another 20 months (longer than the original sellthrough time for the original print run when the book was new).

Thanks for the clarification, I actually just used that to prove a point in relation to non-core digital products besides that never seeing updates. I should have used "update" instead of "reprint" due to the matter at hand being about digital products. The meat of the reply was essentially everything else besides that minor point.

The biggest issue in my view is that in the digital age there are ways to bridge the old content of a new system version with all the past material—embrace pdf updates instead of the currently in place system of produce/don't look back that Paizo sticks with. 1 non-core product, Adventurer's Armory, has seen a reprint due to errors. With no errata system in place—every other non-core product, especially in this case pdfs, is left as originally released. The consumer is left with the options of trying to find answers in a limited FAQ system or in the vast expanse of what is honestly not the best laid out of forum systems. Even these are not always viable options as a proper answer depends on a qualified Paizo employee, or panel of them, to actually give a stamp of approval.

Every single non-core product could be updated to a new rule system. All of the pre-Pathfinder 3.5 products could be updated by Paizo, if they were willing to slow down a bit on so many product lines—which seem to be pushing their limits the past 2 years or so. Right now it is in the hands of the end user to convert these outdated products themselves. Even if they do they can not share certain things with the rest of the public due to the OGL, which is not a limit placed on Paizo. Paizo could, if they wanted to, truly embrace the digital age and show that even with a new "2nd" edition", fans could rest easy as updates to all the previous releases would eventually see the light of day. Core products are, beyond the fluff portions which are fine to reprint/tweak a bit, open content and would once again be available in a new PRD just as the original PRD would still exist.

I hope based off this that Ultimate Adventures, a book covering in depth adventure site creation rules from general site locations down to the depths of building all things dungeons, is in the planning stages. Just putting that out there.

I mainly meant in areas that are not optional such as the stealth rules to "fix" what they see as problems in the original rules. Another example would be how some systems that have been added, if redone in the right way, would make certain things obsolete. Factions, archetypes, and roles are just a few systems that could be combined to remove PrC for example. Streamlining all the old 3.x systems and the PF additions would essentially push the game forward but at the same time cut the compatibility ties in many ways. That could be remedied on their own products if they would go through the PF back catalog and update any rules bits to be in line with the new changes. That would make the most sense if it were to happen a few years from now as they would be able to keep the lore/fluff in place. It would also allow them to print updated versions of the original editions supplemental lines (companion/campaign) for a newer generation of gamers.

What I wonder is the following.

Since Paizo stuck with 3.x compatibility to keep the system going, with changes of course, did they in a way shoot themselves in the foot for the eventual drastic rules updates and rolling up of PF specific additions to that system (such as alternate stealth) under a new edition?

Most signs point to this being an impossibility. Not stepping up (in my opinion) on the above alternate stealth rules is but one example of a possible unwillingness/inability to even try to advance the concepts they introduce due to sticking to that compatibility. Even after the proposed life cycle of this edition of PF, it seems unlikely they could cut the 3.x cord even if they want to.

Congrats on the win.

November is such an ambitious date seeing as how the previous RPG Superstar's module kept getting pushed back and will be over a year if it actually hits the May 22nd release date. That module is only 32 pages and this one is supposedly 64. You really have your work cut out for you or failing that, someone at Paizo might.

Nukruh, if you have a consumer product issue, I think there are other ways to get that message to Paizo. Posting a missing zombie here on these boards may get their attention, but this is not customer service.

As stated in my email reply, I only put it over there as this forum specifies paizo.com orders and not retail ones. Either way the wheels are in motion and all is right in the world.

Making the trip to return the box would cost more than it is worth for one missing pawn but it would still be nice to get a real answer either way.

I picked up the box earlier yesterday and when I finally got around to looking through it I noticed a zombie pawn is missing. Is this a known issue at all and if so is there anything that can be done about it?

It's certainly frustrating to see errors show up in print, just as it is frustrating when two different philosophies of game design sometimes clash together. We're doing what we can to adjust things. We ARE working on solving the issue with the monk, but the timing of when we do that and release that information has to work hand in hand with other things, like our regularly scheduled production responsibilities, RPG Superstar, Mythic Playtests, Convention duties, licensing stuff (such as with the minis, comics, or Goblinworks), and vacations/personal lives.

