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.
Good news. Is there a chance for us fans to see the compiled errata BEFORE it is actually sent to the printers. I'm sure we will detect missing things or other problems. Most problems have been touched in these boards, but they are spread through so many different forums and threads, that I can imagine some things will be missed.
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.
The only part I can find that is missing is where it says you only get one point to add to a stat, but that might have been stated somewhere else in the book. All the other rules are present.
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".
From page 79:
A wizard that chooses to specialize in one school ofmagic must select two other schools as his opposition
schools, representing knowledge sacrificed in one area
of arcane lore to gain mastery in another.
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...
The modifiers are correct on the chart, but the explanation is wrong as the writer mixed up terms.
And what is wrong with the DC to detect an invisible creature? From the explanation of invisability, the creature gets a +20 to its stealth check, and thus because perception and stealth are opposed rolls the effect is the perception check's DC was increased by 20.
Yeah and one list in one place sure makes my job easier lol
The only part I can find that is missing is where it says you only get one point to add to a stat, but that might have been stated somewhere else in the book. All the other rules are present.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.
No, it never says how to handle ability score increases anywhere else in the book. Apparently you don't have the PDF version of the book. It's easy to see what's missing when you can search a PDF. Also as I mentioned the 3.5 Player's Handbook had all the creation and levelling rules very nicely detailed in steps, while in Pathfinder they are condensed and spread around. For example, the +1 to hp or skill rank as you level your main class is not detailed in the same place where the other level increase details are.
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".From page 79:
A wizard that chooses to specialize in one school of
magic must select two other schools as his opposition
schools, representing knowledge sacrificed in one area
of arcane lore to gain mastery in another.
Sorry, got confused here. The wrong mentions are to "prohibited schools" instead of to "opposed schools" which is the correct Pathfinder term.
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...The modifiers are correct on the chart, but the explanation is wrong as the writer mixed up terms.
And what is wrong with the DC to detect an invisible creature? From the explanation of invisability, the creature gets a +20 to its stealth check, and thus because perception and stealth are opposed rolls the effect is the perception check's DC was increased by 20.
The problem is that the table (the one with modifiers for detecting hidden creatures; in the appendix - sorry don't have the book now to give a page number) lists the wrong modifier for not moving and also the heading says Perception instead of Perception DC, adding more to the confusion. Also it's unclear what's the base DC the modifiers from the table are applied to.
No, it never says how to handle ability score increases anywhere else in the book. Apparently you don't have the PDF version of the book. It's easy to see what's missing when you can search a PDF. Also as I mentioned the 3.5 Player's Handbook had all the creation and levelling rules very nicely detailed in steps, while in Pathfinder they are condensed and spread around. For example, the +1 to hp or skill rank as you level your main class is not detailed in the same place where the other level increase details are.
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration
greater than 1 day actuallyincrease the relevant ability
score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related
to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points,
hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be
noted separately in case they are removed.
this text gives you everything you need to know that something that changes your ability scores lets you recalculate everything.
I am sorry if you dont like the fact that not everything on a subject is in a single spot in the book, but this way helps save space. They didnt reprint everything in every applicable space, you have to read and remember bits and peices of everything.
Sorry, got confused here. The wrong mentions are to "prohibited schools" instead of to "opposed schools" which is the correct Pathfinder term.
yeah, but it is clear from reading the section they are talking about the same thing when using the term prohibited or opposed.
The text above the table about perception is speaking of DC, and yes they had a single error of -40 instead of +40, but that is an obvious error at least.
I would much rather have their staff working on a FAQ than fixing minor obvious errors in the book. If there is an error that isnt obvious that makes people think things dont work they way they were intended, then it should be fixed. The errors you have pointed out arent ones that really need fixed, except for the part about how many points you get from the ability score increase as people that didnt play 3.5 might not know its just one point to one stat.
