but the final book is never guaranteed to include ALL things in preview materials.Certainly you see the issue with that?
I see what might be an issue for you, but when you play a beta of a video game, you expect the final version to be exactly the same?
FYI I'm aware this thread exists and will be making notes in my master copy of UM for future errata, but right now we're getting the Beginner Box out the door so I haven't had time to reply to any of this.
As evidenced by this thread your loyal army of nerds are your best proofreaders. I have no doubt that if you use this thread you'll have every "i" dotted and "t" crossed in short order.
Why shouldn't it be titled ultimate magic?Partially being sarcastic, but "Ultimate Wizard with a Little Other Magic Thrown in" is more appropriate.
What, are you suggesting that sorcerers should get anything good? That's crazy talk! =p
|
FYI I'm aware this thread exists and will be making notes in my master copy of UM for future errata, but right now we're getting the Beginner Box out the door so I haven't had time to reply to any of this.
Ok, so we can expect solutions for all/most of these, then? Thanks, Sean - you guys keep up the good work... I'm just surprised that this many mistakes slipped past - some of them seem pretty major. :( This is the sort of Book of Awesomeness that one would hope and expect it not to have such blaring misfortunes. That said, I will be very happy to see some errata for it - there are some portions of content that I simply cannot live without knowing it all. Rakshasa Bloodline, to name the obvious. ;)
-will
A beta game is different from a preview. A preview (of the book) is a showing of what the book is. Just like a preview of a movie shows what a movie is, and when it turns out completely different mood/theme/style/genre, people tend to get very angry, (regardless of the movie itself).
This book isn't a completely different mood/theme/style/genre. Some elements were changed. Just as some of the dialogue was changed between the Demo of Dragon Age II and the final release of Dragon Age II (In the demo when asked if Cassandra is afraid Varric will just make it all up, she asks, "Will you?" and he laughs. IN the final version she answers him straight up with a glaring "NO.") Also certain skills were different in the demo than the final version.
As for a movie that changed drastically, check out I am Legend sometime. The "alternate ending" is the original ending shown to test audiences that they changed in the final theatrical version of the film cause they thought Neville dying to save the infected lovers that turned out to be just as intelligent as humans didn't go over as well as them just being mindless monsters. Better yet, for a even bigger difference, read the original book that is about vampires and the whole "I Am Legend" title comes from that Neville is a world-famous vampire hunter that the infected scare their children with the way we scare our children with vampire stories. He's not searching for a cure, he just kills them, very much the villain, not the hero of the movie.
My point is, the cantrips being removed or a spell or class feature being changed between a preview and the final version is pretty normal.... Or did you complain about the changes to the Barbarian between Pathfinder Beta and the published book?
My point is, the cantrips being removed or a spell or class feature being changed between a preview and the final version is pretty normal.... Or did you complain about the changes to the Barbarian between Pathfinder Beta and the published book?
There is a major difference between changing and leaving things out. I am perfectly fine with them making changes. Leaving out the cantrips is fine. However, leaving out the cantrips but still leaving their references in throughout the book is not. I understand mistakes happen, words are misspelled, but if you remove somthing from the book for space reasons, it is editing 101 to make sure you back and remove all the references to that something (I write documentation as part of my job, if I leave references to something that has been deprecated in my documentation, I get busted in the chops for it, because the customer is not happy about hearing about an option that we cut from the product, they want that option, even though they didn't before they read about it).
By a similar note, if you change the name of something, when you change it, it is editing 101 to go back and change all those references to match. For example, if I have a form that has an entry labeled 'Flight Time', and it is decided that it should, instead, be 'Hours Engine Run', then I go back through the documentation searching for references to 'Flight Time' and change it to 'Hours Engine Run'. Again, editing 101. If I don't, I get my chops busted by our clients.
Guess what? Paizo missed some editing 101 things, and they are getting their chops busted for it. Lisa has already posted she is aware and is looking into what happened to make sure it doesn't happen again. The downside of being in a publishing business is you have a LOT of clients, each of whom paid good money for the book, and each of whom is going to ***** and moan about your mistakes. Paizo's a big company, let them take their earned lumps and learn from it. Trying to defend them for basic editing mistakes does them no good, it just alienates other customers. If it keeps happening, then people will stop buying the product. If it is an isolated incident, they will survive a little complaining. Either way, it's Paizo's responsibility.
|
A beta game is different from a preview. A preview (of the book) is a showing of what the book is. Just like a preview of a movie shows what a movie is, and when it turns out completely different mood/theme/style/genre, people tend to get very angry, (regardless of the movie itself).This book isn't a completely different mood/theme/style/genre. Some elements were changed.
