I'm really disappointed with the latest errata for the Core Rulebook. After 10 months of long wait, all we get are 2 pages of errata. What happened to all the dozen other errors that had been reported on these forums and confirmed as errors? Why haven't they been corrected? I'm talking about things like the footnotes in the Perception skill table, which are completely wrong. Also the contradictions in the invisibility table and the spell description regarding the modifiers used haven't been dealt with. These are just 2 examples out of several dozens.
Are these going to be dealt with and fixed?
Creative Director
|
I'm really disappointed with the latest errata for the Core Rulebook. After 10 months of long wait, all we get are 2 pages of errata. What happened to all the dozen other errors that had been reported on these forums and confirmed as errors? Why haven't they been corrected? I'm talking about things like the footnotes in the Perception skill table, which are completely wrong. Also the contradictions in the invisibility table and the spell description regarding the modifiers used haven't been dealt with. These are just 2 examples out of several dozens.
Are these going to be dealt with and fixed?
Yes.
We're very close to starting up a FAQ, as is my understanding, and hopefully we'll be able to get that off the ground and then between that and the next round of errata get things in a better place.
I'm really disappointed with the latest errata for the Core Rulebook. After 10 months of long wait, all we get are 2 pages of errata. What happened to all the dozen other errors that had been reported on these forums and confirmed as errors? Why haven't they been corrected? I'm talking about things like the footnotes in the Perception skill table, which are completely wrong. Also the contradictions in the invisibility table and the spell description regarding the modifiers used haven't been dealt with. These are just 2 examples out of several dozens.
Are these going to be dealt with and fixed?
Yes.
We're very close to starting up a FAQ, as is my understanding, and hopefully we'll be able to get that off the ground and then between that and the next round of errata get things in a better place.
That's reassuring. Thanks for the fast reply, James!
|
This makes me wonder what TSR went through when they released the 2nd edition of Dungeons & Dragons. At least now we have online discussion groups and FAQs to download.
Did everyone just limp along, or was their "technicial support" flooded with phone calls and postal mail? I know they did eventually revise the entire core 2nd edition books right before I started playing.
|
|
This makes me wonder what TSR went through when they released the 2nd edition of Dungeons & Dragons. At least now we have online discussion groups and FAQs to download.
Did everyone just limp along, or was their "technicial support" flooded with phone calls and postal mail? I know they did eventually revise the entire core 2nd edition books right before I started playing.
I can tell you when I started playing D&D it was First edition, or just AD&D. I've now learned that the Players Handbook and DM's Guide went through a number of reprintings and apparently many of them, if not every one of them, had minor rules updates, changes etc. At the time, none of my friends or I had any idea. We just knew we had our copies of the books, some purchased at different times, and had no idea that some of us probably had different printings! I can't ever remember a problem ever coming up, but I do find it kind of interesting / funny now looking back on it ...
We would never have even thought to call TSR. The primary source for things like that was to check out the latest issue of Dragon to see what was new from TSR.
Ah, the good old days!
|
In the old days we were forced to use our own brains to solve any inconsistency with the rules. There's never going to be a perfect product that contains every possible contingency and a rule to apply.
Of course, certain misprints are plainly avoidable and just a matter of better editing.
With that said, my copy of the Guide rocks (imperfections or no). May it get as worn and creased as my 2nd edition guide.
|
[I can tell you when I started playing D&D it was First edition, or just AD&D.
Two things at that time :
- D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.- There was much less errors because of above or at least I had never spotted them before or were easy to correct.
- ROLE was more important than RULES and we had never heard or RAW or RAI
- House rules ruled because you were playing with a very small community who had agreed on house rules.
- Dungeon Master WAS the master.
Now unfortunately (I know I sound like an ol' git) we focus too much on rules and not enough on role me think.
EDIT : I realise I said more than 2 things ;o)
As I said in another thread, the fact that people want rules set in stones can be attributed to the fact that nowadays, people don't limit their games or rule discussions to their local group of friends. Internet offers solutions to problems it had helped create.
I remember being very excited when we went from D&D to AD&D "We can pick a Race AND a Class!"
