| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There's a good number of threads that are marked 'answered in FAQ' (which I believe shuts down the option to further flag them for the FAQ) but which simply don't have any FAQ answer. As an example, here is one thread: Spirit Totem additions thread
I know I've seen more such cases but can't remember them off hand, if anybody else knows some, please post a link to them here in this thread.
More broadly, Paizo announced that they were instituting a new approach to dealing with FAQ/Errata issues. What happened? I don't even see the Rules Blog happening semi-regularly, and I don't see any major difference elsewhere?
The author came by and answered it. They don't have a 'answered in thread" note.
The author was quite clear. The power does exactly what it says, no more no less. What adds to it? Your CHA modifier. Nothing else.
What does it do?
The slam deals 1d4 points of negative energy damage, plus the barbarian’s Charisma modifier.
To whom? A living foe.
Does it heal undead- does it say so? Then no.
I mean, really this was about as clear as they could make it. It does what it sez. Now, the author was kind enough to come by and confirm that's exactly what it does and no more.
Honestly they can't add eight paragraphs to a one paragraph power.
Not to side-track this thread,
Regardless, besides the questions in the first post itself (which are FAIRLY simple on a RAW basis), many other questions came up in the thread (some of which were FAQ'd multiple times, but for the most part posters will just FAQ the top post only, otherwise would be silly to try and FAQ every single post that follows up with further related questions).
Those include questions of targetting, both determining foes and determining which valid target to attack when there are multiple ones (since it's not you yourself attacking, your personal perceptions and ad hoc choices aren't as determinant as they would be for self-initiated abilities). There is also the question of miss chance and perception, if the Spirit Totems never need to make Perception checks and don't seem to have any modes of Perception to begin with (other then omnisciently being aware of adjacent creatures and their foe status) then why should miss chance apply when Seeing something isn't relevant to them? If you think that Miss Chance applies to them, then it should apply to ALL of their attacks (in broad daylight) since it doesn't have any Perception Score to 'see' anything. Then there is the issue of Cover, if the Spirit Totem isn't a creature or otherwise 'occupying' and given square (but is just making attacks into squares adjacent to you) then there is no line to draw from the target to the attacker which is what is used to determine Cover, so should Cover never apply? (even if the target is inside a sealed metal box?)
Resolving ALL of those issues could be done in relatively few sentences, either as rulings on vague interactions, or as termpoary Errata to an ability that may need it. Marking it as 'answered in FAQ' when that is not true doesn't help anything.
Here is some more 'marked as answered' FAQ threads which... don't have answers in the FAQ.
They were from THIS thread started by Ravingdork, which hasn't seen any resolution AFAIK.
How does one resolve the conflicting rules for making an overrun attempt on a charge?
Are a witch's hexes effected by the miss chance of a blink spell?
How does versatile performance interact with skill bonuses?
What is a martial artist to do with dimensional steps and no ki?
Oils of Offensive Spells (from Jiggy)
If anybody else knows of some more, please post them.
The Stealth issue at one point motivated Paizo to write a significantly novel upgrade to Stealth, which eventually was canned, or delayed indefinitely. Yet there remain questions about the current RAW Stealth that COULD be answered, such as resolving the differing references for the conditions of Stealth, e.g. [any] Concealment vs. needing Low-Light/Darkness.
The fundamental question is why is somebody marking these as answered in FAQ when there is no entry in the FAQ for them? I mean, if Paizo wants to say that these don't need any answer, that's their prerogative, but marking them answered in FAQ is just confusing then. Certainly there are plenty of threads that have been flagged for FAQ and just never receive ANY response, so what is the difference between those and these ones marked as 'answered in FAQ' even though there is no FAQ entry?
Somewhat of a different issue than 'marked in FAQ' phantom responses, but I guess I may as well repeat that while Jason Bulmahn made several messageboard posts clarifying the Vital Strike/Attack Action topic, that information or equivalent explanation is still missing from the FAQ. Since it was deemed worthwhile enough to explain via the messageboards, I don't know why it isn't valid for FAQ material... Any player who isn't aware of those messageboard posts which came out shortly after PRPG 1st printing, is simply left in the dark.
