The more I read through the core rulebook the more I am convince that they need a better editor reviewing the rule books. granted I have not moved on to other books, but the core rulebook really could have benefited from some 'clearer passages'.
The frustrating part is that I love the rules as I grasp the understanding of them, but it need not be so confusing and vague in many parts. I hope this gets better as I read more material from the Pathfinder system.
The core should be pretty clear by now, what printing do you have? Also you can always come to these forums fr clarification or check the FAQ, as long as your GM isn't a Rules Lawyer that hates errata like mine... Ultimate Magic scares me to think of him enforcing the typos in that book as verbatim RAW.
|
The core should be pretty clear by now, what printing do you have? Also you can always come to these forums fr clarification or check the FAQ, as long as your GM isn't a Rules Lawyer that hates errata like mine... Ultimate Magic scares me to think of him enforcing the typos in that book as verbatim RAW.
Oh, so your GM will allow Antagonize as written? Lucky you. :)
The core should be pretty clear by now, what printing do you have? Also you can always come to these forums fr clarification or check the FAQ, as long as your GM isn't a Rules Lawyer that hates errata like mine... Ultimate Magic scares me to think of him enforcing the typos in that book as verbatim RAW.Oh, so your GM will allow Antagonize as written? Lucky you. :)
Not sure, if it was so highly broken he'd either not allow it or house rule his own changes to it, but using any errata he won't. Part of it I think is laziness in keeping up with errata, he just doesn't want to deal with any of it, and then sometimes he doesn't agree with the changes made, but players will be like, "But it's official errata!" so he just ignores all errata... at least I think that's how I understand his reasons... He's really a very reasonable GM other than this.
Maybe you should just ask him why he doesn't like errata?
On the other hand, enjoy your Spring Attack - Greater Vital Strike fighter.
And your "double damage on every attack against Team Ugly" Smite Evil.Maybe you should just ask him why he doesn't like errata?
On the other hand, enjoy your Spring Attack - Greater Vital Strike fighter.
Come to think of it, the final Core Rulebook is basically just the compiled errata of the Beta, so you guys should be using the public Beta rules. Remember, Universalist Wizard > all.
I keep hearing that a few DMs don't use/like errata, i have to say i never understood that, 99% of the times the errata helps to make the game better than it was.
Anyway i might be influenced by a year and a half playing exalted, where you HAD to use the errata because otherwise the game was going to be pretty ugly.
|
I will tell you why I dislike errata.
-That is something that should be done by the devs before the product is released. I'm paying for your boopk why the hell should I be the one to learn and fix what they made as a mistake in the first place.
-Second while I'm not a lazy DM I have enough on my plate without having to relearn what has or has not been changesd with the errata.
-Third after having gone through errata with 4E alot of times it's not so much something needing errata so much as a very very vocal minority crying out to the devs that spell, feat, ability is "broken" or "too powerful" or it gives a "bonus higher than +1" or that it lasts "more than an hour" etc. So more often than not something that is useful ends up being nerfed to utter uselessness. So I do not see as either a DM wh I should saddle my player with a useless option for a character or why as a player I should take something that is nerfed after an errata ruling.
|
|
I will tell you why I dislike errata.
-That is something that should be done by the devs before the product is released. I'm paying for your boopk why the hell should I be the one to learn and fix what they made as a mistake in the first place.
-Second while I'm not a lazy DM I have enough on my plate without having to relearn what has or has not been changesd with the errata.
-Third after having gone through errata with 4E alot of times it's not so much something needing errata so much as a very very vocal minority crying out to the devs that spell, feat, ability is "broken" or "too powerful" or it gives a "bonus higher than +1" or that it lasts "more than an hour" etc. So more often than not something that is useful ends up being nerfed to utter uselessness. So I do not see as either a DM wh I should saddle my player with a useless option for a character or why as a player I should take something that is nerfed after an errata ruling.
All books have mistakes, including academic textbooks. You just don't see the errors in fiction and prose as much due to them not having numbers, tables and such.
