Given the recent third printing of the core rulebook and the updates to the bestiary I thought I might bring this up to see if how others feel.
I personally dont like the idea of incorparating errata directly into printed or pdf materials. I expect it can lead to alot of confusion as people can potentially have different words in their rulebooks. Its one thing if they are exclusively clarifications, or re-wordings. But some of them, like the errata of the paladin's smite are deliberate changes. A player at my table with a new copy of the rulebook will have different rules then the rulebook I bought when pfrpg first came out.
I dont have a problem with Paizo creating errata, and in fact I welcome it. But I would rather see it kept separate in an additional document so people know where the difference is coming from. If it is inline in the book itself its impossible to know errata from original rules.
I think this will cause 2 sets of problems in regards to the table. First is potential arguments that can arise from 2 people having different rules in their hands that have the same covers. If everyone is conciously aware of the errata is wont be a problem, but not everyone follows such things closely, and people forget. This can easily lead to disagreements.
The second potential problem I see is what I call the windows update effect. I know at least a dozen people who would never buy a new version of a windows OS untill the first service pack is released to fix the initial bugs. The idea that customers will get a 'better' product if they wait and buy a later copy of the rulebook cannot be good for initial sales. I own 2 copies of the core rules, I may buy a copy of this latest printing, but others are not going to buy more then one copy of a rulebook, this essentially encourages them to wait many months in the hope that an additional printing will occur.
Would it help with the arguments if there was a disclaimer and version number in the beginning of the book? "
Pathfinder V1.2.3. The rules as presented in this book incorporate errata and supersedes all previous version of the PFRPG"
As for the service pack effect, I don't see that it is different if the errata is incorporated into the print run or released as an add-on. We all know errata will ever be forthcoming.
Would it help with the arguments if there was a disclaimer and version number in the beginning of the book? "
Pathfinder V1.2.3. The rules as presented in this book incorporate errata and supersedes all previous version of the PFRPG"
As for the service pack effect, I don't see that it is different if the errata is incorporated into the print run or released as an add-on. We all know errata will ever be forthcoming.
I dont know that a disclaimer would help, does anyone actually read that sort of thing? I know I for one having just bought a shiny new gaming book would skip right past it to the juicy rules and fluff.
And there is a huge difference between having a printed sheet with errata stuffed in the back of your book, and a complete 'fixed' printed book (in my opinion ofcourse). Assuming the errata are in fact an improvement (either in clarity, elimination of ommissions/typos or by better balanced rules) over the lines they are replacing, the new book is by definition better then the original. Given they are bound to be the same price, a consumer is being encouraged to wait to buy the product.
I always disliked the sheet of errata tucked in the back of a book. But I can also sympathize with not liking the refrain of "But it doesn't say that in MY book!"
So what do you recommend?
Personally, I'm REALLY glad that the attitude is about fixing and clarifying things, and not "Yeah, our book has vague bits and typos, suck it up."
I absolutely agree with Kolokotroni. All I ask for is a list of changes, be it in a FAQ or Errata format. If reprints must be done, a version number should be added, and a separate document should be provided. Much like the changelog people can see when downloading opensource projects, this document would list the changes between the current version and the previous ones.
Even if the pages "tucked in the back" aren't as "sexy" as the final product (but they can be, given some formatting), they are more interesting for people who already bought the product. If a company wants to keep its previous customers happy, they shouldn't consider what they bought as outdated without some support.
- changed Smite Evil so that ...
- upgraded X so that ...
- nerfed Y again because ...
Version 1.2 - date
- nerfed Y because ...
- added Z, which does ...
Version 1.1 - date
- cleared Polymorph wording, it now says ... instead of ...
Of course, the online PRD reflecting the current state of the rules, it should be updated to integrate said rules. But I'd really like an additional page too, with the aforementioned changelog.