My point is, the cantrips being removed or a spell or class feature being changed between a preview and the final version is pretty normal.... Or did you complain about the changes to the Barbarian between Pathfinder Beta and the published book?
My complaints have nothing to do with it. I think it is pretty stupid to call someone sad for being very disappointed with the book for valid reasons. It was presented as something different, and if that is a large reason for purchasing it, and that was changed or left out, that's a good reason to complain.
My complaints have nothing to do with it. I think it is pretty stupid to call someone sad for being very disappointed with the book for valid reasons. It was presented as something different, and if that is a large reason for purchasing it, and that was changed or left out, that's a good reason to complain.A beta game is different from a preview. A preview (of the book) is a showing of what the book is. Just like a preview of a movie shows what a movie is, and when it turns out completely different mood/theme/style/genre, people tend to get very angry, (regardless of the movie itself).This book isn't a completely different mood/theme/style/genre. Some elements were changed.
My point is, the cantrips being removed or a spell or class feature being changed between a preview and the final version is pretty normal.... Or did you complain about the changes to the Barbarian between Pathfinder Beta and the published book?
I didn't call you sad at any point, and mdt's recent post I agree with... not removing the cantrips from the spellbooks was bad editing, however I still say a preview is a idea subject to change.
You know, easy way to fix this. Paizo... don't do previews of your books. Problem solved.
As I said, everything mdt said is valid (although I think he somewhat misunderstood my point... I'm not defending their bad editing in not removing reference to the cantrips, I am defending the removal of the cantrips... somewhat different). Removing the cantrips but leaving them in the spellbook listings was bad editing. However, the removal of the cantrips in the first place, nothing wrong with that. I seriously doubt you bought the book just for the cantrips.
I do somewhat understand where you are coming from, however bad editing aside, a preview is a beta. It's always subject to change.
Geez, I'm going to go thru previews/demos of every computer game I own, see if the screenshots exactly match the final product, and write angry emails and forum posts every time I see something missing from the final products.
I guess I should also do the same for movie trailers.
At least someone understands my point in this.
Geez, I'm going to go thru previews/demos of every computer game I own, see if the screenshots exactly match the final product, and write angry emails and forum posts every time I see something missing from the final products.
I guess I should also do the same for movie trailers.
Did you read mdt's post right?
|
Did you read mdt's post right?Geez, I'm going to go thru previews/demos of every computer game I own, see if the screenshots exactly match the final product, and write angry emails and forum posts every time I see something missing from the final products.
I guess I should also do the same for movie trailers.
I was actually addressing the "OMFG something in previews isn't in the final book refund now or else" side of the discussion.
Really, I'm slowly arriving at conclusion that Paizo fanbase has become a bunch of spoiled brats.
Did you read mdt's post right?Geez, I'm going to go thru previews/demos of every computer game I own, see if the screenshots exactly match the final product, and write angry emails and forum posts every time I see something missing from the final products.
I guess I should also do the same for movie trailers.
I was actually addressing the "OMFG something in previews isn't in the final book refund now or else" side of the discussion.
Really, I'm slowly arriving at conclusion that Paizo fanbase has become a bunch of spoiled brats.
You are insulting people because they are complaining about things which should not be found in a finished book, at least in such amount.
AND, I was right - you didn't read what mdt posted. :D
Moreover, I am sorry, but I feel the quality of the game going down. And I do wonder if the half-ideas of which the book is filled are related to the relase of another magic book shortly thereafter.
|
|
Did you read mdt's post right?Geez, I'm going to go thru previews/demos of every computer game I own, see if the screenshots exactly match the final product, and write angry emails and forum posts every time I see something missing from the final products.
I guess I should also do the same for movie trailers.
I was actually addressing the "OMFG something in previews isn't in the final book refund now or else" side of the discussion.
Really, I'm slowly arriving at conclusion that Paizo fanbase has become a bunch of spoiled brats.
You are inslulting people because complaining of things should not be present in a finished book, at least in such amount.
AND, I was right - you didn't read what mdt posted. :D
Moreover, I am sorry, but I feel the quality of the game going down. And I do wonder if the half-ideas of which the book is filled are related to the relase of another magic book shortly thereafter.
Sorry, but I'm not inSLUTing anyone. I can go for miles, but calling people sluts isn't something I do lightly.
And yes, English is my second language.
Back on the tangent. Yes, we are a bunch of spoiled brats, because one book that has editing a notch below makes us run around, wave our arms and shout "the quality of the game is going down!".
I fixed my typo.
Now your actual point is...?