Somewhat of a different issue than 'marked in FAQ' phantom responses, but I guess I may as well repeat that while Jason Bulmahn made several messageboard posts clarifying the Vital Strike/Attack Action topic, that information or equivalent explanation is still missing from the FAQ. Since it was deemed worthwhile enough to explain via the messageboards, I don't know why it isn't valid for FAQ material... Any player who isn't aware of those messageboard posts which came out shortly after PRPG 1st printing, is simply left in the dark.
The simple answer to this is that a messageboard post requires a minimum of effort by one person, but an official FAQ takes what I'd imagine is a team effort, and has a bit higher stakes in that it is an official answer.
For the Attack Action/VS issue, the FAQ didn't exist when those posts were written.
That is rather the issue there, that things that Paizo Rules people addressed in the forums before the FAQ were largely 'forgotten' even though the RAW is just as unclear as when the forum questions/answers were originally made. Paizo instituted the FAQ flagging system, but it doesn't seem like there was any effort to collect previous issues to include within the FAQ format.
Nobody is complaining about anybody writing explanatory posts in threads.
but why the FALSE marking of 'answered in FAQ' for SOME* cases? isn't it extra effort to hit that flag?
Who IS doing this anyways? I'm pretty sure that Jason Nelson doesn't have that permission, in the thread he posted in.
...And most of the threads linked above DON'T have any interpretive Paizo posts anyways, official or unofficial.
* This is exactly what confuses me, what is the basis for why SOME are falsely marked as answered in FAQ, while other threads which have explanations by Paizo staff aren't marked in that way?
If they are going to mark it as answered in FAQ, shouldn't they have EVENTUALLY done the Rules Team Pow-Wow to really put it there?
Alot of these threads are very old. What is wrong with waiting to hit the 'answered in FAQ' flag until that ACTUALLY happens?
(seriously, I don't see why the only way to activate that flag shouldn't be by actually posting a FAQ entry)
anyhow, there was a big deal made about some new approach to dealing with FAQ/Errata.
how's that going? i can't really tell any difference, personally.
should we expect more developments in that?
|
anyhow, there was a big deal made about some new approach to dealing with FAQ/Errata.
how's that going? i can't really tell any difference, personally.
should we expect more developments in that?
Have you looked the FAQs in the last months?
Paizo Community Use Policy, July 2011
Paizo.com Consignment, June 2012
PaizoCon 2013, December 2012
Pathfinder Battles Subscription, September 2011
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License, October 2012
Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide, Fri, Apr 5, 2013
Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, Mar 21, 2013
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Mar 21, 2013
Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat, Mar 1, 2013
Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment, Mar 15, 2013
Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic, Fri, Apr 5, 2013
Pathfinder Society, February 2013
That is the new approach, Paizo staff apparently has 1-2 meeting every month and answer a few FAQs.
The last answers about the magus generated a small storm from people that want to add n+1 natural weapon attacks when using spell combat, but from my point of view the Paizo staff is trying to make the FAQs as comprehensible and free from strange secondary effects as possible, so the number of FAQs produced in one meeting is relatively low.
Seeing the duration of the off game discussions abut rules that my group can have about some rule and interpretation, I am amazed they get more than 1 reply for each meeting actually. :P
Not to side-track this thread, ** spoiler omitted **...
Didn’t need a FAQ, the answer was given by a writer but was clear anyway.
As for stealth that has been discussed in two blogs and several devs have commented. It would take a rules re-write and they aren’t going to do that now.
Yea! Wat are these guys doing, gearing up for Con season?! (Jesting)
This is a great thing to consolidate for transparency. There are a few of these threads floating around and I see that the dev team has been busy recently (which I'm thankful for) but some of these issues have been around for ages and haven't gotten a proper looking over.
I hope the team will continue to be diligent and address these threads that have been marked (seemingly in error).
In my charge/overrun thread I have taken up the (admittedly annoying) idea of FAQing every post in the thread since it has been marked as answered for quite literally years.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A short, concise question is much more likely to get a FAQ than a post that is a page of supposition, links to other discussions, and no actual question presented.
A short, concise question is much more likely to get a FAQ than a post that is a page of supposition, links to other discussions, and no actual question presented.