4E erratas are actually "stealth updates"
PF erratas aren't, with the sole exception of Paladin smite change and some other tiny things.
|
|
All books have mistakes, including academic textbooks. You just don't see the errors in fiction and prose as much due to them not having numbers, tables and such.
BS. All it takes it proper editing. I'm not saying that mistakes never happen. Just don't feed me "well you know everything else has mistake so it's okay" line. Why do you think people still refer to Mongoose not only for their games but moslty for their poor editing in their books. I know with Paizo at least it will not be a recurring thing. At least I hope it won't
4E erratas are actually "stealth updates"PF erratas aren't, with the sole exception of Paladin smite change and some other tiny things.
I respectfulyl disagree. 4E erratas are not stealth updates. I have kept with the original rules without the errata because in some cases some of the powers that were worth taking are no longer with the errata. Take for example Dual Strike. You could strike one creature with two weeapons. After the errata you can still use two weapons yet now have to target two creatures. One creature each weapon. Why was it changed because a very vocal minority felt it made the fighter too much like the 4E ranger. When the 4e ranger has more going for him than just attacking with two weapons.
I refuse to believe that one company would make so many mistakes. Unfortunately their listeing to much to the fanbase that the errata will never end until all the great stuff from the rules gets nerfed out of existence. And don't say that does not happen because when Paizo was playtesting you have a very vocal monority that shouted down anyone who wanted any major changes during the playtest of the core rules
Where can I find the errata?
BS. All it takes it proper editing. I'm not saying that mistakes never happen. Just don't feed me "well you know everything else has mistake so it's okay" line.
Where can I find the errata?
Go to the page for the book (such as the Core Rulebook), if there is errata there are links on its page that say "o update First Printing to Fourth Printing: Errata for Core Rulebook First Printing v1.2" and so on.
Go to the page for the book (such as the Core Rulebook), if there is errata there are links on its page that say "o update First Printing to Fourth Printing: Errata for Core Rulebook First Printing v1.2" and so on.
Thank you very much!
I think that Paizo did a great job editing their core rulebook. Reading the original poster's comments though makes me think he is more complaining about "clarity of the writing" rather than what I would consider straight editing, so I think his thread title may be a little confusing. "Clearer passages" is more of a writing style thing and is more difficult to edit (or even have two people agree on).
Overall I am very happy with Paizo's editing (except the APG sadly, certain contributors may benefit from reading SKR's essay about grammar and spell checking on that one).
Having spent the last 5 months working on the Beginner Box, I agree that in general, much of the Core Rulebook is overly wordy and could be written in a more clear and concise manner.
Why not lottery 100 volunteer subsribers that will receive a "ready to print" pdf version and give them 5 days to find errors and report back. With as quickly as the UM errors cropped up on the forums (and this was only from subscribers who had access on ship day) this would seem to clear out quite a bit more than an extra editing pass at paizo hq. Also, these people will be reading it from the perspective of players and dm's not developers or editors. So things which may seem clear to you may be exposed as fuzzy, and the "wow cool!" factor would catch stuff that an editing pass would not like, "oh, there is a reference to a cantrip not in the book." Or, "Oh, there is a reference to feat not in the book."
With IP security being a possible concern, ask volunteers to sign an NDA, and if they post info about the product on paizo's forums then they would be disqualified from furture lotteries.
Max time you add in this process is a week to 10 days. With paizo's soft launch dates this wouldn't seem to be a deal breaker.
Having spent the last 5 months working on the Beginner Box, I agree that in general, much of the Core Rulebook is overly wordy and could be written in a more clear and concise manner.
THANK YOU!!! (Maybe not wordy enough in some cases)
EDIT: Let me give you a simple example, if you have NEVER played pathfinder, and you have the core rulebook....tell me, what dice do you roll to determine initiative and what page tells you that important information?
Creative Director
|
Why not lottery 100 volunteer subsribers that will receive a "ready to print" pdf version and give them 5 days to find errors and report back. With as quickly as the UM errors cropped up on the forums (and this was only from subscribers who had access on ship day) this would seem to clear out quite a bit more than an extra editing pass at paizo hq. Also, these people will be reading it from the perspective of players and dm's not developers or editors. So things which may seem clear to you may be exposed as fuzzy, and the "wow cool!" factor would catch stuff that an editing pass would not like, "oh, there is a reference to a cantrip not in the book." Or, "Oh, there is a reference to feat not in the book."