No, it never says how to handle ability score increases anywhere else in the book. Apparently you don't have the PDF version of the book. It's easy to see what's missing when you can search a PDF. Also as I mentioned the 3.5 Player's Handbook had all the creation and levelling rules very nicely detailed in steps, while in Pathfinder they are condensed and spread around. For example, the +1 to hp or skill rank as you level your main class is not detailed in the same place where the other level increase details are.Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration
greater than 1 day actually
increase the relevant ability
score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related
to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points,
hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be
noted separately in case they are removed.this text gives you everything you need to know that something that changes your ability scores lets you recalculate everything.
I was referring to how to handle ability score increases every 4 levels... it never tells you by how much you increase your ability score, how many ability scores can you increase, etc.
Sorry, got confused here. The wrong mentions are to "prohibited schools" instead of to "opposed schools" which is the correct Pathfinder term.yeah, but it is clear from reading the section they are talking about the same thing when using the term prohibited or opposed.
It's a typo and should be fixed.
The text above the table about perception is speaking of DC, and yes they had a single error of -40 instead of +40, but that is an obvious error at least.
Is it really +40? Or maybe it's +0? There are very long threads about this subject in the Rules forum, and no one is sure. Apparently it's not clear at all. And the text above the table is also ambiguous as to what is the base DC that the modifier in the table applies to. Let's see, a PC wants to pinpoint the location of a non-moving invisible creature. According to the text the base DC is 20, then you apply +20 because you want to pinpoint the location, then according to you, you have to add +40 to the DC, so you get a total DC of 80 to poinpoint a non-moving invisible creature. Isn't the too high?
Worse, the table contradicts what is written under the Invisibility spell in regard to detecting a stationary invisible creature that tries to Stealth. According to the table the Perception DC would be the creature's Stealth +20 +40 (according to your interpretation) for a total of Stealth +60 but according to the Invisibility spell it's only Stealth +40 (and Stealth +20 if he's moving - and there, in further contradiction of the table, it doesn't give different modifiers for walking as opposed to running). So as you see the table and text are contradictory. It's really a mess!
The invisibility +40 deal has been brought up multiple times now with no comment from Paizo. I'd sure like to see an official response on this one (at some point).
- Previous thread #1 (asked 08/14/2009)
- Previous thread #2 (asked 12/08/2009)
- ...and now this thread
- ...not to mention any others I didn't find
In the meantime though we've got 6 new classes and a bunch of new tactical feats so I guess you either get a) clarifications or b) new things, you takes your picks!
Sound cynical? Maybe a little. New products make $, clarifications do not. Paizo is a business so one will obviously get priority over the other.
The invisibility +40 deal has been brought up multiple times now with no comment from Paizo. I'd sure like to see an official response on this one (at some point).
- Previous thread #1 (asked 08/14/2009)
- Previous thread #2 (asked 12/08/2009)
- ...and now this thread
- ...not to mention any others I didn't find
In the meantime though we've got 6 new classes and a bunch of new tactical feats so I guess you either get a) clarifications or b) new things, you takes your picks!
Sound cynical? Maybe a little. New products make $, clarifications do not. Paizo is a business so one will obviously get priority over the other.
Aye, one of those 2 threads was started by me actually. There's, however, also a contradiction between the table and the Invisibility spell, in addition to the table not being correct by itself.
Also, WotC manages to release a lot of new products while having a very comprehensive and maintained errata.
To give Paizo some credit... they also have probably far less people working on their product than WoTC. Though that really isn't a good defense. It'd be like saying "Its ok if car company B makes lower quality cars, they have less people working on them than car company A." In reality, as consumers, all we care about is the quality of the product received. If car company B wants to get by on lower quality merchandise the consumer always has the option to buy from company A.
In fact I've sometimes thought about this in terms of car companies before.