Hi Sean, well our main issue in this thread was: Why are some threads marked as answered as FAQ but they are specifically not addressed in the FAQ? And will they be addressed?
Specific Questions for FAQ:
1. "Overrun & Charge": How can you overrun on a charge, since you have to end your charge and you cannot continue your movement through an enemy? If you overrun during a charge can you legally continue movement through an enemy? Is Overrun supposed to replace the attack on a charge? (like Bull Rush) or is an Overrun attempt allowed in addition to the charge attack?
2. "Effects Related to Race" and Elf/Orc Blood discrepancy: According to the APG FAQ, why does using the Racial Heritage feat (APG) allow "effects related to race" to extend to racial archetypes/traits but being a Half-Orc/Half-Elf does not?
Racial Heritage specifically calls out that effects related to race makes your character that race for "the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on." Directly contradicting the APG FAQ on half-orcs/elves and effects related to race.
3. Oils made of harmful spells: Can you apply a harmful spell oil to an enemy? What kind of action is it? And what must be done to successfully resolve such an attempt? Thirdly, could you throw an oil of fireball/lightning bolt like a bomb?
4. (For fun) Why is the brace weapon feature so specific? Do you have to state specifically that you prepare your spear against a charge? If someone walks up to you, your ready action is essentially wasted. What about if this weapon is readied and hits a charging character it deals double damage?
See you after lunch :)
EDIT: This post was edited many times so I hope you saw the final version. Spoiler tags and links to original threads added for conciseness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A post with one question on one topic is much more likely to get a FAQ than a post with multiple questions, especially if they are about different topics. This is because we can't clear a FAQ-flag for just part of a post, which means we have to answer all questions in that post to clear it, and some of those questions may be harder to answer than others.
Harder meaning "requires more than a couple of minutes to put an answer together."
I've been wondering the same thing regarding this post, and have been trying to track down who to ask about it to no avail.
Thirdly, could you throw an oil of fireball/lightning bolt like a bomb?
You can't make either of those spells into oils or potions, since they don't target a person or object.
Got it Sean, so you're saying we need to make all new threads for our questions?
@bearded ben: oops.. was just trying to help.
Ok, I re-posted the Overrun/Charge thread in the Rules Forum and marked the first post with a FAQ tag and put my follow up questions on replies to make things hopefully easier for the fAq-Team
A short, concise question is much more likely to get a FAQ than a post that is a page of supposition, links to other discussions, no actual question presented... [or] multiple questions, especially if they are about different topics. This is because we can't clear a FAQ-flag for just part of a post, which means we have to answer all questions in that post to clear it, and some of those questions may be harder to answer than others.
The idea that you prefer threads with a single question posed is clear enough. I don't know how realistic that is in the context of discussion following from 'community answering rules questions for community' (as Paizo promotes), which may bring up related issues perhaps even more critical than the original question (either related but distinct questions, or simply facts crucial to the issue but which don't enable a 100% clear resolution on their own). ...But I am fine enough taking this at face value and the conclusion is we should expect people to start more threads with discrete questions. Does it matter if people FAQ a separate post in the thread following the original FAQ question, or should they always make a separate thread (which of course impedes the community discussing the broader issue connecting both FAQ questions)?
But this thread isn't simply about posts that are FAQ'ed but never answered or given any response. I'm sure everybody who FAQs a post that is never answered is sad about that, but that isnt' the topic here. The question is why are posts flagged 'ANSWERED IN FAQ', i.e. somebody at Paizo is taking specific action to do so, when there is no answer in the FAQ to ANY part of the question??? When NONE of the questions posed have been answered in the FAQ, it's not an issue of 'not being able to clear a FAQ-flag for just part of a post'.
Harder meaning "requires more than a couple of minutes to put an answer together."
Personally, rules issues that require more than a couple minutes of thought are EXACTLY the FAQs I want to see answered... There's plenty of FAQ entries that I personally find useless since the answer is trivially derived from the RAW, where there is no real vagueness. The issues where the RAW /is/ somewhat vague or contradictory (I think we can agree those cases exist), are the ones where a Paizo answer taking into account intent are the most needed. The very fact that they may take a bit more time to answer exactly points out the importance of them, IMHO.
Not to side-track this thread, ** spoiler omitted **...Didn’t need a FAQ, the answer was given by a writer but was clear anyway.
