Pathfinder Core was released Aug 13th this year. The official errata 1.0 came out at the same date. It has been three and a half months since, and we haven't seen any new errata or FAQ.
Still at the same time there are a number of discussions going on, figuring out how some rules are meant to work. Some of these discussions have received some semi-official feedback from Paizo staff, though it matters little when actual rules are concerned.
Errata should be updated to at least tackle the most prominent issues. FAQ should be published as well, where clarifications and rulings could be explained in more detail.
Don't get me wrong, I love the product. It just has errors that need to be fixed.
The designer and editors are aware of this and have made it clear that they will adress the issues as soon as possible, but are currently extremely busy with the release of supporting products.
The designer and editors are aware of this and have made it clear that they will adress the issues as soon as possible, but are currently extremely busy with the release of supporting products.
I work in development myself, and I think I have a fairly good idea on what's going on.
This is basically a case of how creating new products relates to supporting older products. Pretty often the new products get more attention from developers because they're more fun to create. And more attention from business management because they bring more revenue in than older products. Both sides agree that they should focus on supporting older products but they just don't have the time. Unless they're reminded (from time to time) why support is important.
It's not like I wouldn't want get the new products. But I can wait for another week if I get support for the core of the game. I mean, what do I do with splat books if I don't know how to use the main book.
The entire Paizo scheudule got pushed 2-3 months back due to PFRPG and Bestiary, and they are scrambling to get them out. The products you see coming out are not "new" as in "created after the PFRPG", they were supposed appear as early as June and got pushed back.
Thanks for the information. I might argue that the products are new as they haven't been published previously. This is why you shouldn't promise anything you don't know if you're able to keep. I keep repeating that to our management at the office ;)
Still, I think the argument holds that we don't need new rules (or monsters or whatnot) based on existing rules that we don't know how to use.
I'm with him. I'm tired of having to look all over the place for rulings, and if my search-fu isn't 100% that day, I have to ask a question that's probably been asked 100 times before in a different manner than I thought up; and then I get to look like an idiot when people put up 2-5 links to threads where it's been answered.
It's not all that hard to do either. Piazo employees do come on the forums, read posts, and make official rulings. Said employees could then make a list of all rulings they did and hand them to a dedicated employee. Said dedicated employee is in charge of cutting and pasting said list into a dedicated webpage. On a heavy day will take said employee 20 extra minutes of his day. Adds 5 minutes to the others involved.
Problem solved, and the list is then handy for when updated books get printed.
I guess that's just crazytalk...
I too agree as I am sure many others do. I was just trying to explain that the developers are aware of this.
|
It is an interesting perspective, though. It's like buying a car and getting it 98% finished (maybe 99%). But the dealer makes money selling new product so they're more interested in the next car coming out than in the finishing touches on the one you've already bought.
Common problem, obviously, as Samuli pointed out. I know I see it all the time too in the programming world: "Let's work on the next feature as it's more fun/sexy/glitzy and we'll do patches/updates/documentation later!" This is why Microsoft seems stuck with an Internet Explorer that in any other industry would be shameful.
:)
A FAQ would be a huge help.
Considering how prolific James Jacobs is on these boards (especially on the rules questions forum) - I would think he could write a FAQ to deal with every frequently asked rules question in his sleep.
Unfortunately, I get the impression that everything (Like a FAQ) needs to go through Jason though, and that bottlenecks things.
Awesome!
There is also an unofficial FAQ here: www.d20pfsrd.comextras/pathfinder-faq if that helps in the meantime.
I would expect a new update to the Errata immediately following the release of the Alchemist and Inquisitor playtest classes. We have been accumulating errata since the book's release, and will get this updated ASAP.
Thanks for your patience.
Thanks Erik, it means a lot to us that we know you are listening in now and then.
Actually you should start a mothly Paizo magazine with FAQ, errata, new stuff and...
Probably the best thing you can do in the meantime is contribute\check the unofficial FAQ. That will at least preserve your questions for any official errata for the future.