It was, if memory serves, an extremely flawed system, but because we had no access to designers (never thought of writing a letter), the DM came up with the houserules to fix the various problems.
Some I remember being common:
1) The -/+ to hit based on weapon vs AC chart was dropped
2) Non-humans could go past their maximum level for 2x XP
3) No Cavaliers. Especially no Paladin Cavaliers
4) Scratch #3. Nothing from Unearthed Arcana at all. Except the pole arm pictures
I guess my point is that game flaws were pretty common then too, but we just had to come up with the solutions on our own.
- House rules ruled because you were playing with a very small community who had agreed on house rules.
I think this is an even bigger factor than some realize. Even now when I talk to people who prefer 1st or 2nd Ed, I'll say, "But what about x problem with rules," they'll blink and say, "Well, house rules, of course." Gamers will take it into their own hands if they need to.
But problems emerged when you brought in a new player, or two play styles conflicted. I was too young to go to gamer conventions when AD&D was the standard (or when old enough, playing old WOD instead), but I imagine what house rules fixed at home still brought about rules arguments when several "houses" came together to play.
I think ultimately it's a GOOD thing that people can get "official answers" so quickly rather than wait for the next issue of Dragon to come out. It enables a broader community that has an agreed-upon ruleset. It enables easier and happier convention play, and fewer arguments of, "But MY GM lets me do THIS..."
The downside of course is those with an insane sense of self-entitlement (and I am NOT referring to anyone in this thread) want instant fixes to everything, since the Internet provides us with this false sense that information comes free and immediately.
(And knowing gamers, I'm sure there WERE some folks who flooded TSR with letters. It might have been three gamers out of the whole gaming world, but I'm sure it was nonetheless a flood of correspondence. :) )
- Dungeon Master WAS the master.
You were lucky if you had players that just accepted that without some rules lawyering going on. Many of the 2nd Ed games I played had loads of rules arguments going on (including arguments about which printing of the book to use :) ), and that was between players who had played with each other for years. After all, "Rules lawyer" is a term that was invented long before the Internet was commonly, publicly used. :)
I don't like errata in my books.I'm disappointed by the lack of errata in my books.I swear, you can't please everyone.
Sure you can. Take the errata from guy A and put it into the books of guy B!
...but they're complaining about the same errata....
An exacto knife and a little tape go a long way TOZ.
The answer was pretty much nailed down with an automatic railgun:
Internet discussions create comparisons and discussion, and as such it creates the problem to it's solution, and vice versa.
I remember many odities and flaws and the first editions of D&D. In our case we where a bunch of french speaking kids, and either attributed errors to a bad translation, and simply house ruled them, or to our lack of comprehension of the english language when we bought the books in english anyways (since they where half the price). Again, the solution was house rules.
The only debates were the classic one: a player offering an interpretation and trying to convince the GM with both balance and roleplaying arguments (with often a large emphasis on the seconde. GMs of course always had the last word, but were generally pretty lenient and flexible (except in Dark Sun and Ravenloft...).
As such, house rules were everywhere, plastered all over our games, and it was an effective way to solve the problems. Of course our gaming group was pretty hermetic, new additions being new players, who learned the game by our rules.
Now, with the ability to scour the internet for answers and interpretations, and the desire for a single right answer to be found, with easy access to the designers and community, house rules seem to have faded somewhat. Certainty leaves the player with a authority he may feel should be higher or on par with the GM, and GMs might feel more pressure to play "by the rules".
Now, in many cases where house rules will come into play, they might leave some players a bitter aftertaste of "but it should be done this way" that may have always existed, but is strenghtened by the feeling of entitlement the community brings.
The problem to its solution, really.
I'm lazy. Can I get a link to the errata?
Look in "My Downloads" at the top of the page.
|
|
True all.
Internet is the cure AND the disease ;o).
I also had the translation issue, being french too. And when you're a teen... Well none of was gifted in english. So it was easier to say "Look mate. I know english better than you. SO that's what it means".
And really GM was the boss in those times.
It can still be true (It is still in my games anyway) but the pressure from the player is much, much harder.
But may be that's just us French people : "Rules are carefully made to be bended and broken" ;o).