Yes, Jason Nelson came in and gave his unofficial opinion. While he apparently took account of some additional posts/questions, he didn't even try to address major ones such as: selection between multiple valid targets, relevance of sight/lack of sight (when the Totems don't have any modes of vision or a Perception score) for whether the Totems are subject to Miss Chance in Dim Light/Darkness or if they are subject to Full Concealment ALL THE TIME for not being able to see the target, relevance of Cover (since the Totems are not a creature occupying any square, you can't draw lines from attacker to target to determine Cover, even if target is inside a metal box), determinations of foe/friend (since the Totems seem outside of the Barbarian's control and perceptions, as Jason said the Barb doesn't even need to know the foe is there).
Regardless if Jason's answer is taken to be 'the official answer' (even though he called it unofficial personal opinion), why is it answered 'answered in FAQ' when it is not? There is a flagging option 'doesn't need to be answered' which doesn't imply anything about the content of the FAQ. As is, everybody who reads 'answered in FAQ' is going to go to the FAQ to try to find the answer, perhaps checking multiple books' FAQ entry to find an answer. Why set up that false expectation?
As for stealth that has been discussed in two blogs and several devs have commented. It would take a rules re-write and they aren’t going to do that now.
Yes, the two blogs discussed the potential re-write. They are useless to explain Stealth as it is in RAW, since the Blogs were attempting to CHANGE the RAW not explain it. The main question it seems people still had is the differing conditions for Stealth in different parts of the rules, one stating you need Concealment (i.e. any Concealment), one making it seem to depend on Dim Lighting. Personally, I distinguish between the skill specifying the need for (any) Concealment/Cover (e.g. from Lightning Stance or Fog) and the Lighting rules mentioning that you CAN Stealth in Dim Lighting (distinct from saying only Dim Lighting enables Stealth), but the issue isn't resolved officially and many people would like an official FAQ.
Certainly there are FAQ entries for many issues which are less confusing or controversial. The Would-Have-Been-Re-Write Blogs don't help resolve that, and the issue is still not addressed in the FAQ. Certainly the fact that Paizo's Rules Team felt the Stealth/Perception system in need of a re-write suggests that in lieu of a re-write the existing system could use some explanation, right? Apart from FAQs for specific details, a Rules Blog explaining in more depth and with examples how RAW Stealth should be used would be an amazingly useful thing for many people, IMHO (especially for when and how often you make stealth checks).
But the specific details of each of these rules issues are really their own separate issues. The issue of this thread is why falsely mark ANYTHING 'answered in FAQ' when there is no answer in the FAQ pertaining to ANY of the posed questions? The 'answered in FAQ' flag should only be triggered when an actual entry in the FAQ is made, otherwise it is misleading.
This was also an honest question of mine:
there was a big deal made about some new approach to dealing with FAQ/Errata.
how's that going? should we expect more developments in that?
Has all the goals of this new approach been met?
I've noticed that there hasn't been many Rules blogs lately, when I had the impression that was supposed to be a regular feature.
What is the intent with those?
Will rules changes from Blogs like the expansion of Trip Weapon Quality to Drag/Reposition show up in FAQs (until Errata happens)?
I know I've helped other players here with that info, and I'm 99% sure they'd have never found that info on their own.
I'm not sure of the point of expending the 'design energy' on developing those new things,
for them to only be published in a Blog and not otherwise be publicized e.g. in a FAQ/Errata.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it matter if people FAQ a separate post in the thread following the original FAQ question, or should they always make a separate thread (which of course impedes the community discussing the broader issue connecting both FAQ questions)?
When we use the FAQ interface, it looks much the same as checking a person's profile and clicking the "Favorites" or "Favorited By Others" tab, except it's sorted "most flags on top" instead of chronologically. Each post (not each thread) with a FAQ flag is treated as its own unique entity in the flagging system.
So let's say you have two threads.
Thread A post 1 has 30 FAQ flags.
Thread B post 1 has 5 FAQ flags, post 7 has 15 FAQ flags, post 25 has 20 FAQ flags, and post 104 has 7 FAQ flags.