Car company makes a product. A short time after release of that product some consumers notice that the instructions for opening the hood don't match the way the hood is actually built. Those consumers ask the car company for some sort of clarification. The car company is too busy making new cars to respond. Those consumers end up getting a hammer and crowbar to open their hoods. Later, the company releases 6 new models, all shiney and new, but yet, each one of them has all new owners manuals riddled with errors and the cars themselves may have some fit and finish issues. No matter, the company is well on its way in designing the next new line of cars. The consumers just accept those cars because they're still prettier and more interesting than the cars build by company A, the much larger company that makes bland, flavorless cars designed to appeal to the masses. It doesn't matter that company A's cars are perfectly designed and come with accurate owners manuals if every car is a 4-door automatic transmission with all of the same options as every other car... company A does one thing and does it well, make bland cars that appeal to the masses. Yes, those cars are reliable and safe, but wouldn't you rather have a corvette with a questionable transmission than a safe, reliant sedan?
<I don't see a better thread to post this in, so I'm dropping it here>
pg 199, Bull Rush, 2nd sentence. "You can only bull rush an opponent who is no more than on size category larger..."
on = one
Picky, but it may as well get fixed in a future printing.
|
Why does the errata have to be a pdf file that only gets updated every 6 months or so? Why can't it be a living webpage on the Paizo site where little things get noted and fixed as soon as they are noticed? If everyone know that Invisibility should say +40 instead of -40 (just an example), why can't someone from Paizo just add a line that says so officially to a list that everyone can see? I think holding official recognition and clarification of errors hostage until each new printing of the book follows an old publishing paradigm and fails to take advantage of the flexibility and fluidity of the internet. So sometime around the 3rd printing we'll get a new errata. And if something doesn't get cleared up or an error is missed, do we have to wait for the 4th printing to get an official answer?
I love Paizo's products and nobody can beat their customer service, but I'm getting frustrated but the lack of answers to some basic questions about their new rule system. Especially when there is a companion Society than requires official rulings, these things matter. Despite all the wonderful new products, there is still an air of unfinished business about the core rules.
Creative Director
|
Why does the errata have to be a pdf file that only gets updated every 6 months or so? Why can't it be a living webpage on the Paizo site where little things get noted and fixed as soon as they are noticed? If everyone know that Invisibility should say +40 instead of -40 (just an example), why can't someone from Paizo just add a line that says so officially to a list that everyone can see? I think holding official recognition and clarification of errors hostage until each new printing of the book follows an old publishing paradigm and fails to take advantage of the flexibility and fluidity of the internet. So sometime around the 3rd printing we'll get a new errata. And if something doesn't get cleared up or an error is missed, do we have to wait for the 4th printing to get an official answer?
I love Paizo's products and nobody can beat their customer service, but I'm getting frustrated but the lack of answers to some basic questions about their new rule system. Especially when there is a companion Society than requires official rulings, these things matter. Despite all the wonderful new products, there is still an air of unfinished business about the core rules.
We update the errata when we reprint the book. That's partially to limit the amount of errata clutter (grouping it into larger collections rather than lots of little ones), but mostly because we're very, very busy trying to get the rest of our product line back on schedule. Putting out the core rules really threw everything off schedule (doing an extra 850 some pages will do that, especially with a smaller staff). Since then, we've hired a few more folks and are working to get everything else back on schedule.
Because here's the thing: When we start a business year, we budget our income based on a schedule. That's how we pay rent and salaries and bills and all that. Also how we reserve time at the printers. When our books fall off schedule, it throws our bill paying into chaos and causes problems with getting things printed and messes with our ability to ship out orders. It's kinda like a giant log jam.
Issuing errata does nothing to help fix those problems, so for now we've had to put off the errata until the LAST possible moment; which is to say, until we hit the reprint button.
Once we're caught up (looking like we'll be there in a few months, actually!!!) I hope to be able to issue errata at a more frequent basis... but I also hope that there'll be less errata to issue.
We ARE very close to issuing another round of errata, in any event. Sean and Jason are compiling it this week, in fact. I don't believe we'll be waiting until the 3rd printing hits shelves, either... I'm pretty sure we'll post the errata and the corrected PDF at about the same time we ship the files to the printer.