I strongly disagree with the OP. The errata list is a list of mistakes and errors; why shouldn't errors be fixed? I'd be pretty upset if I bought the 3rd or 4th printing of a book and found that errors from the 1st printing that were discovered shortly after it was published still exist.
If you find that the text in your book doesn't match the text in someone else's, simply check the front of the book to see whose book is newer, and assume that version is the correct one.
So what do you recommend?
Personally, I'm REALLY glad that the attitude is about fixing and clarifying things, and not "Yeah, our book has vague bits and typos, suck it up."
My recomendation is to keep things separate. Providing a document that contains corrections, clarifications etc for download (as they have done) is sufficient in my eyes.
Short of the i'd like some kind of in line identification of changed lines such as an Asterix and a footnote
[some text in the book that has been changed]*1
[Footnote at the bootom]
1. This sentance/paragraph/etc has been changed in the errata presented in version 2.0 of the pathfinder core rules. Please see the changelog in the front of the book for more details.
I strongly disagree with the OP. The errata list is a list of mistakes and errors; why shouldn't errors be fixed? I'd be pretty upset if I bought the 3rd or 4th printing of a book and found that errors from the 1st printing that were discovered shortly after it was published still exist.
If you find that the text in your book doesn't match the text in someone else's, simply check the front of the book to see whose book is newer, and assume that version is the correct one.
What about the person who already bought the book, they payed the same money, why should their copy be different? That argument cuts both ways.
And as for checking the version, you are assuming the players REALIZE their wordings are different. How many times do we have rules discussions here on the boards, in print where we quote the rules that people dont realize their recolections of the rules are different from what is in print? Now think about a conversation at the table where there are no quotes only paraphrasing and discussion. If everyone was able to immediately realize that the wordings are different I wouldnt think there is a problem. But the truth is, people are not always quick to notice such a thing, and it will be made more difficult in that they will actually check the rules, look at the line and think the other person is misinterpreting or misreading it.
Personally, I want my fixes IN the book.
On the other hand, I would really really like to know *what* was changed - it would be good to know if there's any changes that actually make a difference as opposed to things like changing "teh sword" to "the sword" and stuff like that.
Is there a list of what the errors were that were fixed?
Personally, I want my fixes IN the book.
On the other hand, I would really really like to know *what* was changed - it would be good to know if there's any changes that actually make a difference as opposed to things like changing "teh sword" to "the sword" and stuff like that.
Is there a list of what the errors were that were fixed?
Yes, you can find it here
|
[some text in the book that has been changed]*1
[Footnote at the bootom]
1. This sentance/paragraph/etc has been changed in the errata presented in version 2.0 of the pathfinder core rules. Please see the changelog in the front of the book for more details.
The issue with this is that it takes more room.
Everything needs to take the same amount of room after adding the errata as it did before the errata. Otherwise, the glossary and index would both have to be re-written. Also, the page count needs to stay the same, because of the way the printer charges.Personally, I hate to have to flip pages to see the second half of a rule or spell, maybe adding a symbol (√ or something)to the end of sentences where things changed and taking an advertising page from the back of the book to list the changes is possible.. but thats more up to the paizo people.
Edit: the bold was supposed to be a check mark symbol
Arguments are easily decided here. Who has the latest book (or erata) is right.
What about the person who already bought the book, they payed the same money, why should their copy be different? That argument cuts both ways.I strongly disagree with the OP. The errata list is a list of mistakes and errors; why shouldn't errors be fixed? I'd be pretty upset if I bought the 3rd or 4th printing of a book and found that errors from the 1st printing that were discovered shortly after it was published still exist.
If you find that the text in your book doesn't match the text in someone else's, simply check the front of the book to see whose book is newer, and assume that version is the correct one.
Your argument is invalidated by the fact that someone with a 1st or 2nd printing CAN download a free errata sheet and be just as up-to-date as the person who just bought a third printing. If I'm spending money on a new to me game, or if I have to replace my old worn book, I damn well want a copy with known errors or changes incorporated. That's something that really pissed me off about the 'other' company's way of doing things... or not doing them.
