|
Thank you, now we just need all the barbarian and paladin revisions in a nice PDF.
Greedy? Me? No?
I suspect that this is probably a bit of a bite to chew given the workload these guys and gals have. That said, it would be really nice to see updates like those for which you are asking.
Alternatively, why not post erratas? I really want to be able to track where Pathfinder's going, so when the final version comes out, I won't have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to discern the changes.
|
Thank you, now we just need all the barbarian and paladin revisions in a nice PDF.
Greedy? Me? No?
This post has links that might still be live (I didn't make them, Brodiggan Gale did).
Creative Director
|
Thank you, now we just need all the barbarian and paladin revisions in a nice PDF.
Greedy? Me? No?
I suspect that this is probably a bit of a bite to chew given the workload these guys and gals have. That said, it would be really nice to see updates like those for which you are asking.
Alternatively, why not post erratas? I really want to be able to track where Pathfinder's going, so when the final version comes out, I won't have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to discern the changes.
Because officially posting errata for the beta would be an incredibly time-consuming process, and that's not where we want our energy going at this critical moment in the beta's life. That said, I will look into the possibility of doing so... it's just not likely to go anywhere.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thank you Bagpus for the links, downloaded and saved.
James, I understand where you're coming from, really at this point I'd think errata compilations does fall to us (the fans) y'all are getting a lot of input, good and bad, for the final product and that's where efforts should be going.
|
|
James,
As always, your promptness in responding is impressive.
Okay, I may have misstated my request. By saying errata, I don't mean errors in the Beta version, but rather, the changes that Paizo has made between Beta and its final release. I.e., if we are to keep playtesting, it should be with what Paizo now has . . . not what was in the Beta.
That said, maybe we were speaking the same language and your answer remains the same. I am cool with that.
Merry Christmas and Happy 2009.
Charles Evans.
Thank you, CE25. A great Christmas gift!
|
|
I bought the beta playtest book. And used it. The day after Christmas.
So, I guess I won't post any of my results since I was using old out-dated material, and didn't comb through the message boards to find all of Jason's posts on what's going to change in the final release.
Oh wait, I think I just got it. The Beta playtest is 3.0 and the final is 3.5. That should make some people happy. Too bad I bought the old version. I guess when the final's release I'll just throw my Beta in the trash and be glad I didn't waste any more money on the final.
Thanks for the commitment to making money. At this rate we won't be seeing a Pathfinder 4th edition for another 3 or 4 years. Good job.
Hey, it's not that bad and they want both versions of those few changed rules changed (although I would agree with your implicit statement that the new ones are better).
You're right that there should be a consolidated list of proposed changes; all they'd have to do is sticky a thread... but it's not some evil plan to make more money, as the Beta is supposed to be disposable (and it's available as a free .pdf, too). The evil plan to make more money kicks in next August, when the final version is out.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
remoraz,
Your comments on the beta date back to August, so I assume you've been reading the boards, at least a little. If you just started a group after Christmas then glad to hear of a new group. If you're saying you bought/got the book for Christmas and just found out it's a beta, you're being disingenious.
When the Beta came out I joked about it being the 'White Wolf' model. If you were playing back then (no offence intended, I don't know how old you are) White Wolf released Vampire: The Masquerade as a softcover. They then released a Hardcover 2 years later, as a 'new and improved' edition. They did this with their first 5 lines. Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Wraith, and Changeling. (Hunter and Demon were released after the plans to blow the world up were set in motion, and Mummy, while it followed a similar soft then hard format was enough of a revision that I don't include it.
The differences between White Wolf and Paizo are legion in the execution of the model.
If you can find a copy of Vampire: The softcover, look at the credits. You'll see a familiar name (Hint, her name now comes with Paizo CEO attached) Paizo may be a company, but it's a company of gamers for gamers. They're savy enough to build on the past, and understand company goodwill. Giving us a free game, selling us a softcover at a bare minimum profit, and letting us all have input on the finished product, find anyone, anywhere who does that with something that's not software?
|
Creative Director
|
As the playtest continues, it's absolutely important to remember that this is a playtest and NOT a final game. It's also not a committee design process. I appreciate and understand when folk get excited about the rules and want to propose alternate rules, but at a certain level, the playtest is, to Paizo, closer to a survey than it is a chance for everyone to get their own house rules into print.