With IP security being a possible concern, ask volunteers to sign an NDA, and if they post info about the product on paizo's forums then they would be disqualified from furture lotteries.
Max time you add in this process is a week to 10 days. With paizo's soft launch dates this wouldn't seem to be a deal breaker.
Because of the law of diminishing returns. If it takes us, say, 10 days to edit a product so that it's 99.9% accurate, spending another 10 days to make it 99.99 or even 100% accurate isn't really a good use of time if we can spend that 10 days making a SECOND product 99.9% accurate.
Furthermore, a lottery/open call for volunteer editors would be so complex and inefficient a process that it'd cause a lot more problems with our schedule and product lines than it would help, alas. I appreciate the passion and the eagerness to help out... but the truth is that we don't have "soft launch" dates. The dates we have to get products to the printer are anything but.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Let me give you a simple example, if you have NEVER played pathfinder, and you have the core rulebook....tell me, what dice do you roll to determine initiative and what page tells you that important information?
Actually, Initiative isn't too hard to find. Start in the appendix. Initiative is on page 178, at the beginning of the combat section. It's a Dexterity check. If you didn't know that an attribute check is on a d20, you'd check in the "common terms" list on page 11. Check is there, and it's spelled out as a d20. The information on initiative is spelled out there, as well., on page 12, at the top of the second column.
James, let me first say that I in no way discount the hard work and effort you guys put into the products you produce. It is clear from the tone of all the Paizoians on the forums that you are superemely proud of the products you produce and company you work for. And, may I say, rightfully so. The fact that you are replying to forum threads at 9:45PM (my guess to your local time) on a Saturday night speaks volumes to your dedication to your product. I don't intend any of this to be personal or attacking in nature, just honest feedback from someone who chooses to spend the little bit a fun money in my budget almost exclusively with Paizo.
Because of the law of diminishing returns.
I don't think you are there yet. With dangling references to features not included in the final print we are not talking about typos or homonyms, we are talking about continuity breakdowns. When an editor intimately familiar with a product reads the print copy straight through from front cover to back cover this is easily missed. But when an outsider who is excited about new features reads this product it is noticed quickly and even efficient.
If it takes us, say, 10 days to edit a product so that it's 99.9% accurate, spending another 10 days to make it 99.99 or even 100% accurate isn't really a good use of time if we can spend that 10 days making a SECOND product 99.9% accurate.
I follow this logic if it is the intention to never go back and correct the product (as I can see in the case of an AP issue, or some of the smaller print books) but with a major hardcover release to say that the 10 days is lost does not work. That 10 days is spent either predicatably today when the book is about to go to press, or in a rush X-hundred days from now when the book is sold out and must go to second print. X-hundred days which pops up outside of a planned schedule, and probably right in the middle of something other project. Also, the 5 days I reccomend that the lottery winners would be editing would be 5 days Paizo staff could be working on that second product.
Furthermore, a lottery/open call for volunteer editors would be so complex and inefficient a process that it'd cause a lot more problems with our schedule and product lines than it would help.
I should have been more clear. I didn't mean an open call type situation. I mean to lottery the positions for the edit amoung current subscribers to the Pathfinder Role-Playing Game Ongoing Subscription. (aka, the people who are seeing advanced copy pdf's anyway) The fact that the users are tagged as such in the forums and that forum accounts are also purchasing accounts leads me to beleive that a randomizing script and queue out 100 users would be a simple thing for your tech team to accomplish.
truth is that we don't have "soft launch" dates. The dates we have to get products to the printer are anything but.
My apologies. This was only my impression, I shouldn't have stated it with certainty. The release schedule of the Bestiary II lead me to beleive that this was the case.