And as for checking the version, you are assuming the players REALIZE their wordings are different. How many times do we have rules discussions here on the boards, in print where we quote the rules that people dont realize their recolections of the rules are different from what is in print? Now think about a conversation at the table where there are no quotes only paraphrasing and discussion. If everyone was able to immediately realize that the wordings are different I wouldnt think there is a problem. But the truth is, people are not always quick to notice such a thing, and it will be made more difficult in that they will actually check the rules, look at the line and think the other person is misinterpreting or misreading it.
Yeah, that will happen. Most people though will catch it when a disagreement arises from different wordings and that should logically lead then to question why there are differences.
Yes, you can find it herePersonally, I want my fixes IN the book.
On the other hand, I would really really like to know *what* was changed - it would be good to know if there's any changes that actually make a difference as opposed to things like changing "teh sword" to "the sword" and stuff like that.
Is there a list of what the errors were that were fixed?
I think it would be better to give the link to the main page.
Errata for the First Printing of the Rules are slightly different from those of the Second Printing of the Rules (like the link you provided), simply because the Second Printing already included some errata (specifically, from the First Printing Errata v1.0).
To check which Printing Version you possess, check the first page of the manual, on the bottom. There is a small sentence which says
'XXXX Printing MONTH YEAR'
For example, the first printing version (like mine) says 'First Printing August 2009'
|
I can certainly see the OP's point, but I'm afraid I don't share it. I 100% prefer to have all the updates and errata incorporated into the actual rule book. In all honesty, I would have been very disappointed if this latest printing still contained the errors etc from the first printing and only had a few pages of errata / rules clarifications.
Also, I'm not sure I share the concern about a player with an older printing having rules / text that does not match a player or GM with the current printing. Whether the rules updates etc are in the actual text of the book OR listed in an errata sheet, it seems as though the end result is essentially the same. Player A says "Oh, that's not what it says in my older Core Book." GM with newest printing says either "Right, that's an older printing - see, it changed here in the new printing" OR "Right, that's an older printing - see, it changed here in the errata for new printing". The end result is the same, isn't it? Having to read a rule and then remember to check an errata sheet or sheets at the back of the book is just a more clunky way to achieve the same result, in my opinion.
Like I said, I respect the OP's opinion, but I don't agree with it.
By the way, I have not purchased my new printing yet ... what is the change in smite? I checked the SRD but it seems to be the same as what I remember ...
I think a single sheet at the back of the book in the index of any clarifications or rules changes (not mis-spellings or typos) should be included. It can get very confusing when multiple versions are at 1 table. And the SRD should contain a page with all of the changes. I don't see 1 extra page being that much more expensive.
Edit: change in smite is the X2 for team evil now only works on the first attack to hit in the round.
By the way, I have not purchased my new printing yet ... what is the change in smite? I checked the SRD but it seems to be the same as what I remember ...
"Page 60
In the Smite Evil paladin class feature, change the fourth sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses."Previously, all attacks in the round versus Team Evil (Evil Subtype, Evil Dragons, Undead) dealt 2x Paladin level bonus damage. Now, after the first successful attack, all other attacks in the round deal only 1x Paladin level bonus damage. On the following round, rinse and repeat.
I strongly disagree with the OP´s point.
Why should new-comers to the game be saddled with the errors that could have been avoided had there been more time for editing, as opposed to rushing to meet the dead line to be ready for GenCon with the 1st printing?
Honestly, I´m prety dissappointed that there weren`t MORE changes, as seen by the large number of posts to the Errata thread that weren´t updated in this printing - perhaps some of these will be in a ¨FAQ¨ of some sort, but I`d rather have the latest printing change it`s phrasing so that such FAQs are not necessary, or less so to whatever extent possible.