After that, I hate to say be patient. I mean look at Erik Mona. His avatar only has one big eye! The other one was just as big but he sacrificed it to always look after pathfinder! These guys aren't as big or as expensive as WOTC. I think they deserve and appreciate our patience.
Sigurd
There is also an unofficial FAQ here: www.d20pfsrd.comextras/pathfinder-faq if that helps in the meantime.
Probably the best thing you can do in the meantime is contribute\check the unofficial FAQ. That will at least preserve your questions for any official errata for the future.
Isn't a FAQ different from errata?
Isn't a FAQ different from errata?
Yes, a FAQ is different from an Errata, but in this case you takes what you can gets I suppose.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Isn't a FAQ different from errata?
In WotC world.
But I sincerely hope in Paizo world, the FAQ is official Errata.
The biggest problem is when the FAQ describes what the rules say, they need to make it clear that reading the rules any other way is by definition "not RAW."
The job of the FAQ should be defining which way the rules are written when there are multiple interpretations of what the rules say.
Isn't a FAQ different from errata?In WotC world.
But I sincerely hope in Paizo world, the FAQ is official Errata.
The biggest problem is when the FAQ describes what the rules say, they need to make it clear that reading the rules any other way is by definition "not RAW."
The job of the FAQ should be defining which way the rules are written when there are multiple interpretations of what the rules say.
Ugh. I'm getting Rainbow Savant flashbacks.
It's like a sick feeling in my stomach.
Me: "Rainbow Savant is quite the price to increase your warmages spell list"
Other: "What cost? You get full caster progression in the Text, and text trumps table."
Me: "The FAQ says to use the table."
Other: "The FAQ is not errata - text trumps table even if FAQ says otherwise."
Me: *throws up a bit in my mouth* "yep - great plan"
Creative Director
|
Errata: This corrects actual errors in the text, be they missing plus signs, typos that actually affect rules and game play, or whatever.
FAQ: This does not correct errors. It merely answers the most frequently asked questions. In lots of cases, the FAQ will be used (I suspect) to provide more detailed descriptions of rules, to clear up confusion, and provide examples of how rules work. The rules in question aren't incorrect, and thus the actual text in the book doesn't need to change, so a FAQ is a lot less invasive. It's basically little more than a consolidated place for lots of the messageboard answers we've been giving out can live.
A LOT of what folks are mistakingly calling "errata" is not errata. Its just more detailed descriptions of rules and clearing up corner cases and all that. That stuff belongs in the FAQ.
Errata: This corrects actual errors in the text, be they missing plus signs, typos that actually affect rules and game play, or whatever.
FAQ: This does not correct errors. It merely answers the most frequently asked questions. In lots of cases, the FAQ will be used (I suspect) to provide more detailed descriptions of rules, to clear up confusion, and provide examples of how rules work. The rules in question aren't incorrect, and thus the actual text in the book doesn't need to change, so a FAQ is a lot less invasive. It's basically little more than a consolidated place for lots of the messageboard answers we've been giving out can live.
A LOT of what folks are mistakingly calling "errata" is not errata. Its just more detailed descriptions of rules and clearing up corner cases and all that. That stuff belongs in the FAQ.
are you still planning on removing the "Elf only" requirement on the arcane archer? i beleive it was copy/paste error? no other race gets a prestige class to themselves. and it would save the issues of building variants. what if some guy in a strictly R.A.W. campaign wanted a human, halfling, or even dwarven Arcane Archer? it actually sounds like a good idea. i never liked the "Racial" restriction on prestige classes. (or on any classes in general) Something i didn't like on WoW. No Blood Elf druids, Tauren Paladins or Dwarven Shamans. something i would find interesting. please remove that holdover.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
are you still planning on removing the "Elf only" requirement on the arcane archer? i beleive it was copy/paste error? no other race gets a prestige class to themselves. and it would save the issues of building variants. what if some guy in a strictly R.A.W. campaign wanted a human, halfling, or even dwarven Arcane Archer? it actually sounds like a good idea. i never liked the "Racial" restriction on prestige classes. (or on any classes in general) Something i didn't like on WoW. No Blood Elf druids, Tauren Paladins or Dwarven Shamans. something i would find interesting. please remove that holdover.