I understand that this idea wouldn't be easy to impliment for the initial use (namely aquiring NDA's if desired), however subsequent uses of the system would be very simple. You have a vast resource available to you in the form of your customers. The average RPer is a pretty smart individual. You guys have the extreme benefit that we love what you do and would be willing to dedicate our brains (for free) to the persuit of a better product with your name on it. Don't dismiss it so easily.
|
Creative Director
|
The release schedule of the Bestiary II lead me to beleive that this was the case.
Interesting choice... since the Bestiary 2 DID miss its ship date to the printer, and as a result we lost a bit of opportunity with that one for holiday sales and a lot of other stuff. It's one of the examples we use in-house, in fact, as a reminder of what we miss out on if we miss a ship date.
In any case... I understand that the average RPer is smart, but that doesn't necessarily translate into "good editor." And without access to the 50+ page in-house style guide we use, he/she can NEVER be as good an editor of Pathfinder products as our in-house editors, more or less... who do a fantastic job, by the way. If we did use freelance editor help, we'd have to double-check every one of their suggested changes as a result, which would take a lot longer than putting changes in from an in-house editor.
Put another way... Paizo's close to 10 years old. If freelance editors and the like were a viable option, we would have tried it by now.
|
Overall I am very happy with Paizo's editing (*except the APG sadly, certain contributors may benefit from reading SKR's essay about grammar and spell checking on that one).
+1
*Emphasis mine.
This is exactly why I am now waiting on the second printing of any "High Crunch" books. The 1st printing of the APG was inexcusable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, you just have to understand, this is gaming. Products don't get a crew of 100 people on them. They just don't. And "editors" often don't know the rules crunch well. They might catch a missing period or other grammatical mistake, but they won't know the spell refers to a feat name that has changed. Once the manuscript gets from the author to the developer and to the editor, it is likely not getting any gamer or number review.
Paizo makes great books. The best in the biz (other that Wizards and for my money better). BUT this is gaming. A book for gaming just doesnt have the time or budget or manpower of other books that are published. It is just true and you just have to accept it. There are too few people and too many products and too tight of deadlines. Plus, RPG products are on tight deadlines and that means your time looking over the galley proofs you get back from layout is also very short. You are always pushing to make deadlines. It is real hard when you miss them. Particularly for products that are hard release products--the adventure path monthly mag, that can't be late; the book that has to be out for PaizoCon or GenCon, that can't be late. Its just a real world reality. And don't forget that editing also presume tons of time to do it. You don't have that in gaming.
And there just is not the amount of playtesting of a game product that is needed. The sole exception pretty much in the history of the game industry being the original Pathfinder core rules. That thing was alpha'd, beta'd, posted, reviewed, posted on these boards, etc., for a long time and there were STILL mistakes in that manuscript. I hope that proves my point.
Paizo is as perfect as it gets. So instead of complaining about it, help compile the errata. And if you don't want errata, don't game.
Not being defensive, not saying you aren't right to find mistakes. But the "I'm paying for it so it has to be perfect" is just simply never going to happen in gaming. It NEVER has and never will. There is not now, never has been and never will be a perfectly edited, error free gaming book. You are expecting something that will never occur. So just accept it and help the process.
In addition to the realities of lack of staff, time and resources in the game industry, gaming books are compounded by the problem that they aren't just fluff (which is easier to edit) they have lots of crunch. And that stuff is nearly impossible to edit.
Now, some companies try to trick everyone into believing their products are perfect and not compiling errata, as if by not compiling it they have no mistakes. Paizo does the opposite, which shows their level of goodwill and obligation to the gaming community--they actively compile and encourage the compiling of errata.
There is an acceptable error rate in a book and Paizo is within that error rate. It simply doesn't justify the time, delay and cost to do it differently. And let's not forget post-turnover tweaking by developers at the last minute to make the proper page layout. That adds in new cuts which mean new mistakes even if the author did it right and the first editorial pass had it perfect.
So please, acknowledge that Paizo does the best in the business by far. They are as committed as you to a perfect book and they try to deliver. They just won't because it is impossible to do so. But they care and they want to.
Clark
BS. All it takes it proper editing. I'm not saying that mistakes never happen. Just don't feed me "well you know everything else has mistake so it's okay" line. Why do you think people still refer to Mongoose not only for their games but moslty for their poor editing in their books. I know with Paizo at least it will not be a recurring thing. At least I hope it won't.