So... the slow errata releases are not a deliberate attempt by us to ruin your games or cripple the Pathfinder Society. It's just an unfortunate reality of the way the business works.
|
|
We update the errata when we reprint the book. That's partially to limit the amount of errata clutter (grouping it into larger collections rather than lots of little ones), but mostly because we're very, very busy trying to get the rest of our product line back on schedule. Putting out the core rules really threw everything off schedule (doing an extra 850 some pages will do that, especially with a smaller staff). Since then, we've hired a few more folks and are working to get everything else back on schedule...
So... the slow errata releases are not a deliberate attempt by us to ruin your games or cripple the Pathfinder Society. It's just an unfortunate reality of the way the business works.
First, James, thanks for the response and explanation.
Second, hopefully your joking, because I neither I nor anyone else is accusing you all of "deliberately" try to make people unhappy. Heck, most of us put you guys on a pedestal (which is probably why there is strong emotion in these discussions - it's always a bummer to discover your heroes are merely human :). More than anything else, I think I've been frustrated by the priorities - constantly putting out new books when the first one isn't quite finished. Your explanation about making money off the new books and none off publishing errata helps me understand where you all are coming from. Again, thanks. I don't exactly see how publishing the core rules can be considered an interruption of you schedule when it's basically the cornerstone of the company now, but, hey, that's where we're at and I totally understand how much it sucks to be behind schedule.
So anyway, for a third time, thanks for listening to concerns and for taking the time to respond.
|
The unfortunate part (as I understand it) is that the core books are *not* the cornerstone of their business. Adventures are. It has been stated repeatedly that in order to continue to have a market for adventures, there had to be core rules in place, on store shelves, to support those adventures. So, in order to continue selling adventures (in the format they've been selling adventures) Paizo *HAD* to reprint the rules in a new book and get them back onto store shelves.
Now, with that said, the frequent references to putting out the core books being an interruption to their schedule, it does make it sound like, to me at least, that it was just something that "had to be done" in order to be able to get back to doing what they want to do, which is produce extremely high quality adventures.
I'll leave whatever extrapolations people can make of that to their own imaginations.
I however, am solidly in the camp that would like to see better support for what is already out instead of just adding more product to the mix that will itself also need support (in the form of errata or faq etc). Add in that new product then interacts with existing unclear product and you vastly complicate matters. I feel we end up with a tangled mass of poorly supported (in terms of errata/faq I mean to say) rules and mechanics that just keeps getting more tangled. I get that releasing errata and faq's does not make money but I, as a customer, have a right to say "I don't care, I want quality first, quantity second".
Other customers may not care, and if I am in the minority then so be it. I just get tired of hearing how supporting a product doesn't make money but creating more product does. Sure, that's obvious, but we're still customers and customers get to vote with their dollars. If they feel that the product they are purchasing is insufficiently supported or tested etc, people are going to get more and more frustrated and start walking, no matter how friendly and accessible the Paizo staff are. I do give immense credit to that accessibility and friendliness but if I could make a choice between having Jason, James, Sean, Wesley, et al on the messageboards arguing with fans over silly stuff or typing up errata and faq's... I surely know which I'd prefer (no offense!)
Just sayin... :)
I'd be happy(er) with a sticky, never archived thread for errata submissions for core products. Maybe in an Errata forum. Each product would have an officially created thread (typical forumites wouldn't be able to create additional threads there). Core products (however Paizo chose to define that) would have sticky threads at the top. The errata thread might even be linked to the product in the store (or maybe not).
That way we'd have a central place to put errata submissions, and Paizo could scoop up most of the errata from one place.
Sure, errata would still get posted elsewhere, but having a no-doubt-about-it this-is-where-errata-goes place on the site should help matters.
|
Creative Director
|
The unfortunate part (as I understand it) is that the core books are *not* the cornerstone of their business...