Latin people ;o)
|
1st ed AD&D was not simpler, it was complex in a totally different manner. And there were blatant conflicting rules, not just minor errata. For example, in one place in the rules, the weight of magic armor is given as being half normal (or somesuch), while in a completely different secion of the DMG it states that magic armor is as light as a normal set of clothing. There are minor issues with some PRPG rules, but nothing that will cause a game to come to a grinding halt under normal, non-corner cases, IMO.
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between "Errata" and a "FAQ". I get the sense that many people that are complaining about this round of errata are really looking for material that belongs in a FAQ instead.
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between "Errata" and a "FAQ". I get the sense that many people that are complaining about this round of errata are really looking for material that belongs in a FAQ instead.
I think that some of the most frequent errata reporters (Quandary for example) understand very well the difference between what is errata and what is a FAQ question. If you examine the errata threads carefully I think you would agree that there are many items still outstanding that are clearly in need of errata.
For better or worse we have all matured/evolved since then. Many of the players I know want everything in stone.Then we have different definitions of "maturity". ;-)
I don't think maturity has anything to do with wanting to play a game with a correct set of rules. There's nothing wrong with a GM defining house rules. But a GM shouldn't have to create a house rule to override an erroneous rule printed in the books.
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between "Errata" and a "FAQ".
They have a different intent, but they function similarly. Errata rewrites the book with new text -- which causes the rule to work differently. A FAQ gives a designer's viewpoint on how an ambiguous rule works -- which causes the rule to work differently for many people. Some people use the designer's interpretation, but in many cases, a lot of people don't.
The real gray area is when a rule is so ambiguous that it could be considered errata-worthy (there's a literal mistake in the wording) or FAQ-worthy (frequently people misunderstand what is being said). These issues are often the most frustrating for players.
|
|
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between "Errata" and a "FAQ". I get the sense that many people that are complaining about this round of errata are really looking for material that belongs in a FAQ instead.I think that some of the most frequent errata reporters (Quandary for example) understand very well the difference between what is errata and what is a FAQ question. If you examine the errata threads carefully I think you would agree that there are many items still outstanding that are clearly in need of errata.
1) I did not say that the errata released was complete, nor did I say that more is not still needed;
2) I didn't name names when I made my assesment;
and
3) I purposefully avoided terms like "all" or "everyone" for a reason.
What I did say was that the game ain't broken, and the "fixes" aren't finished. J. Jacobs has already stated that the FAQ is in the works. "Some" people who are upset with the errata should wait until both the errata and the FAQ are released before deciding if they are still upset. Of course, when "some" people are out there complaining that errata is incorporated into new printings of the core rules, I'm certain that there will still be "some" people that won't be happy no matter what Paizo releases.
|
Creative Director
|
I've posted a variation of this in I don't know how many threads lately, but here goes again:
We know that our errata process isn't perfect. The good news is that just yesterday I figured out the main reason WHY it's flawed, and we're taking steps to fix that. But the results of that solution won't be publicly visible immediately.
And we are now very close to releasing a FAQ. You may have noticed that we did a lot of pretty subtle but relatively large changes to the website, such as rebranding and adding web fiction and other elements. This happened yesterday, but that was the tail end of a pretty long development/programing cycle. My understanding is that now that's done, the final touches to what'll serve as our FAQ system are being worked on, which hopefully means we're VERY close to getting a FAQ out.
The FAQ, by the way, won't be EVERY question answered at once. We're going to do it in a more organic way, so you'll have complete visibility to it as it grows. Which will also hopefully quell some worries that we're ignoring folks about building a FAQ. Better to start small in a way that everyone can watch and contribute to than to try to do the entire thing behind closed doors. The end result (a full and complete FAQ) would likely end up looking the same after a year... but if we took that second route, there'd be no public PROOF that we were working on a FAQ for that entire year.
Anyway, we do hear your complaints about the errata process. We're taking steps to fix it. But that's not all we have to do right now, so the fix won't be instant.