G, see my post above. Without wading into the 4E issue, just focusing on editing, I encourage you to read my post above and reconsider your view on this. "All it takes is proper editing" is just not correct. The idea that "one good edit would have caught this" is a myth, largely in that it doesnt understand the entire process of publishing a game book.
They say that those who love the law and who love sausages should not see either being made. (that is true, by the way).
A corollary could perhaps be those who love games (or game materials) should not see them being written. Do you realize nearly all written adventures were not ever played by the authors before being published? They were just written. Many (if not all) game supplements with rules, classes, feats, etc, were designed but never used in a game before being published? Game publishing relies on knowledgeable designers and authors and developers who know the game because they don't actually get to test the stuff out at the table. Luckily, Paizo has the best. And last minute revisions, even in the layout phase, are always done. So there is not actually this magical time where one final perfect edit can be done to clean up the mistakes even on a perfectly submitted manuscript (which is itself a myth) due to the chaotic pace of turnover on RPG products. RPG products are like magazines, except without the huge buidlings and tons of staffers and circulation numbers that justify such staff.
I appreciate your passion. But having been there, I can tell you its not a reality. I'm not saying accept sloppiness (which I think is what you were saying you won't accept, and I agree). I will never say that. And Paizo is not sloppy. Paizo cares about the gamer. Paizo is not just trying to make a buck. They love these books as much as you do. I think you know that.
So, bottom line: I agree with you, don't accept sloppy just because others are; but the myth of the ability to do a perfect final edit is just that.
Damn! I'm stuck with doing the continuity stuff again. The following post is being made by Smagnavast the Black, giving the unique perspective and wisdom of a very large, very bad, dragon on the principle topic of this thread.
Yes, well, there have been a number of interesting exchanges on this thread, but to drop by with the perspective of a large - particularly magnificent - dragon on this business, if one of my minions tries to fob me off with 'I didn't have time to finish it properly, boss', then I generally eat him, her or it. Occasionally, if it's an otherwise usually competent minion, I take it out on their friends or relatives instead and point out to the minion in question: 'Well you should have started it sooner then.'
Fah! If there were a dragon running Paizo, there'd soon be a lot fewer mistakes or a much higher staff turnover...
Aaaand thank-you Smagnavast. We now return you to your regular debate.
Actually, Initiative isn't too hard to find. Start in the appendix. Initiative is on page 178, at the beginning of the combat section. It's a Dexterity check. If you didn't know that an attribute check is on a d20, you'd check in the "common terms" list on page 11. Check is there, and it's spelled out as a d20. The information on initiative is spelled out there, as well., on page 12, at the top of the second column.
Let me give you a simple example, if you have NEVER played pathfinder, and you have the core rulebook....tell me, what dice do you roll to determine initiative and what page tells you that important information?
So for a brand new player you don't think this is a bit confusing to piece together? And this is the FIRST roll of combat...so much easier if it said this on pg 178:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative
check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each
character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to a 1d20 roll,
as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other
effects.
I started playing pathfinder rolling a 1d6 for initiative until we got a former 3.5 player in the group who suggested that it might be a 1d20. We had no idea!
|
|
Actually, Initiative isn't too hard to find. Start in the appendix. Initiative is on page 178, at the beginning of the combat section. It's a Dexterity check. If you didn't know that an attribute check is on a d20, you'd check in the "common terms" list on page 11. Check is there, and it's spelled out as a d20. The information on initiative is spelled out there, as well., on page 12, at the top of the second column.
Let me give you a simple example, if you have NEVER played pathfinder, and you have the core rulebook....tell me, what dice do you roll to determine initiative and what page tells you that important information?So for a brand new player you don't think this is a bit confusing to piece together? And this is the FIRST roll of combat...so much easier if it said this on pg 178:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative
check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each
character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to a 1d20 roll,
as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other
effects.I started playing pathfinder rolling a 1d6 for initiative until we got a former 3.5 player in the group who suggested that it might be a 1d20. We had no idea!