To a certain extent, though, fans of the game need to help. First, but letting us know when we mess up is important. It might take several months or even a year or more to see that error corrected in print due to the time it takes for us to turn the metaphorically immense battleship that is Paizo Publishing, but if we don't realize or know we made a mistake, we can't fix it at all in the first place.

I still will keep championing for annual PDF updates. While what is said above is done to some extent, it is only limited to the Core line. When I read through a book I notice the errors that pop up, the latest is mixing gender use even to the extent of 2 releases having he/she denoting the same person in a single paragraph. Someone at Paizo is getting paid to notice these errors and while many hands can be in the mix it has to be someone that has the final set of eyes in this regard. I don't know how much outside of those who work on the book get to look over it with fresh eyes but lately the pace seems to be showing through the cracks in various places, mostly with editing. Perhaps I am just extra sensitive to picking out and being annoyed by errors that are likely to never be fixed under the current policy.

The issue that stands is the policy of only releasing errata on reissue of a product, which once again only happens with the Core line. All other lines rarely if ever see an update, Winter Witch being the last example I can think of. Even if an ongoing database was kept in-house it would allow for PDF updates of the products on an annual basis by setting aside some time during a slower period of the year to apply the updates in product PDFs and as update PDFs for hard copy owners. While these are small things in the big scheme of it all, it does matter to a segment of the community.

One way to avoid going over 20th level would be to apply e6 methods to the current system along with such things as the following.

- Planar templates/sub-templates: The planes have an overall theme that is usually covered by creature type. Most planes include many diverse sub-regions which can be worthy of sub-templates of their own. While many deities share similar domain entries they dwell in separate planes. This gives many possibilities of mixing templates around to fit the sub-themes for any viable combo imaginable.

- Divine/mythic reputation system: Spread from 1-20 with progressive associated boons. Think of the PFS system on a mythic/divine scale in relation to the worldly scale.

A goal might be that the mythic systems do not substantially unbalance worldly-based themes/play when in use; more options as opposed to power level skewing options. Specific interaction rules with mythical/planar situations based on where you are along the mythic scales could avoid jumps in power that would break down worldly interactions. The introduction/progression method in relation to a 20 level limit (even with e6 style additions), from nothing/a twinkle at 1st level to higher levels where mythic/planar themes take focus, can decide how well the whole thing comes across.

While they are all hardcover I would not lump some of them into the goal they set.

Core Rulebook
Bestiary
Bestiary 2
Bestiary 3
Advanced Player's Guide
Advanced Race Guide
Ultimate Magic
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Equipment - An argument could be made here if this is really needed with the number of items already located in other books. I would say it is more of a completionist/convenience book than a requirement as it is purely items and no rules.

These I would toss into the could leave them and not miss out on anything to do with the rules for the most part.

GameMastery Guide - Mainly as it is more of a tip/design guidebook, a great one at that either way. In an alternate release world this would have included the GM sections of the Core Rulebook at part of the classic 3 book method.
The Inner Sea World Guide - Useful if you run Golarion or to mine ideas.
Rise of the Runelords - It is an AP and is not required at all for the rules.

These are from the latest preview.

Page 178

Conduit Rod:

she can teleport anywhere that spell's effect,
- There are many ways to adjust this to properly fit the sentence.

Fiery Nimbus Rod:

faerie fire
- should be italicized

it takes and additional 1d10 fire damage.
- Replace "and" with "an".

Construction Requirements: fairy fire
- Replace "fairy fire" with "faerie fire".

Page 179

Rod of Absorption:
There is a mix of he/she usage in the text.

Page 338

Jar of Dragon Teeth:

and those 19 or more Hit Dice are affected as per form of the dragon III.
- Need to add "with" before 19.

If the owner changes before all the teeth created by the jar are consumed, the original owner no longer gains benefit from this artifact.
- The wording seems vague here. This makes it hard to understand what the true meaning of the text is.