The adventure path line basically pays the bills and keeps Paizo going. The core rulebook line... when we started it, we had NO IDEA how well it was going to do. So far, it's blown all our expectations out of the water. If it continues to do as well as it does, we'll absolutely be doing more with the line. It's allowed us to staff up, for one thing; our editorial manpower has increased as a direct result of the success of the rulebooks, in fact. Which means that once we're caught up and have a handle on everything, we'll be much better armed to STAY caught up. On schedules AND errata.
And rest assured, we DO know folks want errata. And as I've said above, we're VERY VERY close to releasing a new round of it; Sean and Jason are compiling it this week, in fact. I'm not going to issue a release date because it'll be done when it's done and I don't want to set false expectations. But we're working on it.
And if we devote too much time to errata and FAQs, then we lose money in the short term as other more critical projects slip their schedules. We do that TOO MUCH and we go in the reverse direction, staff level, which makes it ever more difficult to get those things out in the first place.
And finally... I understand that folks want the "right" rules to play the game... but you can STILL play the game in the meantime. I do. The game is organic, and in every game, players and GM (since they're not robots or computers) will make countless tiny little errors in their die rolls or math. The game still works. Lack of errata won't make your game grind to a halt unless you obsess over it and let it.
We'll get the errata out as soon as we can. We hear you all. I hear you all. We're NOT trying to piss off folks who want it by purposefully delaying it.
|
|
This is more what I was thinking of.
I'd be happy(er) with a sticky, never archived thread for errata submissions for core products. Maybe in an Errata forum. Each product would have an officially created thread (typical forumites wouldn't be able to create additional threads there). Core products (however Paizo chose to define that) would have sticky threads at the top. The errata thread might even be linked to the product in the store (or maybe not).
That way we'd have a central place to put errata submissions, and Paizo could scoop up most of the errata from one place.
Sure, errata would still get posted elsewhere, but having a no-doubt-about-it this-is-where-errata-goes place on the site should help matters.
Either an Errata Forum, as suggested above, or maybe a read-only page linked to the PRD pages. I'm imagining that somebody would get assigned to update the errata page like once a week with any errors that have been found that week. There are several right now, but the number of newly-discovered errors ought to decline fairly rapidly, so it wouldn't be that big of a job. Basically, some customer finds a spelling error or a mis-referenced table, reports it to Paizo (probably via a forum), an intern compiles a list and shows it to somebody more senior who greenlights the correction, and Thursday morning the intern posts the correction to the errata page and corrects the PRD. Instead of waiting for published errata, there is a continually evolving/correcting set of rules. Maybe this gets packaged as a pdf every six months or so for easy download, but it resides mostly on the Paizo website.
That's for fixing mistakes and typos and what not. But a FAQ page could work almost the same way - although it would probably require Jason or someone to sufficiently high up to offer official rules clarifications, so probably not as often, but an intern could still be assigned to do the posting. Again, probably a dedicated forum for unclear rules discussion, customers start threads asking for rules clarification, and at some point Jason enters, makes a decision, and the the thread ends. Every once in a while, the most important of these answers get compiled into a read-only FAQ page linked to the PRD. In both cases, I think linking to the PRD is important; it's just too much of a hassle to search forum after forum looking for the rules clarification that you need. Linking it to the PRD makes that your go-to spot for rules and answers, plus it means that the PRD always has the absolute most up-to-date version of the rules.
Also, by continually updating and errata/FAQ page + the PRD, the impact of each new printing is smoothed. Instead of each new printing introducing dozens of little changes that folks have to look for, it's more of just compilation thing - here are all of the fixes we've identified collectively over the last few months, in print.
Finally, using the Paizo website to show the errata rather than publishing pdfs that more-or-less coincide with re-printings offers some hope of seeing errata for all the books that will probably never get reprinted. I was told in another thread that many Paizo products will never see official errata docs because they probably won't ever get reprinted. But if it were just a question of somebody compiling a list of the customer-found errors and posting them a single read-only webpage, that's not so bad.