Actually, in the Getting Started chapter, you are given the definition of a "check":
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws.
|
It also has this passage.
Whenever a roll is required, the roll is noted as “d#,” with the “#” representing the number of sides on the die. If you need to roll multiple dice of the same type, there will be a number before the “d.” For example, if you are required to roll 4d6, you should roll four six-sided dice and add the results together. Sometimes there will be a + or – after the notation, meaning that you add that number to, or subtract it from, the total results of the dice (not to each individual die rolled). Most die rolls in the game use a d20 with a number of modifiers based on the character's skills, his or her abilities, and the situation.
So if you skipped the Getting Started chapter, you could be forgiven. But who skips the Getting Started chapter when they're...getting started?
The current system is a product of many factors, but most significantly it is a legacy system.
I am certain there are many, many places where the wording could have been changed to make it more clear. However, each change carries with it a chance of altering the rules, or creating an omission or contradiction. This actually happened in a number of places in the CRB, and so I hardly think that more editing would have fixed it.
I am a proponent of simplifying the rules, but the actual process of simplifying them is anything but simple. Paizo will (one day) need to put a lot of thought into the basic presentation of a second edition, and no amount of tweaking the existing text will bring anything but more pain.
I am a proponent of simplifying the rules, but the actual process of simplifying them is anything but simple. Paizo will (one day) need to put a lot of thought into the basic presentation of a second edition, and no amount of tweaking the existing text will bring anything but more pain.
Totally disagree with this 100 percent. The rules are excellent, they just need to be re-edited for easier understanding...need to include more examples of usage in the text as well. I don't think the complexity is an issue as you suggest, just the writing style/syntax.
Actually, in the Getting Started chapter, you are given the definition of a "check":Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws.
Yes, but for a new player it would help to have this reiterated in the combat rules (and other rules sections as well). Repetition is the key to learning. And this sytem is very complex and could benefit from more repetition in the writing (friendly reminders as it were) as well as from more usage examples included in the text.
our in-house editors, more or less... who do a fantastic job, by the way.
I disagree, I would say they do an adequate job...but not a 'fantastic' job.
Paizo makes great books. The best in the biz (other that Wizards and for my money better).
Steve Jacksons Gurps series are pretty darn good.
Just to clarify: in my last post, I did not intend to imply that the rules themselves would change, merely their organization and presentation.
Just to clarify: in my last post, I did not intend to imply that the rules themselves would change, merely their organization and presentation.
Then we agree! The organization is pretty good for me, but the presentation (syntax of the text) is where it needs work. Paizo needs to track forum questions by newbies like me and use that to create clearer passages for a new version of the Core Rulebook. Also including more examples in the text of how to use certain rules and including cross references...for example in the combat section under Initiative, include a reference to a 'CHECK' in the glossary so that we know that initiative is considered a 'CHECK' requiring a d20 roll.
The game has been out long enough that they should be able to release a new MUCH CLEARER version of the core rulebook and make all of us much happier in doing so...including new players just learning the system.
Actually, Initiative isn't too hard to find. Start in the appendix. Initiative is on page 178, at the beginning of the combat section. It's a Dexterity check. If you didn't know that an attribute check is on a d20, you'd check in the "common terms" list on page 11. Check is there, and it's spelled out as a d20. The information on initiative is spelled out there, as well., on page 12, at the top of the second column.So for a brand new player you don't think this is a bit confusing to piece together? And this is the FIRST roll of combat...so much easier if it said this on pg 178:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative
check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each
character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to a 1d20 roll,
as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other
effects.I started playing pathfinder rolling a 1d6 for initiative until we got a former 3.5 player in the group who suggested that it might be a 1d20. We had no idea!
Your basic argument seems to be that you didn't read the book for a game you wanted to play. At all. You know the first two places I look if I need information from a gaming book? Table of contents and index. You didn't bother looking up "initiative" in the index, made up some random piece of data to fit what you were missing, and then blame Paizo for making it too hard on you?
Yes, but for a new player it would help to have this reiterated in the combat rules (and other rules sections as well). Repetition is the key to learning.