Things like Avalanches using extremely similar rules to Cave-Ins, except that it mentions NO way to dig ones'self or one`s companions out (as does Cave In) were mentioned LONG ago in Errata, yet still fester for people to decide ad-hoc "well you can`t get out even though snow is lighter than rock" or "you snap your fingers and are now un-buried, since there is no listed DC and calculating the volumetric weight of packed snow is not the type of game we`re playing". Not to mention that the obtuse wording of Vital Strike is exactly the same as that which caused 100´s of ¨can you do X with Vital Strike¨ threads. That`s probably going to be in the FAQ, but why not make the wording itself more functional? In many cases, sentences can be shortened (sometimes because they are repeated in short proximity) so word count is not a barrier to doing this.
Anyhow, for the OP, the different printings ARE marked as such, with different dates and the number of their edition. Obviously, if there is a difference between 2 books, you check the edition and the newer one has precedent. That situation presumes the person with the older book was playing in ignorance of the latest Errata anyways, so providing ANOTHER way (besides the email you get if you buy the book from Paizo) to get players aware of the latest Errata (in this case, by their friends with newer books having the latest Errata rolled in) seems a good thing... Or else they might as well NEVER make Errata if playing with the old crappy wording is preferrable.
On the following round, rinse and repeat.
The new text does NOT say "this round". It simply says "the first successful attack".
So, only the very first successful attack after you start the smite will have 2x damage. Every subsequent attack, this round or any other, will have 1x damage. That's how I read it, anyway.
|
Yup. New paladin text means that they only get the double damage on a *single* attack the entire combat, not one attack per round. It's a big nerf, but to be honest, I've seen some paladins in combat against the 'big bads' that were of this type (or ranged paladins against a dragon) and it got to be pretty amazing. Especially with the 'bypassing all DR, bonus to attack' bit or with high-crit weapons.
On the following round, rinse and repeat.The new text does NOT say "this round". It simply says "the first successful attack".
So, only the very first successful attack after you start the smite will have 2x damage. Every subsequent attack, this round or any other, will have 1x damage. That's how I read it, anyway.
Hmm, the text indeed seems to indicate so.
Maybe it is a case of poor wording, maybe not. It should be addressed somehow.
"Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to
damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a def lection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 3–11, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level."
Effectively it is not crystal clear if the ability 'resets itself' every round or not.
Yup. New paladin text means that they only get the double damage on a *single* attack the entire combat, not one attack per round. It's a big nerf, but to be honest, I've seen some paladins in combat against the 'big bads' that were of this type (or ranged paladins against a dragon) and it got to be pretty amazing. Especially with the 'bypassing all DR, bonus to attack' bit or with high-crit weapons.
Maybe an official answer to this question would avoid future issues, however - since I was adamant until 5 minutes ago about the 'resets every round' thing...
Yup. New paladin text means that they only get the double damage on a *single* attack the entire combat, not one attack per round. It's a big nerf, but to be honest, I've seen some paladins in combat against the 'big bads' that were of this type (or ranged paladins against a dragon) and it got to be pretty amazing. Especially with the 'bypassing all DR, bonus to attack' bit or with high-crit weapons.Maybe an official answer to this question would avoid future issues, however - since I was adamant until 5 minutes ago about the 'resets every round' thing...
anyone else amused that the errata may need errata?
|
|
Yup. New paladin text means that they only get the double damage on a *single* attack the entire combat, not one attack per round. It's a big nerf, but to be honest, I've seen some paladins in combat against the 'big bads' that were of this type (or ranged paladins against a dragon) and it got to be pretty amazing. Especially with the 'bypassing all DR, bonus to attack' bit or with high-crit weapons.Maybe an official answer to this question would avoid future issues, however - since I was adamant until 5 minutes ago about the 'resets every round' thing...