Yes. It wasn't a copy/paste error; it was an intentional choice in 3rd edition to present an elf-only class. And a dwarf-only class. Personally, since you can't change race once you start to play, I think that having a race be a prerequisite for a prestige class is TERRIBLY limiting and not good for the game.
Removing the Elf Only requirement is a great example of errata, actually. It's an easy fix.
are you still planning on removing the "Elf only" requirement on the arcane archer? i beleive it was copy/paste error? no other race gets a prestige class to themselves. and it would save the issues of building variants. what if some guy in a strictly R.A.W. campaign wanted a human, halfling, or even dwarven Arcane Archer? it actually sounds like a good idea. i never liked the "Racial" restriction on prestige classes. (or on any classes in general) Something i didn't like on WoW. No Blood Elf druids, Tauren Paladins or Dwarven Shamans. something i would find interesting. please remove that holdover.Yes. It wasn't a copy/paste error; it was an intentional choice in 3rd edition to present an elf-only class. And a dwarf-only class. Personally, since you can't change race once you start to play, I think that having a race be a prerequisite for a prestige class is TERRIBLY limiting and not good for the game.
Removing the Elf Only requirement is a great example of errata, actually. It's an easy fix.
thank you. all the non elven arcane archers in the world will be happy. i will give you thier thanks.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A LOT of what folks are mistakingly calling "errata" is not errata. Its just more detailed descriptions of rules and clearing up corner cases and all that. That stuff belongs in the FAQ.
If you don't call it Errata (or otherwise publish something in the Errata that everything in the FAQ is the only legal/valid way to read the rules) then you end up with this problem:
Other: "The FAQ is not errata - text trumps table even if FAQ says otherwise."
Which pretty much is an epic fail of the rules.
To restate my point, if you don't call the FAQ "Errata", then those that like to read the rules in twisted and interesting ways will ignore the official FAQ and debates will go on forever.
Maybe errata is the wrong word, but something in the FAQ needs to reinforce the "there shall be only one" way to read the rule in question. Deviating from that way is considered a house rule. Something every DM is allowed to do at will.
Which pretty much is an epic fail of the rules.
To restate my point, if you don't call the FAQ "Errata", then those that like to read the rules in twisted and interesting ways will ignore the official FAQ and debates will go on forever.
Maybe errata is the wrong word, but something in the FAQ needs to reinforce the "there shall be only one" way to read the rule in question. Deviating from that way is considered a house rule. Something every DM is allowed to do at will.
I don't think you're giving people enough credit.
If the FAQ says, "this is how the Designers offically intended the rules to work," that is going to be sufficient for 98% of the people.
There is no magic in the word "Errata". If someone is determined to read the rules in a "twisted and interesting" way they're going to do it whether it's called errata or not.
I also think its important that they don't flip-flop on the decisions to many times. That was part of the reason why many people, which eventually included myself would not accept the FAQ during debates on the WoTC boards. I began to question their knwoledge of how things were supposed to work. Thinking back on it though the designers may have thought X ability is cool, but did not think of how a player would exploit it. If that happens in Paizo a statement along the lines of "yes the ability can do that, but it was not intended to be used in that way" would suffice.
I also think its important that they don't flip-flop on the decisions to many times. That was part of the reason why many people, which eventually included myself would not accept the FAQ during debates on the WoTC boards. I began to question their knwoledge of how things were supposed to work. Thinking back on it though the designers may have thought X ability is cool, but did not think of how a player would exploit it. If that happens in Paizo a statement along the lines of "yes the ability can do that, but it was not intended to be used in that way" would suffice.
I do not know if this is what actually happened, but my impression of the FAQ is that when Skip Williams was the sage and answered almost all questions personally the Sage Advice/FAQ was solid, reliable and consistent. Then something happened. The FAQ was given over to idiots (IMO) probably very hardworking people who's only job was to take these questions. These either did not have a practical or design based knowledge of the rules and often contradicted one another. At that point the FAQ lost ALL value what so ever.