I know that James has commented several times that even without errata and FAQs, the game is playable, and I agree, it is absolutely playable. More than that, it's a great game. It seems to have taken many people by surprise, too. At first the idea was to basically print a new 3.5+ rule book because the old ones would no longer be available. But Pathfinder has taken off like crazy. I don't play D&D anymore, I play Pathfinder. I've sold or given away most of my 3.5 rules books. And plenty of other people of have done the same. Pathfinder isn't a patch or a stand-in, it's the new standard. That's why "good enough" isn't good enough. Even if the core rules book isn't the number 1 money maker for Paizo, it is going to be the book that many new players will come to know the company by. I don't ever want to hear anyone say, "Pathfinder... it has great adventures and the rules are ... playable."
The biggest reason to handle errata in a big batch rather than in tiny increments is because announcing errata isn't just a matter of saying "X rule should say Y." We actually have to figure out how to correct the text in such a way that it won't shift text backwards or forwards on a page (which ruins index references, other products that refer to specific page numbers, and potentially other errata relying on page numbers). And that requires us to be REALLY sure that the item is errata, and what specific wording we need to give it--we can't just add two sentences of extra text, that would make things shift downward.
Which means we can't just say, "For now, here's the corrected rule," because that means people have to update their books *now* with the interim version of the errata, and then later when we decide on the final wording that won't mess with the page layout.
Another reason to do the errata in batches coinciding with reprints, rather than incrementally, is that if we accumulate a page's worth of errata and we're running low on copies of the core rulebook, and decide to hit the Big Reprint Button without taking the incremental errata into account, that means we know we're printing books that have errors in them. (1) We'd really like to avoid that. (2) Printing books like that tends to annoy our customers.
So as inconvenient as it may be that you wait a couple months to get the official word that X is now a combat feat, the level 9 Fort save of prestige class Y should have a "+" in front of it, and line Z of the magic item section should be deleted, we'd rather get it done right than get it done quickly.
So, keeping an up-to-date errata document on the website, with as little or as much text is necessary to make the reference clear and complete, is really only practical if you neer plan to incorporate the errata into subsequent printings?
Huh. I guess I can see that, but I'd never thought it through in terms of corrected text needed to take up the same space as the incorrect text.
In some respects I suppose it would be preferable to continue to do additional printings of the original text, warts and all. You'd never have to worry about which printing you had because they'd all be the same. You'd never have to worry about the possibility of new errata creeping into a later printing, because the text would never be changed. In order to keep your book up to date, all you'd need to do is tab, highlight or otherwise mark your book with a "see errata" symbol or notation, prompting you to refer to the current errata document.
I'm not certain that's the route I'd prefer to go, and if it were I'm sure I'd be in the minority. But it does seem like it would solve the problem of waiting for corrections.
|
What would Paizo's position be on some sort of 'Pathfinder Errata Wiki' maintained by the gamers? I mean, I can look at the 'Dog' entry and see that while it lists a +4 racial mod for jumping it is actually applying a +8 (ditto for Riding Dog) or that the Basidirond entry doesn't list a range for its Tremorsense ability... but there is no central place for this info to be reported. It just seems to be spread over various message board postings.
If there was someplace I could go to an organized list, quickly determine if the item has been reported, and add it if not, then every time I come across an error it'd be easy to get it onto the list. Paizo could then use such a comprehensive list as a basis for their official errata and reprints.
To me this is the bigger issue... not how often the official errata get updated, but the completely chaotic way in which discrepancies/errors are reported currently. Bringing more organization to that would save EVERYONE time and confusion.
|
|
See here.