I think the damage is only the first successful attack, but the AC bump is until the creature is dead
|
|
I'm not sure what the confusing part is. Ignoring the bit about the damage doubling, the smite evil lasts from when it is declared until the beastie is dead. They get their level to damage, charisma bonus to attack, bonus to AC, bypass DR, etc.
In addition, if the creature you smote is one of the 'special' types, you double that bonus damage on the first successful attack. Not the first successful attack per round, just the first successful attack... period.
Once that 'first successful attack' is done, the default smite evil rules would apply again.
EDIT: In any case, on the main topic, I'm just happy when they release errata at all. Better to fix a product then leave it broken, even if the fixes can't magically appear in our already purchased books. I'll print em out, keep them at the game, and make do. Better then some products that just stay broken.
Effectively it is not crystal clear if the ability 'resets itself' every round or not.
It's perfectly clear. The original text applied to all attacks. The current text applies to only the first attack. No mention of rounds at all.
Now, this said I don't have access to a 2nd printing version. So if it mentioned rounds there I can understand some confusion, but with what I have available... no room for confusion unless you are just being obtuse.
I want the typos fixed. I don't care much for actual rules changes being put into the newer stuff.
It's perfectly clear. The original text applied to all attacks. The current text applies to only the first attack. No mention of rounds at all.
Now, this said I don't have access to a 2nd printing version. So if it mentioned rounds there I can understand some confusion, but with what I have available... no room for confusion unless you are just being obtuse.
Well, thank you for the 'obtuse' part.
However, in order to avoid a threadjack, I've simply opened a thread under the Rules section, just in case. Since I was not the only one to misunderstand the errata, btw.
It's perfectly clear. The original text applied to all attacks. The current text applies to only the first attack. No mention of rounds at all.
Now, this said I don't have access to a 2nd printing version. So if it mentioned rounds there I can understand some confusion, but with what I have available... no room for confusion unless you are just being obtuse.
Well, thank you for the 'obtuse' part.
However, in order to avoid a threadjack, I've simply opened a thread under the Rules section, just in case. Since I was not the only one to misunderstand the errata, btw.
Well, I meant that as a generalization, not aimed at you specifically. Apologies for poor wording on my part.
Given the recent third printing of the core rulebook and the updates to the bestiary I thought I might bring this up to see if how others feel.
I personally dont like the idea of incorparating errata directly into printed or pdf materials. I expect it can lead to alot of confusion as people can potentially have different words in their rulebooks. Its one thing if they are exclusively clarifications, or re-wordings. But some of them, like the errata of the paladin's smite are deliberate changes. A player at my table with a new copy of the rulebook will have different rules then the rulebook I bought when pfrpg first came out.
I dont have a problem with Paizo creating errata, and in fact I welcome it. But I would rather see it kept separate in an additional document so people know where the difference is coming from. If it is inline in the book itself its impossible to know errata from original rules.
I think this will cause 2 sets of problems in regards to the table. First is potential arguments that can arise from 2 people having different rules in their hands that have the same covers. If everyone is conciously aware of the errata is wont be a problem, but not everyone follows such things closely, and people forget. This can easily lead to disagreements.
The second potential problem I see is what I call the windows update effect. I know at least a dozen people who would never buy a new version of a windows OS untill the first service pack is released to fix the initial bugs. The idea that customers will get a 'better' product if they wait and buy a later copy of the rulebook cannot be good for initial sales. I own 2 copies of the core rules, I may buy a copy of this latest printing, but others are not going to buy more then one copy of a rulebook, this essentially encourages them to wait many months in the hope that an additional printing will occur.
Totally disagree. Please, continue incorporating errata at the current (truly) blistering pace. It is very refreshing after years of no errata integration in D&D materials.
The game needs errata, and this is the way to do it. You simply have to know which printing you have (Paizo please continue to make it clear on the title page--WotC often dropped this important info), and have errata to match. If it becomes too onerous, pony up and get a new book. Or use the PDF, or PFSRD to keep it clear.