It doesn't matter that Thread B has a total of 44 FAQ-flags, it's sorted lower than Thread A (which has 30 flags but they're all on the same post) because A-1 is at the top of the list.
We can scroll up and down in the big list of FAQ'd flags and see that Thread B has additional posts that have been FAQ flagged, but it's not obvious looking at a particular post whether or not any other posts in the thread are flagged.
But this thread isn't simply about posts that are FAQ'ed but never answered or given any response. I'm sure everybody who FAQs a post that is never answered is sad about that, but that isnt' the topic here. The question is why are posts flagged 'ANSWERED IN FAQ', i.e. somebody at Paizo is taking specific action to do so, when there is no answer in the FAQ to ANY part of the question??? When NONE of the questions posed have been answered in the FAQ, it's not an issue of 'not being able to clear a FAQ-flag for just part of a post'.
I don't know which threads you're talking about, so I don't have any specific answers. However, as there is no option for us to say "this post is a mess and we can't suss out exactly what you're asking," it's possible it may have been marked answered-in-FAQ to purge it from the list (otherwise it would sit in the list forever... the only options for clearing flags are "answered in FAQ," "answered in errata," "not an error/no staff response needed," and "create new FAQ entry for this") with the expectation that a clearer version of the question is in the queue.
Personally, rules issues that require more than a couple minutes of thought are EXACTLY the FAQs I want to see answered... There's plenty of FAQ entries that I personally find useless since the answer is trivially derived from the RAW, where there is no real vagueness. The issues where the RAW /is/ somewhat vague or contradictory (I think we can agree those cases exist), are the ones where a Paizo answer taking into account intent are the most needed. The very fact that they may take a bit more time to answer exactly points out the importance of them, IMHO.
I agree, but we'd rather give a complete answer on something we have time to answer than give a partial answer on something that requires more than a simple FAQ entry or affects more than one part of the rules. Things like stealth, for example.
I've noticed that there hasn't been many Rules blogs lately, when I had the impression that was supposed to be a regular feature.
I don't recall that being promised.
Will rules changes from Blogs like the expansion of Trip Weapon Quality to Drag/Reposition show up in FAQs (until Errata happens)?
It should, yes. You'll notice that some of the FAQ items in the past couple of months refer to (and link to) those blog rulings.
oooo... under the FAQ hood. Am I the only one excited here? Seriously, thanks Sean for pulling back the hood and letting us know how to be more responsible in our FAQ tags. I will be much more judicious in FAQing.
I don't know which threads you're talking about, so I don't have any specific answers. However, as there is no option for us to say "this post is a mess and we can't suss out exactly what you're asking," it's possible it may have been marked answered-in-FAQ to purge it from the list (otherwise it would sit in the list forever... the only options for clearing flags are "answered in FAQ," "answered in errata," "not an error/no staff response needed," and "create new FAQ entry for this") with the expectation that a clearer version of the question is in the queue.
In my post with the spoiler above I gave the links to the original posts with the "Answered in FAQ" "errors" in my breakdown.
As advised, I made a new (and theoretically more concise) thread about Overrun and Charge located at the new location - here.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, as there is no option for us to say "this post is a mess and we can't suss out exactly what you're asking," it's possible it may have been marked answered-in-FAQ to purge it from the list (otherwise it would sit in the list forever... the only options for clearing flags are "answered in FAQ," "answered in errata," "not an error/no staff response needed," and "create new FAQ entry for this") with the expectation that a clearer version of the question is in the queue.
We could create a "question unclear" flag... or any other flag that you think helps you do your job!
That would be helpful. We're still getting into gear.
(Assuming that is the reason for those flags being marked as such.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, as there is no option for us to say "this post is a mess and we can't suss out exactly what you're asking," it's possible it may have been marked answered-in-FAQ to purge it from the list (otherwise it would sit in the list forever... the only options for clearing flags are "answered in FAQ," "answered in errata," "not an error/no staff response needed," and "create new FAQ entry for this") with the expectation that a clearer version of the question is in the queue.We could create a "question unclear" flag... or any other flag that you think helps you do your job!
The information Sean gave us will help a lot with our posts and FAQ flagging.