The problem is not only related to editing. editing is just a sign of lack of care.
lack of care about mechanics, and editing of THEM can be spotted. This is at least my point of view.
In addition, seeing APG, I feel that Paizo fixing 25% of this stuff will be a great success. With APG this can be acceptable, with this book is not.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
p. 217 Distressing Tone - This spell has a casting time listed as 2 standard actions. What exactly does this mean? There are definitions for casting times of 1 standard action, 1 full round, and more than 1 round, but I have never seen a 2 standard action casting time before. So, can you take a move action, then use your standard action to start casting, then next round take your 2nd standard action to finish and then take a move action afterwards in round 2? Are you casting between your 2 standard actions and therefore can be interrupted like a 1 round casting time? Can you take your move actions inbetween the 2 standard actions?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
p. 220 Fleshworm Infestation - this spell has a preparation time of 40 minutes listed in the stat block. What exactly does the preparation time in the stat block mean? Is this done when preparing spells? Does it need to be done immediately before casting this spell?
Did you read mdt's post right?Geez, I'm going to go thru previews/demos of every computer game I own, see if the screenshots exactly match the final product, and write angry emails and forum posts every time I see something missing from the final products.
I guess I should also do the same for movie trailers.
I was actually addressing the "OMFG something in previews isn't in the final book refund now or else" side of the discussion.
Really, I'm slowly arriving at conclusion that Paizo fanbase has become a bunch of spoiled brats.
You are insulting people because they are complaining about things which should not be found in a finished book, at least in such amount.
AND, I was right - you didn't read what mdt posted. :D
Moreover, I am sorry, but I feel the quality of the game going down. And I do wonder if the half-ideas of which the book is filled are related to the relase of another magic book shortly thereafter.
mdt's post is about mistakes and editing errors. It has nothing to do with things that were in the preview being left out in the final version (if his intent was to include that, he still didn't). Gorbacz and I are talking about things left out that may or may not have been in preview material, not editing errors. Again, there is a difference between an editing error and something left out on purpose that was in a preview.
p. 220 Fleshworm Infestation - this spell has a preparation time of 40 minutes listed in the stat block. What exactly does the preparation time in the stat block mean? Is this done when preparing spells? Does it need to be done immediately before casting this spell?
Quick answer for this is: the outline for the book had a section on "spells that are harmful to the caster when cast, but have a better effect than other spells of that level." It ended up being a subsystem with additional parameters for preparing and casting those spells. Unfortunately, in execution, it ended up being "spells that are really gross, which happen to harm you when you cast them," and we weren't satisfied with that outcome, so we changed them into regular spells. The preparation time entry for the fleshworm infestation spell is a legacy of the original turnover--we missed that line when cutting out all the now-abandoned subsystem stuff. You can ignore it for the printed version of the spell (likewise for any other spell that mentions preparation time).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
p. 230 Overwhelming Grief and Overwhelming Presense - both of these spells list a duration of "1 rd/level", but Oppresive Boredom lists "1 rd/level or until broken", even though all three have the same save eacg round until you break the effect mechanic. For consistency sake, they should all be the same (though Overwhelming Presense could have "...or until broken + 1d4 rounds" or something to that effect.
The Mad Monkeys spell has the monkeys using Wisdom modifier + caster level for the monkey's CMB if the spell is cast by an Oracle.
The two problems with that: Oracles use Charisma and Mad Monkeys is not a cleric spell.
|
Quick answer for this is: the outline for the book had a section on "spells that are harmful to the caster when cast, but have a better effect than other spells of that level." It ended up being a subsystem with additional parameters for preparing and casting those spells. Unfortunately, in execution, it ended up being "spells that are really gross, which happen to harm you when you cast them," and we weren't satisfied with that outcome, so we changed them into regular spells. The preparation time entry for the fleshworm infestation spell is a legacy of the original turnover--we missed that line when cutting out all the now-abandoned subsystem stuff. You can ignore it for the printed version of the spell
Sean, any chance you guys are going to update the PDF with all these changes people are picking up?
Quick answer for this is: the outline for the book had a section on "spells that are harmful to the caster when cast, but have a better effect than other spells of that level." It ended up being a subsystem with additional parameters for preparing and casting those spells. Unfortunately, in execution, it ended up being "spells that are really gross, which happen to harm you when you cast them," and we weren't satisfied with that outcome, so we changed them into regular spells. The preparation time entry for the fleshworm infestation spell is a legacy of the original turnover--we missed that line when cutting out all the now-abandoned subsystem stuff. You can ignore it for the printed version of the spellSean, any chance you guys are going to update the PDF with all these changes people are picking up?