D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.Cool, explain the initiative system to me then... :)
Specifically, a ranger (3 in 6 chance of surprising) encounters a drow (1 in 8 chance of being surprised). Please show all your work. ;-)
Now unfortunately (I know I sound like an ol' git) we focus too much on rules and not enough on role me think.
I agree that this seems to be more of the focus, which is actually a little odd. One would think that having rules for almost any situation would allow people to work more on their roles, since they wouldn't need to dedicate any time to figuring out how things should work.
At least, that's how it would work in an ideal world :)
The good news is that just yesterday I figured out the main reason WHY it's flawed, and we're taking steps to fix that.
Out of interest, what was that reason?
|
Director of Games
|
Out of interest, what was that reason?
It is a combination of problems, but the biggest is that there was a time crunch right when the third printing came onto the schedule. That is a problem we are looking to address is a more measured stance now.
This problem will be corrected. The FAQ is a big step, but there are others happening behind the scenes to make sure we take advantage of all of the great feedback we have gotten over the past 10 months.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Specifically, a ranger (3 in 6 chance of surprising) encounters a drow (1 in 8 chance of being surprised). Please show all your work. ;-)D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.Cool, explain the initiative system to me then... :)
Sure ;)
Converting to %
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%
Add together: 50% + 12.5% = 62.5%
Divide by two: 31.25%
Closest die equivalent: roll a d6, with the ranger surprising a drow on a 2 in 6 chance (33.3%)
Just having some fun Hogarth ;)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Specifically, a ranger (3 in 6 chance of surprising) encounters a drow (1 in 8 chance of being surprised). Please show all your work. ;-)D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.Cool, explain the initiative system to me then... :)Sure ;)
Converting to %
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%Add together: 50% + 12.5% = 62.5%
Divide by two: 31.25%
Closest die equivalent: roll a d6, with the ranger surprising a drow on a 2 in 6 chance (33.3%)
Just having some fun Hogarth ;)
I call high:
Yay! In your face, drow!
|
|
Specifically, a ranger (3 in 6 chance of surprising) encounters a drow (1 in 8 chance of being surprised). Please show all your work. ;-)D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.Cool, explain the initiative system to me then... :)Sure ;)
Converting to %
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%
Add together: 50% + 12.5% = 62.5%
Divide by two: 31.25%
Closest die equivalent: roll a d6, with the ranger surprising a drow on a 2 in 6 chance (33.3%)
Just having some fun Hogarth ;)I call high: d6
Yay! In your face, drow!
Ok then... Now I see that people are purposely avoiding explaining the 1st ed. AD&D initiative system. Let's say neither party is surprised and I want to hit the Drow with my Fireball (3 segment spell) and the Drow wants to hit me with his Long Sword (and you thought I was going to say twin scimitars, at of course speed factor 5). He has a d6 and I have a d6. Again show all working for he wins, I win, and we tie...
Good luck!
S.
Ok then... Now I see that people are purposely avoiding explaining the 1st ed. AD&D initiative system. Let's say neither party is surprised and I want to hit the Drow with my Fireball (3 segment spell) and the Drow wants to hit me with his Long Sword (and you thought I was going to say twin scimitars, at of course speed factor 5). He has a d6 and I have a d6. Again show all working for he wins, I win, and we tie...Good luck!
S.
Please only open the spoiler below if you have a sense of humor :)
1E had complicated rules. It was still a simple game to play because we played it fun and simple.
It was a simple game because you ignored the rules?
Oooooooh, I get it.
Yeah, pretty much. If we didn't understand a section of the rules, (or didn't like them like the psionics stuff) we didn't use them. :)
Specifically, a ranger (3 in 6 chance of surprising) encounters a drow (1 in 8 chance of being surprised). Please show all your work. ;-)D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.Cool, explain the initiative system to me then... :)Sure ;)
Converting to %
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%
Add together: 50% + 12.5% = 62.5%
Divide by two: 31.25%
Closest die equivalent: roll a d6, with the ranger surprising a drow on a 2 in 6 chance (33.3%)
Just having some fun Hogarth ;)I call high: d6
Yay! In your face, drow!Ok then... Now I see that people are purposely avoiding explaining the 1st ed. AD&D initiative system. Let's say neither party is surprised and I want to hit the Drow with my Fireball (3 segment spell) and the Drow wants to hit me with his Long Sword (and you thought I was going to say twin scimitars, at of course speed factor 5). He has a d6 and I have a d6. Again show all working for he wins, I win, and we tie...