I hope the Paizo FAQ will be labeled as Official Rules Clarifications and be revised and approved by Jason Bulmanh and/or James Jacobs - just to make sure the answers are 100% cosistent.
PS: what happend to Skip? Can't Paizo take Skip in?
|
Please no Skip Williams. With all the due respect, some of the Sage answers were so confusing, unclear and sometimes downright wonky that I really really don't want him anywhere near the PF rules. Also, his design philosophy tends to be somewhat detached from the real play, as evidenced by the "undead with d12 and no Con bonus" story.
So please skip Skip :P. On the other hand, Jonathan Tweet .. now that's an awesome designer. Ars Magica ftw !
Please no Skip Williams. With all the due respect, some of the Sage answers were so confusing, unclear and sometimes downright wonky that I really really don't want him anywhere near the PF rules. Also, his design philosophy tends to be somewhat detached from the real play, as evidenced by the "undead with d12 and no Con bonus" story.
So please skip Skip :P. On the other hand, Jonathan Tweet .. now that's an awesome designer. Ars Magica ftw !
That really goes a long way to show how differently people understand rules. I always thought he was quite clear and made a lot of sense (except for a question I once had about jousting, charging and countercharging in 2nd ed. Combat and Tactics).
My main point is that there should be ONE person in charge of the FAQ with ultimate responsability and supervising all official answers.
Ugh. I'm getting Rainbow Savant flashbacks.It's like a sick feeling in my stomach.
Me: "Rainbow Savant is quite the price to increase your warmages spell list"
Other: "What cost? You get full caster progression in the Text, and text trumps table."
Me: "The FAQ says to use the table."
Other: "The FAQ is not errata - text trumps table even if FAQ says otherwise."
Me: *throws up a bit in my mouth* "yep - great plan"
When a table clearly disagrees with the text describing it, that's a misprint that needs errata.
On the other hand, a FAQ is a place for questions like: "Are cleric domain powers based on character level or class level?" In that case, the FAQ can point the questioner to the "Multiclassing" section where it explains abilities are based on class level unless otherwise noted.
Thanks for your patience.
Patience? What patience? I got fed up with waiting and sneaked into your offices with a host of mind flayers to pull the knowledge of the errata right from your minds. However, one of the stupid squidfaces had to realize, "Hey, wait a minute... aren't we IP of Wizards?" and vanished in a poof of logic.
So, I had to sneak out and nearly failed my check. (That bump and the cursing you thought you heard but decided you didn't [thanks for barely failing that Perception check, by the way] was me stubbing my toe on the way out.)
A LOT of what folks are mistakingly calling "errata" is not errata. Its just more detailed descriptions of rules and clearing up corner cases and all that. That stuff belongs in the FAQ.
Great to hear this is coming sooner rather than later.
I do have to say that there IS a huge number of issues, that really need to be looked at as "errors". The PURPOSE of the Rules text is to CLEARLY convey game mechanics to the reader: Failure to achieve that doesn't need an adjunct 'explanation', but a re-wording of the Core Rules themselves to do their job correctly (clearly & consisely communicate their intent).
It doesn't matter if Jason or those at Paizo can look at the rules and say "they aren't in conflict with the intended interpretation/meaning, so that means they're good" if a large number of readers look at those same rules and do not come away with an accurate reading of that intention. Sure, some people will always ask "I know it has Somatic Components, but does Fireball reallly provoke?..." and the like, but there's a staggering number of rules issues that are actual failures to convey the intended meaning, either thru typos/missing info or just bad wording. Certain passages may benefit from an extra phrase or two, but others could easily be clearer with LESS text, so the net word-count may easily balance out: In other words, not a subject for a verbose rules "explanation" (FAQ), but Errata that should modify the wording for your next printing.
The Core Rule already recognize the wisdom of repeating relevant rules for clarity - approaching it from the assumption that players/readers DO NOT have access to the FAQ (just Errata/latest printing) is really the best policy IMHO. I went ahead and sold my dead-tree copy because the egregious errors/failures were to much to be a product I actually wanted to keep. I'm hoping you can do the right thing and bring the next printing up to a worthy standard, i.e. the best it can be.