When the errata comes out, the .pdf gets updated, and those that bought the .pdf (either just the .pdf or got it via subscription) can download the new .pdf.
Page 122:
Book of Harms lists Elemental Touch as a 1st level spell. Its actually a 2nd level spell.
This is not an error. The Book of Harms has a special version of Elemental Touch as a 1st level spell. It also has a 3.0 version of haste and a 5th level wish spell with no costly material component. Because Paizo thought wizards were too weak.
|
|
When the errata comes out, the .pdf gets updated, and those that bought the .pdf (either just the .pdf or got it via subscription) can download the new .pdf.
Yes. My question was really "do you plan to release an errata".
If you look in the Errata section the only ones being Errata'ed are the PRPG line (core, apg, bestiary, etc.) UM seems to be in that family so I was asking SKR if they planned to keep up with the tradition thus far...
I'm not Vic or Lisa, but IMO the best way to sum up our reprint policy is: "If a book sells out of its print run, and we have a reasonable expectation that reprinting it would continue to sell well, we'll reprint it." There are exceptions (for example, we didn't reprint the 3.5 campaign setting when it sold out because we knew the Inner Sea World Guide for the PFRPG was coming soon), but that's pretty much how it works out.
So far, all of our core rulebooks have sold well and we've gone to at least a second print run. We expect UM will be the same. And as the time for the UM reprint approaches, we'll compile all of this information into an update PDF (like we've done for the other hardcover rulebooks) and revise the UM PDF for everyone who bought it.
The Words of Power polymorph spell Bestial Form allows the target to gain the abilities Grab and/or Trip. However, it doesn't say which attacks those abilities might apply to. Any attack? Every attack? Natural attacks only?
Similarly, the spell Monstrous Form allows the target to gain the Constrict ability, but doesn't say which attacks it might apply to or how much constriction damage is done. (Even if one assumes that the base damage is the same as the Grab attack, Constrict sometimes adds x0.5 Str mod, sometimes x1 Str mod and sometimes x1.5 Str mod to damage; there's no consistent rule.)
On a broader note, it's unclear if the polymorph subschool boilerplate is supposed to apply to the Words of Power polymorph spells. For instance, all polymorph spells allow you to "gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature" that you're polymorphing into, but the spell Altered Form doesn't say if you can polymorph into a type of creature (and thus gain the natural attacks of that creature) or not.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not Vic or Lisa, but IMO the best way to sum up our reprint policy is: "If a book sells out of its print run, and we have a reasonable expectation that reprinting it would continue to sell well, we'll reprint it." There are exceptions (for example, we didn't reprint the 3.5 campaign setting when it sold out because we knew the Inner Sea World Guide for the PFRPG was coming soon), but that's pretty much how it works out.
So far, all of our core rulebooks have sold well and we've gone to at least a second print run. We expect UM will be the same. And as the time for the UM reprint approaches, we'll compile all of this information into an update PDF (like we've done for the other hardcover rulebooks) and revise the UM PDF for everyone who bought it.
Would it be unreasonable to expect that when a decision is made not to reprint a book that the PDF will get a final errata/update? After all, I believe you continue to sell the PDF even if the book itself is not reprinted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be unreasonable to expect that when a decision is made not to reprint a book that the PDF will get a final errata/update? After all, I believe you continue to sell the PDF even if the book itself is not reprinted.
If it were up to me, at that point we'd address all remaining issues in some way, whether an update document or the FAQ.
I wonder if we'll get a comprehensive Errata book, detailing the errata related to the Core, APG, Bestiaries, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat when it goes out, and the other books, since it's a book solely for errata.
Yeah, you sit there and wait for that lol
Yeah, you sit there and wait for that lolI don't think it's likely, but I do think it would be nice. Nor will I just sit and wait for it, expecting it to happen. It would be a pleasant surprise, but I'm not exactly expecting it.
Even if they just make a pdf version and not a print version, that would be nice.
FAQ/Errata will come when Paizo is done releasing product.
FAQ/Errata will come when Paizo is done releasing product.
And after they turn off the lights....
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
p. 247 Vermin Shape spells. This isn't quite an erratum, but I'm not sure where else to put this. Why isn't there a Vermin Shape III and IV spell in UM? I would think a caster would just as likely want to become a Huge or Gargantuan scorpion or spider as a giant or magical beast. Also, being able to transform into a diminutive or fine vermin is a pretty classic way to hide. In traditional battles of shape changing, turning into a common fly is part of the routine. Were they cut for space or is there another reason?
|
|
I think this has been mentioned, but I was hoping for some errata/clarifications on the Construct Armor modification on page 114-115.