Vic, two other things could help us if you can add the to the forum:
1) the ability to un-FAQ a post, i.e. remove our FAQ flag. In some instance I have flagged a post with a FAQ request and later someone has show me that there was a reply in the rules or a developer post that resolved my doubt. Removing some obsolete flag could clear the queue a bit;
2) the ability to see a list of the post that we have FAQed. If 1) can be done it will help us in removing unwanted flags and even if that can't be done it will help us in trying to avoid duplicates.
Thanks to you and Sean for the informations and support.
I'll second Diego's idea of being able to in-FAQ our own posts. Sometimes they are resolved, sometimes they were added a little too hastily.
I'd also propose a flag that says "Already Answered In FAQ" to denote that one of the pre-existing FAQs covers this. This differentiates newly answered questions from previously answered questions, and would help resolve "Well where is the FAQ entry?!" questions.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since my name has come up a few times in this thread, I thought I would just chime in.
Since I've written a lot of stuff in the various Paizo hardbacks, when people ask questions I'm happy to offer my opinions on the subject at hand. However, I'm always careful to point out (as has been noted in the spirit totem case cited above) that my opinions speak only to my authorial intent. I can hit the "flag this post" just like everybody else, but that's it. Any posts I make are not the FAQ and are not related to it, unless Sean, Stephen, or Jason B happen to agree and post the same thing of course. :)
As a freelance contributor, once the manuscript hits Paizo Central, it enters another layer of development and editing. The fine folks there may change nothing, a little, or a lot, but the final word on interpretation or explanation at that point is theirs, not the author's. I am happy to tell you what I was thinking as I wrote a rule, and how I think it should work, and why I phrased it the way I did. Sometimes I'll even offer up alternate wording for a rule that, on discussion with people on a thread, better captures the meaning I intended or helps clarify unintended ambiguity, like the shaman druid wild shape question or the titan mauler's jotungrip and oversized weapons abilities. My answers, though, or those of any other freelance contributor on their products - rules, monsters, adventures, whatever - don't constitute official rulings by Paizo.
If you're running or playing in a home game, my unofficial authorial intentions could carry some weight with whomever is the GM, and if you take that as a rules fix, awesome. Happy to help and have fun!
If you're playing PFS or a game where only official RAW applies, then you'll have to wait for Sean, Stephen, or Jason B to address the issue in an official capacity.
I appreciate your insights Jason and your willingness to weigh in on topics.
|
|
What bothers me sometimes with the "Answered in FAQ" thing is that, for some posts, I go to the FAQ and cannot find anything that looks like a clarification concerning the topic which is supposed to have been answered/clarified. Then I come back to the thread and try to find a post by a dev giving the clarification/answer, and again nada.
This is very frustrating, as the question FAQed is supposed to have been answered, but I just cannot find the answer no matter where I look for it.
I propose that when the devs clarify/answer such a post, they make a short post on the thread explaining that the FAQed post has been answered and where the answer is. I am not sure how much additional work this would require, but I am sure that it would improve customers' satisfaction.
Please note that my own satisfaction as a customer of Paizo is already very high. Which BTW is the reason why I am asking for improvement of what is, all things considered, only a small point.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
As a idea for the technical crew, would it be possible to turn the answered in FAQ/answered in errata tags into links to the appropriate location? Or would this be unfeasible given available resources?
Yeah, I wanted that to happen, but basically it would increase the amount of time that it takes a developer to clear a FAQ, and ultimately, we want them to spend the time they have to allocate to the FAQ queue answering new questions, not locating answers to previously answered questions.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I propose that when the devs clarify/answer such a post, they make a short post on the thread explaining that the FAQed post has been answered and where the answer is. I am not sure how much additional work this would require, but I am sure that it would improve customers' satisfaction.
Essentially, same as above: the longer it takes to answer a question, the fewer questions they can answer.
Hrrmmmm, I had one thread where this happened: Horse animal companion and hoof attacks.
Although the RAI was pretty clear ( to me at least, I posed the question because there are multiple threads on the board where people continued to disagree about the question ), the RAW could have needed an answer. And I don't think I asked the question in an obtuse way, I tried to be as detailed as possible.
It doesn't matter that Thread B has a total of 44 FAQ-flags, it's sorted lower than Thread A (which has 30 flags but they're all on the same post) because A-1 is at the top of the list.