I have no problems with printing errata in new printings of books along with updating the PDFs. All players can easily be on the same page even if they have different printings of the core books. Those players with older versions simply need to download the updated PDF if that's what they use, or they can print out a copy of the errata and keep it with their book. A GM can keep their lazy players informed of the updates by giving those with older core books a printed copy of the errata.
I like striving for perfection, even if it can never be reached.
I am kinda with the OP here. I do not mind including typo fixes and such or charts that where messed up. But when you start including changes to classes that is when your using a diffident version of the rules then everyone else.
I do not care what your book says, I am using Pathfinder not your pathfinder.1, sorry you have the wrong book.
Sure it's just one change but when the 5th printing has different "versions" of the classes then the first we have a problem. Right now it's limited t 2 versions of the paladin in print, which to me is a bad road to start on. It shows me if people whine enough other classes can be changed and by printing 5 no one is using the same set of printed rules.
Rule changes are not errata, they are rules changes.
I have to disagree with the OP here. I think the newest printings should be as up to date as possible. It means that new players to Pathfinder who get the books are playing the best possible version.
Additionally not everyone is web savvy. While I know a lot of Pathfinder players are, not everyone is going to go to the website and download the Erratta. Having the correct rules in the correct place is infinately easier than double checking the erratta EVERY TIME you may have a rule question on the off chance the book is wrong and it has been corrected.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'll admit I'm confused by the original poster's comments.
If the book is errated in subsequent printings, that's nothing new. If they're complaining about the PDFs being augmented/corrected with the new errata, well you get notification. You also can DL the most recent errata for free.
So we have, what, 3 states of Pathfinder?
Previous printing, sans errata. This assumes you don't have access to the internets.
Previous printing with current errata pages tucked in the back. This assumes access to the internet.
Current printing. The Errata brings 1) and 2) to speed with this. For subscribers, you would always have states 2 and 3 via your PDFs. (an updated PDF, and a printed-with-most-recent-errata-in-the-back version)
I'm not finding the downside. I mean, every book has some mistakes*. Even the reprint of magic items in the magic item compendiums had mistakes not in the original (DaWizard and IWizard, I'm looking at you)
*
I am kinda with the OP here. I do not mind including typo fixes and such or charts that where messed up. But when you start including changes to classes that is when your using a diffident version of the rules then everyone else.
I do not care what your book says, I am using Pathfinder not your pathfinder.1, sorry you have the wrong book.
…
Rule changes are not errata, they are rules changes.
I'm even fine with that, as long as someone with an older printing of the rules can obtain a copy of the updates (which they can). Saying "I don't like the rules change in your printing of the book," is no different than saying "I don't like fighters having 2 skill points per level, so I'm giving them 4." If your rules preferences differ with the most current rules, they're simply house rules. Nothing wrong with that at all. I like that Paizo is making the effort to keep tweaking their rules without making a new edition. I couldn't stand WOTC (and Games Workshop for that matter) stonewalling us for years when it came to rules changes.
I have to disagree with the OP here. I think the newest printings should be as up to date as possible. It means that new players to Pathfinder who get the books are playing the best possible version.
Additionally not everyone is web savvy. While I know a lot of Pathfinder players are, not everyone is going to go to the website and download the Erratta. Having the correct rules in the correct place is infinately easier than double checking the erratta EVERY TIME you may have a rule question on the off chance the book is wrong and it has been corrected.
But a new player isnt going to know for sure that those are the most up to date rules. God willing there will be a 4th and a 5th printing of this book (I think we all want pathfinder to be that successful). Certainly a copy bought from here will certainly be the most recent, as paizo doesnt order a new printing untill they are run out. But that is not the only source of the books. A new pathfinder player walks into his friendly local gaming store, or book store, or online book retailer and purchases the pathfinder rules. Then we have the matter of 'I just bought my book yesterday surely its the most updated right?' How many new players know to look for a version number in the title page? I am not a new player and if someone hadnt mentioend it up thread i wouldnt have thought of it.