Edit: That page currently only lists quasi-official errata. You could easily add a section to the page for "errata which has not been responded to or commented on yet..." or something.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I mean, I can look at the 'Dog' entry and see that while it lists a +4 racial mod for jumping it is actually applying a +8 (ditto for Riding Dog)
You sure that's an error and not a +4 bonus on Acrobatics checks to jump due to having a move speed of 10 more than 30 ft.? ;-)
This is a perfect example of why errata should be left up to Paizo when they have time. The above example is not an error, and someone compiling and posting it on some unofficial errata thread or wiki or website only perpetuates rules misunderstandings.
There's a lot of entitlement on this and other threads regarding people's expectations of what Paizo should do for them. We got errata for known errors when the book came out and will get more when they have time. But supporting this one book, as important as the book may be to their business, is not their only concern. They have four other product lines that need to be kept up to date for their cash flow to continue. We'll get errata when they can do so.
|
What would Paizo's position be on some sort of 'Pathfinder Errata Wiki' maintained by the gamers? I mean, I can look at the 'Dog' entry and see that while it lists a +4 racial mod for jumping it is actually applying a +8 (ditto for Riding Dog) or that the Basidirond entry doesn't list a range for its Tremorsense ability... but there is no central place for this info to be reported. It just seems to be spread over various message board postings.
If there was someplace I could go to an organized list, quickly determine if the item has been reported, and add it if not, then every time I come across an error it'd be easy to get it onto the list. Paizo could then use such a comprehensive list as a basis for their official errata and reprints.
To me this is the bigger issue... not how often the official errata get updated, but the completely chaotic way in which discrepancies/errors are reported currently. Bringing more organization to that would save EVERYONE time and confusion.
Here is a list of what's been reported for the Core Book and the Bestiary
|
|
You sure that's an error and not a +4 bonus on Acrobatics checks to jump due to having a move speed of 10 more than 30 ft.? ;-)
This is a perfect example of why errata should be left up to Paizo when they have time. The above example is not an error, and someone compiling and posting it on some unofficial errata thread or wiki or website only perpetuates rules misunderstandings.
I disagree. Yes, that explains why the total is more than the two modifiers shown... but I would still consider this something to list precisely because it could then be explained and NOT perpetuate misunderstanding / repeated reports. If there were a way I could go directly to an entry on 'errata reported for the Dog entry' and see that the extra +4 is because the racial movement speed isn't included in the racial jumping modifier then I, and anyone else who checked, would be better off and the issue would not be reported again.
By the argument you present, errata should not even be posted to the message boards. Just make no mention of them and leave it to Paizo to find the ones they can and fix them eventually. Frankly, I think that's harmful to them... hundreds of volunteer proofreaders and cross-checkers are clearly going to uncover more than a handful of paid staff rushing between releases.
Again, all I am suggesting is a more efficient method of organizing exactly what we are doing currently... rather than posting and discussing things on a dozen different message board threads put them into an easily reviewable framework like a wiki.
|
Creative Director
|
By the argument you present, errata should not even be posted to the message boards. Just make no mention of them and leave it to Paizo to find the ones they can and fix them eventually. Frankly, I think that's harmful to them... hundreds of volunteer proofreaders and cross-checkers are clearly going to uncover more than a handful of paid staff rushing between releases.
While that's true, it hardly makes the process of compiling errata much easier. Because there ARE a lot of errors in the supposed errata threads. We have to double and triple check every post before we are sure it's actually legit... and that's on TOP of our own internal errata process.
Which is, of course, on top of keeping a half dozen or so product lines from stalling out and back on schedule. It's not a quick process.
That said, we're VERY close to having the next round of errata ready for both the Core rulebook AND the Bestiary. I'm not foolish enough to promise a release date for this errata... but it's close.
This is a key thing for me:
we'd rather get it done right than get it done quickly.
But not necessarily in the way Sean intends (I apply it more broadly). I don't get into most of the "I want this and I want it now" threads on Paizo because I work in an industry (software development) that as a whole definitely feels the same pressure for both rapid releases and constant support. It's a hard job, and doing it well takes a lot of time and effort. Paizo has had a history of offering excellent products, from art to layout to creativity. That buys some "credits" for them on this issue in my book. They also had the guts to stand up and take charge of this game that I love, something many folks said would drive them to ruin. But they took the chance, they stuck to their convictions, and I think they are a better company for it.