Why not change that? It's your website.
It doesn't matter that Thread B has a total of 44 FAQ-flags, it's sorted lower than Thread A (which has 30 flags but they're all on the same post) because A-1 is at the top of the list.Why not change that? It's your website.
I don't understand your question.
Why not change that? It's your website.I don't understand your question.
From your phrasing, it seemed like you considered that a problem with the interface.
It doesn't matter that Thread B has a total of 44 FAQ-flags, it's sorted lower than Thread A (which has 30 flags but they're all on the same post) because A-1 is at the top of the list.
We can scroll up and down in the big list of FAQ'd flags and see that Thread B has additional posts that have been FAQ flagged, but it's not obvious looking at a particular post whether or not any other posts in the thread are flagged.
So I'm asking why you don't just change it to count flags in a thread.
1) It's not my place to tell the tech team how to reprogram the website, and not just because I have no idea how much work that would entail.
2) If there's a thread with 200 posts, and post 30 has 20 flags about topic A, and post 150 has 20 flags about topic B, then
2a) Just having the thread flagged as "this has 40 flags" isn't helpful because you have to read the entire thread to *find* the flagged posts, and odds are you'd stop at post 30 and never get to post 150 and therefore topic B wouldn't get answered, and
2b) It falsely places that thread higher in the sort order than another thread with 30 flags all on the same post.
The system works fine as it is, but the public needs to be better educated about how to use it to make it work even better. I'd rather have a thread with two significant FAQ entries get sorted a little lower than a thread with one if that means the two-FAQ'd-post thread doesn't get filed as answered when one FAQ'd post in that thread is actually unanswered.
1) It's not my place to tell the tech team how to reprogram the website, and not just because I have no idea how much work that would entail.
2) If there's a thread with 200 posts, and post 30 has 20 flags about topic A, and post 150 has 20 flags about topic B, then
2a) Just having the thread flagged as "this has 40 flags" isn't helpful because you have to read the entire thread to *find* the flagged posts, and odds are you'd stop at post 30 and never get to post 150 and therefore topic B wouldn't get answered, and
2b) It falsely places that thread higher in the sort order than another thread with 30 flags all on the same post.
The system works fine as it is, but the public needs to be better educated about how to use it to make it work even better. I'd rather have a thread with two significant FAQ entries get sorted a little lower than a thread with one if that means the two-FAQ'd-post thread doesn't get filed as answered when one FAQ'd post in that thread is actually unanswered.
Okay. I misunderstood what you were saying.
On a related note what do we do about threads that are answered in the FAQ, but not marked as such. An example the manyshot full attack thread which went to over 1000 post, It now has an official answer, but is not marked as such.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three cheers for the Pathfinder Design Team user. Better yet, follow this page in your RSS reader for all the latest FAQ rulings. This is certainly a welcome change.
Contributor
|
Other than, well, posting here... in the future, what would you recommend for situations like This one where someone from Paizo mentioned that it would be addressed a year+ ago but nothing ever came of it, or one like This one where it was marked as "Answered in the FAQ" but 4 days of searching the FAQ yielded nothing that relates to the question?
I love everything you guys and gals at Paizo do for us players, seriously, and I'm not trying to be a pest nor do I want to make any more work for anybody...but at the same time, just me personally, I'd rather have answers to rules questions come more slowly and be able to find them than have lots of stuff answered and not know it sometimes :)
Thanks also for engaging in conversation on this topic!
Create a new post restating the question and ask people to FAQ it, as Jiggy has done for other topics.
|
Official Rules Response
|
or one like This one where it was marked as "Answered in the FAQ" but 4 days of searching the FAQ yielded nothing that relates to the question?
FAQ answer: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qny
Spell Mastery: Can an alchemist, magus, or witch select this feat?
As written, no, as the feat's prerequisite is "1st-level wizard."
However, the feat was written before the existence of the alchemist, magus, and witch classes, and it is a perfectly reasonable house rule to allow those classes to select the feat and apply its benefits to an alchemist's formula book, magus's spellbook, or witch's familiar.
Is this post an example of "already sorta answered in a different FAQ" or "whoops, we missed it" like the Spell Mastery one? I'd rather not glut up the FAQ queue in case it's the latter.