Another poster said something like "I don't want new Monsters and Classes if the Core Rules they use aren't fixed", and I really hope that informs your approach. It really seems like PRPG has been successful beyond your expectations so far, and the way to validate that and ensure further success is making a product that's actually worthy of that success.
Well if you disqualify the FAQ, is there an updated list that fans can contribute to, an unofficial Errata?
It is difficult to use this list because you very quickly cant edit posts to update or organize. Threads get very long and miss-organized.
Is there an errata 'waiting room' for questions etc that we can add to until you guys make official rulings. After official rules we can trim the unofficial list back and repeat.
Sigurd
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I don't think you're giving people enough credit.
There is no magic in the word "Errata". If someone is determined to read the rules in a "twisted and interesting" way they're going to do it whether it's called errata or not.
Well, it is my experience that people still debate unless the word errata was used.
Look at two examples of the same rule:
"add any spell"
No one debated how Expanded Spellbook worked after official errata but many continue to debate how Extra Spell works with just a FAQ answer that affirmed that you could not take a spell from another class by the rules.
Errata (the word) stops debates.
FAQ, Official, etc does not stop debates.
So I prefer the word errata even if it isn't a change to the rule (and just an explanation) because it makes it clear this is the only way the rules can legally be interpreted.
I don't think you're giving people enough credit.
There is no magic in the word "Errata". If someone is determined to read the rules in a "twisted and interesting" way they're going to do it whether it's called errata or not.
It is not merely a matter of "what they call it".
When I use the word "Errata", I'm talking about editing changes that will be folded into the next printing AND the online PRD itself, in addition to a 'change log' available to purchasers of the first two printings. If the definitive on-line rules reference has itself changed, I don't see how anybody can argue around that. Paizo has already conveyed that editing changes will be introduced into the next print run (they didn't really have time for much for the 2nd run) as well as the PDF/ PRD, which is great, since (hopefully) that means that 'adjunct' FAQs and explanations would NOT be truly 'necessary', but the actual rules themselves would be fixed.
I don't think you're giving people enough credit.
There is no magic in the word "Errata". If someone is determined to read the rules in a "twisted and interesting" way they're going to do it whether it's called errata or not.
Well, it is my experience that people still debate unless the word errata was used.
Look at two examples of the same rule:
"add any spell"No one debated how Expanded Spellbook worked after official errata but many continue to debate how Extra Spell works with just a FAQ answer that affirmed that you could not take a spell from another class by the rules.
Errata (the word) stops debates.
FAQ, Official, etc does not stop debates.So I prefer the word errata even if it isn't a change to the rule (and just an explanation) because it makes it clear this is the only way the rules can legally be interpreted.
In addition to my earlier post on this topic I also realized that there were times when the author that created a rule was no longer with WoTC so the reason/excuse to not follow the FAQ/advice was that it was impossible to know what the original author's intent was since he left. Some people just don't understand game balance and some others try to get around it even if they do understand it. Sometimes I would ask, when presented with an overpowered interpretation, would if be fair if the DM used this ability against them. The response was it would be unfair, but for some reason it was suppose to be ok if the players did it to the NPC's. I think a consistent ruling from James or Jason would work here, but if they were to leave and be replaced then it may be assumed that the "new" designer had no insight as to what their intentions may have been, which may be a copout, if the "new" designer is competent at his job.
So I prefer the word errata even if it isn't a change to the rule (and just an explanation) because it makes it clear this is the only way the rules can legally be interpreted.
The problem with the 3.0/3.5 D&D FAQs is that they contained things that were properly errata ("Those two things contradict each other, so use this one") but also things that were not errata in any way ("It clearly states the answer to your question on page 18"). So I can understand if people are a little leery of D&D FAQs, but in theory a FAQ still serves a purpose separate from a list of errata.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
author that created a rule was no longer with WoTC ... impossible to know what the original author's intent
Some people just don't understand game balance and some others try to get around it even if they do understand it.
assumed that the "new" designer had no insight as to what their intentions may have been
To me, it doesn't matter what the intent of the rule as much as what the official way to interpret the rule. Intent is a DM thing, if he doesn't like a rule or think it isn't balanced he can change it.