We still don't know exactly how the final game is going to look, but with every day of feedback and every post to these boards, we not only find out more and more about what's broken and what's not powerful enough, but also what's fun, how people play the game, what they expect from the game, and ease our customers into the changes to come by maintaining visibility to the process.
The Beta is NOT a final game, and it was, technically, out of date before it shipped to the printer since we continued to refine and tinker with the rules. That doesn't mean what's in the print copy or the PDF is cast out and will never be looked at again. The options for how to handle the game in the print version are still options, and if we hear a strong and compelling reason about how the way animal companions were handled in the original release of the beta is better than the alternate versions we're also proposing, then we might go back to that version.
We can go backward as well as forward, is what I'm saying. But in the end, WE are the ones making the decision on what the Pathfinder RPG is gonna be like. We want that game to appeal to as many folk as possible, though, and value the huge ocean of opinion and resource about the game enough to have an open beta playtest (and an open alpha stage as well, which in my experience is VERY unusual).
Since there's only about six of us and there's over 35,000 playtesters, it's ridiculous to assume we hear every single comment and even more so to expect feedback on every one. What's more valuable to US, honestly, isn't the feedback from any one person but the feedback as a whole. But even then, it's just feedback... research that we use to help us make decisions on how to go forward with the beta. I don't say this to try to downplay the value of all these comments, not at all, but in an attempt to remind everyone that the game's design is not happening in these messageboard posts, despite the appearance at times that it is. Is that frustrating? In some cases, yes it is. For the playtesters AND for the designers. The only real option was to not have a public playtest at all, and to be honest, I don't think that would have been better.
For all its bumps and scandals and troubles, I think the open playtest has been incredibly valuable and educational. Just don't lose sight of the forest for the trees, is all.
In the end, if Pathfinder RPG isn't for you... that's fine too. We fully expect that the 3.5 system itself will remain vastly more popular, and that's the main reason we're going to be trying to make our non-core-rulebook products (adventures and sourcebooks) compatible with both systems. You'll still be able to understand and run the Council of Thieves Adventure Path with the 3.5 rules, even though it's native system will be PF RPG. If PF RPG isn't to your liking but you enjoy Paizo's adventures, those adventures will still be there for you to enjoy.
James,
I do believe that most of us understand.
We would, however, like to "test" where the rules are going. That is why we keep asking for updates on each section.
As well, I think part of it is that if we know where things are going, there will be less "negative" surprises once we crack open the brand new Pathfinder RPG hardcover.
|
Creative Director
|
Here is my situation. I'm launching a Pathfinder game Sunday at my FLGS using the Beta rules. I'm new to the area and don't know the players, but know that none of them have played Pathfinder before.
This may be my only chance to sell the system to these gamers, and I'd hate to use broken or outdated rules if Paizo has already made changes for the final.
It would be helpful to have any sort of official errata log (I'm a bit uncomfortable using unofficial errata) or update sheet even though I'm sure it's a burden to the designers.
Isn't there some sort of kobold minion that can help you?
We haven't made any changes final yet; that's the thing.
If you playtest the print rules and they work great and your players love them... that's very important information to know. NONE of the rules will be final until we finish the development stage and enter editing, and that's sill about a month or two away.
If you know your players before hand and know their likes, or if you really think that an element is bad and want to replace it, these messageboards are basically the place to go for options.
At this stage, still in the beta, the word "errata" shouldn't apply to rules changes. It should apply to actual errors (such as if a class has the wrong HD, or there's a typo, or the like). There are several threads where people are listing possible errata, but we haven't had the time to look through them all yet (and it's not yet the TIME to do this yet, in any case). The print version of the barbarian powers are not "outdated" and the new version Jason posted a few months back isn't "errata." It's an additional option, and while it's cool to have all the options on the table for players to pick and choose what's best... we DO need them both playtested because the difference between how rules read and how rules play can be pretty vast.
As well, I think part of it is that if we know where things are going, there will be less "negative" surprises once we crack open the brand new Pathfinder RPG hardcover.
Surprises BAD!