And yes a dm can download the errata and keep things in order at the table, but by the 5th, or 6th printing 5 or 6 years from now, it will be hard to remember all the changes that were made. There will be more of them. And i dont think that we need to add to a dm's mental load at the table that he has to keep in mind, that in player 1's rulebook the paladin does 2x damage when smiting evil dragons, in players 2's it says only 2x for the first successful attack, and in player 3's it say paladins may only smite every second tuesday (yes i am being intentionally facicious here).
Like i said, typo corrections, clarifications, i am ok with, but genuine changes being adopted into the rules is a very dangerous path for a rulesystem that could potentially continue to get errata for many years going forward.
I'm even fine with that, as long as someone with an older printing of the rules can obtain a copy of the updates (which they can). Saying "I don't like the rules change in your printing of the book," is no different than saying "I don't like fighters having 2 skill points per level, so I'm giving them 4." If your rules preferences differ with the most current rules, they're simply house rules. Nothing wrong with that at all. I like that Paizo is making the effort to keep tweaking their rules without making a new edition. I couldn't stand WOTC (and Games Workshop for that matter) stonewalling us for years when it came to rules changes.I am kinda with the OP here. I do not mind including typo fixes and such or charts that where messed up. But when you start including changes to classes that is when your using a diffident version of the rules then everyone else.
I do not care what your book says, I am using Pathfinder not your pathfinder.1, sorry you have the wrong book.
…
Rule changes are not errata, they are rules changes.
When the list of rules changes is small, its not a big deal. What happens when it grows? How often will you REMEMBER that there was a change even if you have the errata on hand? How deep into the argument will you be when you finally realize it? How much table time is lost because of it?
Like i said, typo corrections, clarifications, i am ok with, but genuine changes being adopted into the rules is a very dangerous path for a rulesystem that could potentially continue to get errata for many years going forward
I think it's a better route than WOTC's "let's just make new rules that obsolete old ones where we screwed up. And when the system gets too bloated, let's make a new edition and start over."
I'm even fine with that, as long as someone with an older printing of the rules can obtain a copy of the updates (which they can).
I could do this in 3.5, but never knew of it nor did anyone I played with. The issues is now there are Two printed versions of the paladin. The cover says pathfinder, but now version 3, is not just a cleaned up version 1. It now has a different class write up in it. A minor change but still a change.
What happens when version five changes 5 classes? How actions work? Or rewrites whole feats? Is it still the same version? I have to strongly disagree with including rules changes into the same version of the book. It just leads to people using different rules and not being on the same page.
I like that they include errata, but the new paladin version is not errata.
I am 100% in agreement with the method Paizo is currently using. When there are updates and errata changes that they be made to the PDF and print books as soon as possible the next printing goes out.
For people that get confused between first or second run books they can look at the print date in the front of the book to see the edition and print run date. This is common to many other books in the world and is not something that Paizo just made up on the fly.
Additionally, they do have the PDF errata consolidation PDF's available for free as well. For those that like to know where and what the changes were you can look there. If you REALLY want it spelled out you could even go over your new/old book with a pen and yellow highlighter making corrects or highlighting changed text.
When I buy a new book... or get new gamers into the game and they buy a book.. I want them to have the latest and greatest.
I track all my errata by writing notes in the relevant sections of the book. Because we handle changes to the text in such a way that elements do not shift from one page to another (i.e., we don't want the Nauseated entry to shift upward from page 568 to page 567 because that invalidates all in-book page references to Nauseated being on page 568), we are very limited in the amount of adding and subtracting we can do to a particular paragraph. That means I may have to cross out a sentence and write in a revised sentence, but it's not like we're adding or deleting entire paragraphs.