Not all errata/faq fixed things for balance reasons.
3.0/3.5 D&D FAQs ... contained things ... ("Those two things contradict each other, so use this one") but also things ... ("It clearly states the answer to your question on page 18").
An example of "clearly states" is the Spells per Day and those that ignored the FAQ to continue to say that a Ring of Substance makes your day 2 hours so you can get multiple sets of spells per day during a single day.
What words at the beginning of the FAQ could you suggest would prevent those that look at the FAQ as unofficial?
Paizo can't add whole paragraphs to explain every section to the rules, but there still needs to be a way to say "that sentence in the 3.p rules means the same as this paragraph" where rules are elaborated and considered firm immutable absolute non-debatable RAW.
3.0/3.5 D&D FAQs ... contained things ... ("Those two things contradict each other, so use this one") but also things ... ("It clearly states the answer to your question on page 18").An example of "clearly states" is the Spells per Day and those that ignored the FAQ to continue to say that a Ring of Substance makes your day 2 hours so you can get multiple sets of spells per day during a single day.
What words at the beginning of the FAQ could you suggest would prevent those that look at the FAQ as unofficial?
"Official" vs. "unofficial" is a different discussion than "FAQ" vs. "errata".
For an (non-?)issue like the Ring of Sustenance that you pointed out above, it's impossible to prevent players from ignoring a clearly stated rule. The best anyone can ever do is say: "Look at page 18; it answers your question completely".
author that created a rule was no longer with WoTC ... impossible to know what the original author's intent
Some people just don't understand game balance and some others try to get around it even if they do understand it.
assumed that the "new" designer had no insight as to what their intentions may have been
To me, it doesn't matter what the intent of the rule as much as what the official way to interpret the rule. Intent is a DM thing, if he doesn't like a rule or think it isn't balanced he can change it.
Not all errata/faq fixed things for balance reasons.
3.0/3.5 D&D FAQs ... contained things ... ("Those two things contradict each other, so use this one") but also things ... ("It clearly states the answer to your question on page 18").An example of "clearly states" is the Spells per Day and those that ignored the FAQ to continue to say that a Ring of Substance makes your day 2 hours so you can get multiple sets of spells per day during a single day.
What words at the beginning of the FAQ could you suggest would prevent those that look at the FAQ as unofficial?
Paizo can't add whole paragraphs to explain every section to the rules, but there still needs to be a way to say "that sentence in the 3.p rules means the same as this paragraph" where rules are elaborated and considered firm immutable absolute non-debatable RAW.
Actually Intent is a DM thing only if the designer fails to explain it correctly or the DM is dealing with a munchkin but its a designer issue first.
If I am a designer, and I intend a feat to do X, but it can be read to do X + Y and Z, as the designer I should errata the rule so it is better read or say exactly how I intended for it to work. If the DM chooses to ignore my intent that is up to him.
The intent should always be the official interpretation, if not there was a breakdown somewhere.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"Official" vs. "unofficial" is a different discussion than "FAQ" vs. "errata".
The best anyone can ever do is say: "Look at page 18; it answers your question completely".
Why do arguments continue when "Official" FAQ clarify how something works, but never argue when "Official" Errata clarify how something works?
Or is all that in my head and doesn't actually happen?
If I am a designer, and I intend a feat to do X, but it can be read to do X + Y and Z, as the designer I should errata the rule so it is better read or say exactly how I intended for it to work.
I agree in principal, but that can't always be done in practice. Some times there are no way to arrange the words to have an unambiguous meaning without having substantially more words. The problem with printing the book is you have a certain number of words that for say 90% (or whatever your goal percent is) will interpret correctly. This still leaves 10% incorrectly interpreting that rule. An Errata based FAQ would make it clear the words mean X and never Y or Z. A simple Official FAQ will be ignored on forums as not being "RAW".