But...
Two things have been edging into my Paizo-philia. The first--the continuing "darkening" of their products has been addressed on the various "evil" threads of late and I'm very happy to see that both Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull seem to be heading back from the darkness a bit. I don't mind some, just don't dunk my head in it through every part of every AP...
The second issue has indeed been this thing of errata and FAQs. With the bold step Paizo has taken, I now want two things from the company, both a continued dedication to the high-quality products that brought me in in the first place and good support for this new game called Pathfinder. Thus my reference to Sean's statement above--I want it to apply to every release, for every product, to the extent it is feasible. Don't give me an APG quickly, give it to me correctly. I've seen numerous posts by Lisa confirming this as the Paizo way, so I'm not saying Paizo needs to change to do this--just keep focused on that "quality before quantity" mantra. But the other side of this new coin Paizo has minted is a game company supporting a new game. I absolutely want an errata and FAQ process that is far better than what Paizo currently has in place. I know you guys are working on it. I know it takes some time to catch up. And I know it looks like the wait is soon over (at least for the Core and Bestiary books) from the statement above. But if we're in the same spot next year (since the APG is going to take up a lot of resources, etc.) it'll start straining my support.
It can't take another 5-6 months to get a simple "yes" on whether a Trip weapon is required to perform a trip combat maneuver. Figure out the official language for the reprint later. But give me a "yes" or "no" now so I can move on with the game.
This is not a shot across the bow "fix this or I'm pulling all my subscriptions next week" post, but I did want to add my voice to those noting that Paizo basically has to become a different company than what it was in the past--it's no longer simply the best third party adventure/setting material publisher for my game of choice. It is the publisher for my game of choice and some of the best third party adventure/setting material (only some now, because a few folks are rising up with PRPG OGC to make some pretty nifty stuff--got to give them props).
|
Here is a list of what's been reported for the Core Book and the Bestiary
No offense meant but, I've tried following those threads. I think they're a complete mess.
I absolutely want an errata and FAQ process that is far better than what Paizo currently has in place. I know you guys are working on it. I know it takes some time to catch up. And I know it looks like the wait is soon over (at least for the Core and Bestiary books) from the statement above. But if we're in the same spot next year (since the APG is going to take up a lot of resources, etc.) it'll start straining my support.
It can't take another 5-6 months to get a simple "yes" on whether a Trip weapon is required to perform a trip combat maneuver. Figure out the official language for the reprint later. But give me a "yes" or "no" now so I can move on with the game.
I have the same kind of feelings.
I can point to a successful model from a brother industry. Multi-Man Publishing puts out what can arguably be the most successful (and complex) board wargame ever published. Advanced Squad Leader. The rules as published rival Pathfinder in length and depth. They have one person appointed to handle errata and FAQ. Like Erian points out in his second paragraph, the actual wording of corrections should be left for the reprints. Coming from a publishing background (long ago) I realize the headaches reflowing text can cause.
But, if a simple answer can be provided in an official questions thread or from an official "Answer" source, why can't we have that? In one place whether it be a wiki, forum thread, web page.... whatever.
Just appoint someone to post an answer in or at an official source. Even if he or she is nothing more than a gofer between the consumers and the designer(s)/developer(s). What answers do exist now are scattered across the forum, sometimes in multiple threads. It's a headache to find out "Is it errata?" "Is it a FAQ?" Has it been asked already?" "Has it been answered?" "By an official source?"
Someone new to Pathfinder/Paizo is sure to become very disillusioned by the current state of affairs.
I certainly don't want to come across as telling Paizo how to run their business. But I have to say, the way it is now ... it's confusing and it's frustrating. Especially given the quality and care Paizo puts into the product in the first place.
Best of luck with this conundrum, guys, but, it seems obvious you need to try something different.