So all you need to do is grab the errata PDF for your book, mark up your print copy of the book wherever you think it's necessary for rules clarity, and you're done. You don't have to worry that Bob and Jane are going to have different versions of the paladin in play if Bob and Jane take into account the free, publicly-available, released-at-the-same-time-as-the-new-printing errata.
|
This is silly. You want them to continue to print incorrect information in the books. No...just no. Far better to make the corrections as we go. As for the debate over which is correct: the most recent printing of the book is correct, or previous printings with the appropriate errata applied is also correct.
Also, it doesn't matter at all what the book says: the GM is right. Even if he has his facts incorrect, he's still right.
When the list of rules changes is small, its not a big deal. What happens when it grows? How often will you REMEMBER that there was a change even if you have the errata on hand? How deep into the argument will you be when you finally realize it? How much table time is lost because of it?
In my particular case, Paizo reminded me of the update through e-mail with a link to the errata. I in turn, informed my players of the relevant changes. It was very easy. If I don't have/don't like the current update, there's always the all powerful house rule. Heck, people are still using Beta versions of the pathfinder rules despite new versions.
If I don't remember that there was a rules change, and noone detects it in that particular session, who cares? The rules are complex enough that this happens all the time in play, without any changes in the rules. If someone does detect it, and we have the relevant text readily on hand, we review it to get it right, and move on. If someone detects it, but noone has the relevant text on hand (or it would take too much time to look it up), I make a judgement call on the spot to keep the game moving, and then review the rules after the session. Our group has been operating this way for years.
|
|
This is silly. You want them to continue to print incorrect information in the books. No...just no. Far better to make the corrections as we go. As for the debate over which is correct: the most recent printing of the book is correct, or previous printings with the appropriate errata applied is also correct.
Bingo!
I just shot a quick e-mail to everyone in my weekly group (we all have the original, first printing) reminding them to print out the new errata PDF. In addition, I am planning on buying the new, third printing of the book soon.
So, at the table, my book will have all the changes etc in the book itself and the others will have the same changes listed in the errata print out.
I track all my errata by writing notes in the relevant sections of the book. Because we handle changes to the text in such a way that elements do not shift from one page to another (i.e., we don't want the Nauseated entry to shift upward from page 568 to page 567 because that invalidates all in-book page references to Nauseated being on page 568), we are very limited in the amount of adding and subtracting we can do to a particular paragraph. That means I may have to cross out a sentence and write in a revised sentence, but it's not like we're adding or deleting entire paragraphs.
So all you need to do is grab the errata PDF for your book, mark up your print copy of the book wherever you think it's necessary for rules clarity, and you're done. You don't have to worry that Bob and Jane are going to have different versions of the paladin in play if Bob and Jane take into account the free, publicly-available, released-at-the-same-time-as-the-new-printing errata.
I am amused that you chose nauseated as your example, as it is strongly correlated with the feeling i get when i consider taking a pen or pencil to the actual pages of my rulebook. (It most likely stems from a personal hatred of my ever deteriorating handwriting). But I see what you are saying. My concern is not for myself, obviously given my awareness of the errata and activity here on these boards and others, i'll know about such errata. But I dont think it is fair to assume all consumers of gaming products are. I know at least half of my group never venture onto online boards or sites. And i know that 1 in that subset already has the book, and 1 is buying one next week (or plans to). Neither would ever print the errata and keep it with them, but starting next week 1 will have them incorporated in their rulebook and 1 will not. If i dont tell them, neither will know where the difference comes from.
This is silly. You want them to continue to print incorrect information in the books. No...just no. Far better to make the corrections as we go. As for the debate over which is correct: the most recent printing of the book is correct, or previous printings with the appropriate errata applied is also correct.
Also, it doesn't matter at all what the book says: the GM is right. Even if he has his facts incorrect, he's still right.
Right. And on top of that, let's all jump into the future with 5th, 6th, and 7th printings, just like those posts: "so what would you change for pathfinder 2nd edition", when the 1st edition was just released.