Completely infeasible. PF books frequently have good and interesting material cut from them for space. There is no room for repeating data.
Your basic argument seems to be that you didn't read the book for a game you wanted to play. At all. You know the first two places I look if I need information from a gaming book? Table of contents and index. You didn't bother looking up "initiative" in the index, made up some random piece of data to fit what you were missing, and then blame Paizo for making it too hard on you?
WRONG! I just didn't put together the fact that EVERYTHING is a d20 "CHECK" until later. Notice that the definition of CHECK does NOT include Initiative or Attribute in its definition:
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be
modified by another value. The most common types are
attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws.
Newbie = Unclear!
Completely infeasible. PF books frequently have good and interesting material cut from them for space. There is no room for repeating data.
Complete BOLOGNA! I don't buy this argument.
I begin to believe you will not buy any argument except your own.
Not true. I think that we may get a total of 8 new pages if some of the rules were clarified...and that may be an extreme estimate as some of the passages might be the same size with different syntax. What would add page count is more examples and cross referencing, but I can't see how 8 pages would be a disaster to paizo or the customers. Even 20 more pages??? Is that a huge deal? Maybe this is why the 3.5 had a players handbook and a dungeon masters guide? I dont know, but I would gladly welcome a few additional pages to help me and my group learn the game faster and with fewer debates around the game table as to the application of a specific rule.
I always find it interesting that because one likes something a lot, that that confers the ability to professionally create and distribute it. Funny, how relevant Socrates' thoughts are to this day, eh?
You want to see better editing, cool, move one. But don't try to argue as if you understand what it means to make and distribute a professional product. Not to mention the credentials of the professionals we are talking about, yeesh.
In the meantime, with these forums (incredible resource), errata, and FAQ (here and fan sites). Additionally, some of the 3PPs have offered products which expand/clarify certain specific rules, e.g the Book of Nations.
Cheers!
I think there are two things people need to remember about this, and one thing that has really contributed to people being upset at UM.
A) Criticizing PAIZO is not the same thing as attacking them. Paizo needs to receive critical feedback on their products. Even if it's not presented in a polite way, it is vital for them to have it. So slamming someone for not being happy with a product is not conducive to Paizo continuing in their current popularity. Remember, the biggest thing (IMHO) that led to WoTC's 'fall from grace' is when they got bought and their new lords and masters mandated they stop listening to fans.
B) Just because someone is a fanboi and takes any of your criticisms as a personal affront to their ego, since they are basing their ego on a third party, does not mean you need let them drag you down to their level. Just post your criticisms and don't get into a monkey poop throwing fight with someone who refuses to accept any criticism of their precious.
Now, having pointed out those two things, I will comment on topic. I love the UM, I think it's excellent. I can forgive misspellings, typos, etc. There are, however, a couple of things that simply should not have gotten past editing. A misspelling is fine, that's going to slip by. An odd reaction between two feats, or a new class mechanic and a feat, or a new feat and an old class mechanic, all that requires some playtesting to resolve, and it's perfectly understandable that that would slip through and need an errata.
What I simply cannot just wave off are :
1) Spells missing component lines (This is a basic requirement of the game system itself, it would be like leaving off the Hit Dice or Class Skills on the Magus). This is basic game system design requirements.
2) Spells that were removed still in lists, especially on thigns like Domains (where the spell level is basically missing now, as you don't get a spell now). This is a simple thing to avoid, as all it takes is a final editing pass where you check each spell that was removed from the system and do a search on the document to make sure it's not referenced.
Now, the APG was very well done, and I don't remember either problem 1 or 2 occurring with it. I'm sure spells were cut from the APG as well. So, I can't give Paizo a pass on either one of those. What I can do is accept that they messed up, and they will avoid it in the future. Every other book they've produced that I've owned has avoided such things, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll post I'm not happy about it, so they have valid critical feedback and as Lisa posted, they are looking into what happened to ensure it doesn't happen again. That's good enough for me for now.
If the values begin to drop in future books, I may reconsider my subscription, I hate having books that I have to tape Errata into the back of it. Again though, so far, it's nothing I cant' live with.