Good luck!
S.
You know I honestly don't remember the 1st edition initiative system, which makes me wonder if we used it. 2nd was easier with the roll a d10 and add the speed factor of the weapon or casting time of the spell and the one with the lowest score goes first. Although I think we had a house rule that if you got multiple attacks you added the speed factor of the weapon again. So if you rolled a 4 with a longsword and 5/2 attacks on the first round you would attack on 9 and 14 and on the second round if you rolled the same initiative you would go on 9, 14, and 19.
Unearthed Arcana had official errata released via Dragon mag (and, boy, did it need it). The Sorcerer's Scroll and Sage Advice were the go-to sources for rules clarifications. To say that 1e didn't get any errata isn't entirely true.
|
Creative Director
|
The point being, 1st ed was not a simple game, and it even had multiple, exclusively conflicing rules, but yet lots of people played it with NO errata at all. That included "official" tournaments and convention organized play, for years and years.
+1
The internet is a powerful tool, but it has certainly changed the way the world works. Interesting that a creation that, in a lot of ways, saves time, but in other ways creates a lot more work.
|
1E had complicated rules. It was still a simple game to play because we played it fun and simple.
Exactly what I meant by matured. A group with at best a 15 or 16 year old DMing in 1st edition would read, at times get confused, and then just go with what makes sense to him at that time.
Those same guys in their late 30's to late 40's don't "roll with it" the same. Everything for lots has to be spelled out in specifics now. Everyone with the resources at hand is building some grand character now, and a hiccup in the rules can effect the whole idea you had for him.
None of that mattered when fighting the 4 d6's as goblins and the 2 d8's as bugbears in the middle of a dungeon created by 20 boxes of dominos. All the while your mom is yelling that you haven't been to bed since Friday morning, and we missed church AGAIN over your silly game.
Gulp, those are big numbers, but... some of us do. The rules and resources, yes they are much better 'produced' now, but we never let them get in the way of the game.
Pitch a d20 and make some stuff up.
Specifically, a ranger (3 in 6 chance of surprising) encounters a drow (1 in 8 chance of being surprised). Please show all your work. ;-)D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.Cool, explain the initiative system to me then... :)Sure ;)
Converting to %
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%Add together: 50% + 12.5% = 62.5%
Divide by two: 31.25%
Closest die equivalent: roll a d6, with the ranger surprising a drow on a 2 in 6 chance (33.3%)
Just having some fun Hogarth ;)
Hate to get all mathy here but the proper calculation is:
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%
Since both need to occur they are multiplied together:
50% * 12.5% = 6.25%
Closest equivalent: 1 on a D20 with the ranger surprising a drow with a 5% chance.
Now it is the weekend and I can go drink a beer and forget this math stuff I have to do at work. :)
Tarrasque's are surprising. Not in the sense that you don't perceive them well in advance. But in the sense of "Oh s~*$ oh my gods - nothing that big should have that many teeth and claws - and move so fast!--KKRGHkkzz"
Hate to get all mathy here but the proper calculation is:3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%Since both need to occur they are multiplied together:
50% * 12.5% = 6.25%Closest equivalent: 1 on a D20 with the ranger surprising a drow with a 5% chance.
Now it is the weekend and I can go drink a beer and forget this math stuff I have to do at work. :)
Negative; they both don't need to occur (though your math would be absolutely right if they did). IIRC, the rules just weren't consistent about whether one rolls to surprise, or one rolls to avoid being surprised (which of course was the point of bringing it up in the first place).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Hate to get all mathy here but the proper calculation is:
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%Since both need to occur they are multiplied together:
50% * 12.5% = 6.25%Closest equivalent: 1 on a D20 with the ranger surprising a drow with a 5% chance.
Now it is the weekend and I can go drink a beer and forget this math stuff I have to do at work. :)
I call high.
Crap. This game is unplayable!