Why do arguments continue when "Official" FAQ clarify how something works, but never argue when "Official" Errata clarify how something works?
Because people like to argue. Paizo putting out errata isn't going slow the pace of arguing about rules one bit. Even if Paizo had a full time staffer cranking new rules clarifications out every week there would still be rules arguments.
Errata and rules clarifications should be targeted at making the game more playable and interesting, not about rules arguments on the internet.
Still no updated errata? I'm very disappointed. This is not the way to keep your customers. I don't give a damn currently about an Advanced Player's Guide; I want the core game corrected - the Core Rulebook is rife with errors (many more than in the first printing of the 3.5 Player's Handbook).
No comment from anybody? No date for the errata? It's sad to know that 4E has a much better support from WotC errata-wise than what Pathfinder has. That doesn't bid well for the future of the system.
I thought I read somewhere on the messageboard recently about the next errata update. I believe the plan is to update the errata when finalize the next printing of the core book.
Are you saying the lack of an errata is making this unplayable?
Not unplayable, but the source of many arguments during our play sessions. Many of the modifiers are wrong, some have the opposite sign, or a table or note says they relate to the DC while in reality they should be applied to the die roll. There are also contradictions between different sections in the book, some are remnants of 3.5 rules that do no longer apply. I just cringe each time I encounter such a mistake, and unfrotunately it happens every other page.
Not unplayable, but the source of many arguments during our play sessions. Many of the modifiers are wrong, some have the opposite sign, or a table or note says they relate to the DC while in reality they should be applied to the die roll. There are also contradictions between different sections in the book, some are remnants of 3.5 rules that do no longer apply. I just cringe each time I encounter such a mistake, and unfortunately it happens every other page.I thought I read somewhere on the messageboard recently about the next errata update. I believe the plan is to update the errata when finalize the next printing of the core book.
Are you saying the lack of an errata is making this unplayable?
Mind listing a few specific cases? If you let everybody know precisely what errors they are, they are more likely to be noticed and fixed.
Mind listing a few specific cases? If you let everybody know precisely what errors they are, they are more likely to be noticed and fixed.Not unplayable, but the source of many arguments during our play sessions. Many of the modifiers are wrong, some have the opposite sign, or a table or note says they relate to the DC while in reality they should be applied to the die roll. There are also contradictions between different sections in the book, some are remnants of 3.5 rules that do no longer apply. I just cringe each time I encounter such a mistake, and unfortunately it happens every other page.I thought I read somewhere on the messageboard recently about the next errata update. I believe the plan is to update the errata when finalize the next printing of the core book.
Are you saying the lack of an errata is making this unplayable?
You just need to look at the lengthy errata threads on the forums to find these problems - all of them have been reported already. I don't have the book next to me now, but here are some examples from the top of my head:
Missing rules:
The rules do not discuss how to handle "ability score increase" - the exact amount increased, or how it's handled, is not mentioned.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook had a very detailed step-by-step section on how to create a character and how to level it. Here, the sections are condensed and do not contain all the necessary information.
Some remnants of 3.5 rules:
"Opposed school" is mentioned several times, although it's a concept from 3.5 which doesn't exist in Pathfinder anymore.
"Skill points" are mentioned several times, although the Pathfinder term is "skill ranks".
Wrong modifiers:
The footnotes for the Perception table in the skill chapter confuse between bonuses & penalties. It's really embarrassing, as if the writer didn’t know what DCs were and how they differ from die rolls; check it out.
The table about DCs to detect invisible creatures claims that a not-moving creature actually is easier to detect than a sprinting one... + and - are wrong there.
There’s confusion about types, sub-types and descriptors. They are used many times to refer to the wrong thing. E.g. a spell has a descriptor of fire, not a sub-type fire.
Any ETA for the errata? It's been nearly half a year now since the first one...
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Compiling new errata to be incorporated into the third printing of the Core Rulebook and the second printing of the Bestiary is just about to become a top priority, as both of those books have now reached low enough inventory levels that we need to get reprints going. It's too early to provide a specific date that we'll be releasing them as standalone documents, though.