-It says that "any attacks directed at the wearer first target the construct", but why then does the armor act as a breastplate for determining my AC and Dex mod to AC. If all attacks target the construct, why does my AC matter? Shouldn't it use its AC? Or do attacks against me use my AC (plus Dex, etc.) as though I am wearing a breastplate but deal damage to the construct?
-When the construct is destroyed, I "lose all benefits", but "regains all hindrances until the armor is removed". What are these benefits and hindrances? Should that say "retains" instead of "regains"? Are these benefits simply the breastplate level AC bonus and the hindrances the armor check and spell failure penalties?
-Do I get the DR that the construct has while wearing it? Or rather, since attack target it, does it retain its DR? The same goes for if it has magic immunity.
-Does that armor affect my speed?
-Can I use the natural weapons or special attacks my construct posses? The Construct Limb allows the use of these things, I don't see why the armor would not, provided I use my actions to use them.
Thanks Paizo, love this product! So much great stuff!
p.40: shark shaman, totemic summons
the shark shaman's totemic summons ability says it applies when summoning sharks and rays, but i don't see anyplace that says druids (or shark shamans) can summon rays, at all.
it doesn't appear to be anywhere i can find in the core rulebook, errata, bestiary 2, or ultimate magic. am i just missing it?
the shark shaman's totemic summons ability says it applies when summoning sharks and rays, but i don't see anyplace that says druids (or shark shamans) can summon rays, at all.
That`s not Errata, it`s forward-thinking. There`s only so many variants of Sharks they can do, and most of them will hardly present any new capabilities, rather than just `scaling` the Shark to size/CR. But even though they haven`t done any yet (BECAUSE they haven`t done any yet), there is plenty of `space` to do some various types of Rays, with different capacities like Stings. Most of the Animal Shamans all have a range of creatures they have affinity to, and this is just Paizo`s way of allowing the Shark Shaman the same (albeit, when they get around to publishing some Rays)
But even though they haven`t done any yet (BECAUSE they haven`t done any yet), there is plenty of `space` to do some various types of Rays in the future.
they've already done manta rays and stingrays in the beastiary 2 ... the piece that i'm missing is the part that says that they can be summoned via summon nature's ally (or any spell) and at what levels. it is errata when they don't close the gap between the creature and the spell, yet say the creature is treated differently with the spell... the eagle shaman from the advanced player's guide can summon a giant eagle that isn't on the spell list, but the class ability description says it is summoned on the summon IV list. that same info is needed for rays.
But it`s not an Error just because there aren`t any such spells published yet.
It`s not such a stretch to write up some alternate Summons list yourself based on CR and abilities, and `research` them, and the Archetype is ready to use them.
SKR has specifically commented on other abilities which don`t have any EXISTING material to plug into, and it`s the same story: forward-thinking.
Asking WHEN they might plan to do some more Summons lists, etc, is a valid question, I just don`t think it belongs in an Errata thread.
But it`s not an Error just because there aren`t any such spells published yet.
It`s not such a stretch to write up some alternate Summons list yourself based on CR and abilities, and `research` them, and the Archetype is ready to use them.
SKR has specifically commented on other abilities which don`t have any EXISTING material to plug into, and it`s the same story: forward-thinking.
Asking WHEN they might plan to do some more Summons lists, etc, is a valid question, I just don`t think it belongs in an Errata thread.
Yeah, but a future book having an updated list would be nice, like Ultimate Magic has the most up to date Familiars and Improved Familiars list.
|
ProfPotts wrote:
Could we possibly hope for expanded Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally lists in this one? Or, at least, some rules / guidelines for creating custom lists?Nope. That's not a direction we wish to go with Pathfinder's summon monster spells.
What you'll be seeing instead are NEW spells that allow for more specialized summons.
We're not interested in bloating the summon monster spell lists and creating option paralysis in play with constantly evolving and changing summon monster lists.
(From the Bestiary 3 thread)
So... unless any new Summoning spells are called out as 'backwards compatable' with the various Totemic Summons class features it seems the Druid archetypes may well be out of luck...
Or you could...you know...create your own!
Or you could...you know...create your own!
AWESOME idea! You know what? I will do EVERYTHING by myslef, saving money intead of wasting them on incomplete books.
Sean - it would be reasonable to assume that we won't see an Errata document or update in the next 1-2 weeks, yes?
We put together a compiled updates document when we're ready to reprint the book. That probably won't happen for a little while, as we've gotten better at estimating our print runs (so they don't sell out so quickly). However, Jason, Stephen, and I are going to address these issues ASAP with the FAQ system (and perhaps with some other improvements, more info on that later).