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.
I've created a rule for myself: in a book with a spells chapter, develop the spells chapter first.
That's because so many other chapters point at that spells chapter. Get the junk cut out of the spells first, get the names fixed, get everything organized, and get it laid out. Thereafter every class, alternative option, feat, magic item, or whatever is going to point at the finished spells chapter. Because otherwise, you're cross-checking a living document against another living document, and that's guaranteed to cause some mistakes.
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.I've created a rule for myself: in a book with a spells chapter, develop the spells chapter first.
That's because so many other chapters point at that spells chapter. Get the junk cut out of the spells first, get the names fixed, get everything organized, and get it laid out. Thereafter every class, alternative option, feat, magic item, or whatever is going to point at the finished spells chapter. Because otherwise, you're cross-checking a living document against another living document, and that's guaranteed to cause some mistakes.
I have a similar rule in my work. I'm a programmer for a living. One of the first things I do on a new project is set up a naming convention for all tables, programs, and interface names. Otherwise, you end up with 3-4 different people writing their parts, using vastly different naming conventions, and so on, and then at the end when you hand it over to the client you either have to go back through and fix everything to the same standard, or you hand over something that looks like it was written by committee instead of being internally consistent.
I think your solution is a better one, obviously. But it can still be handled prior to publishing by a round of comparison, it just takes much longer than doing it your way. :)
Creative Director
|
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.
Until you get a chance to see some of the raw turnovers they get to sift through and turn into actual language that can be read, or actually understand what it is they do as opposed to what we expect designers and developers do, you're not really in a position to judge them accurately.
Until you get a chance to see some of the raw turnovers they get to sift through and turn into actual language that can be read, or actually understand what it is they do as opposed to what we expect designers and developers do, you're not really in a position to judge them accurately.
Fair enough. But I am in a position to judge the readability of the final product. Maybe it isn't the editors fault, but someone is responsible for allowing text that is not clear to be published. If this issue is corrected your products will be much better. That is the truth.
|
Fair enough. But I am in a position to judge the readability of the final product. Maybe it isn't the editors fault, but someone is responsible for allowing text that is not clear to be published. If this issue is corrected your products will be much better. That is the truth.
Until you get a chance to see some of the raw turnovers they get to sift through and turn into actual language that can be read, or actually understand what it is they do as opposed to what we expect designers and developers do, you're not really in a position to judge them accurately.
So, DGRM44... What are your examples of unclear text in the Core Rulebook?
So, DGRM44... What are your examples of unclear text in the Core Rulebook?
I already posted 1 in this thread...initiative. I can post many more but to do so I will start a new thread on the subject.
|
|
I already posted 1 in this thread...initiative. I can post many more but to do so I will start a new thread on the subject.
So, DGRM44... What are your examples of unclear text in the Core Rulebook?
Please don't confuse you not reading the "Getting Started" chapter with bad editing.
Confusions are bad.
Please don't confuse you not reading the "Getting Started" chapter with bad editing.
Confusions are bad.
I did read Getting Started as I already stated....no where does that chapter say to use d20 when rolling for initiative. In fact the definition of CHECK does not include ability or initiative.
Also, don't assume that all new players are coming from 3.5. I am coming from Gurps and I guess I was a bit spoiled as their writing style was very good.
|
|
I did read Getting Started as I already stated....no where does that chapter say to use d20 when rolling for initiative. In fact the definition of CHECK does not include ability or initiative.
Please don't confuse you not reading the "Getting Started" chapter with bad editing.
Confusions are bad.
From Getting Started:
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.
From Combat, on Initiative:
An initiative check is a Dexterity check.
You have a term "check", and the definition.
I know what is in the book. It is still not clear to inexperienced players. Like I said, I am not coming from 3.5. You shouldn't have to 'look up the defintion of CHECK' to know to roll 1d20 for the initiative check. And if you do, then maybe you should BOLD or Italacize the word CHECK everytime that is the case.
In GURPS they have a whole chapter dedicated to Success Rolls. The mechanics are explained well. No confusion whatsoever!
Personally I think that until a person's posts are completely clear and lacking in errors they should probably hold off on criticizing the editors of a company.
A single error in a week's worth of posting is going to put you above the 1% error rate... so best be very careful.
|
|
I know what is in the book. It is still not clear to inexperienced players. Like I said, I am not coming from 3.5. You shouldn't have to 'look up the defintion of CHECK' to know to roll 1d20 for the initiative check. And if you do, then maybe you should BOLD or Italacize the word CHECK everytime that is the case.
Inexperienced players should start with the Getting Started chapter and take 5 minutes to memorize the basic definitions. And then proceed to jump around the book looking for specifics.
Don't blame the editors for your backwards methodology of learning the rules. :)
Make fun of people which dare considering some ruling not clear.. does it take in consideration very clear rules like the "attack action" mess and the subsequent 1 thread/week about vital strike?
Make fun of people which dare considering some ruling not clear.. does it take in consideration very clear rules like the "attack action" mess and the subsequent 1 thread/week about vital strike?
There is also the morasse that is the 'Add +5 to DC of Magic Item creation for each prerquisite not met' and the thread per week that is generated on whether or not you can bypass the caster level requirements to create a +5 weapon when you are 8th level. This is also something that the devs have avoided like the plague, and none of the FAQ entries have touched.
Again, I'm perfectly fine with things making it through to the final product because someone didn't catch the interactions between things. That does not mean that these things don't need to be cleared up, it just means it's understandable that people missed it in the first place. And I also find it a bit disingenuous to flame at people who post something about finding certain parts of the book unclear in their current state. If the book were perfectly clear, there would be no need for a rules forum or FAQ.
Make fun of people which dare considering some ruling not clear.. does it take in consideration very clear rules like the "attack action" mess and the subsequent 1 thread/week about vital strike?I might understand that, but we're talking about ability checks here. :)
So rather than acknowledge there are issues, you'd rather flame the guy because as a new user of the book he found something confusing that you find trivial?
|
I don' Mind Editing mistakes, they happen but there is one Paizo Policy that does not help with Editing Mistakes.
Not putting out Erratas until they Reprint a book, I can't Stand this Policy, I think it is a terrible one They truly need to stop saying the don't have the time to update a living errata and just do it. Waiting for a reprint in not a good plan and should be stopped. Yes I think it is actually important enough to have to change things around if they have to or Hire more people.
Also they finally need to actually use the FAQ for clearing things up.
They need to use both these and then people wanting to wait for the next print won't be an issue since they know they will get an Errata and FAQ before the next print.
my opinion exactly mdt.
I don't blame Paizo for errors*. I always state that APG, as an example, is like 4 old completes and the A&EG all together. Would be hypocritical by my part not accept errors in that sheer amount of stuff.
This does not mean that unavoidable errors must not be fixed. This is what I expect from a game which is supported.
Oversights, missing parts, OP/UP stuff if really silly must be addressed or:
1) the quality of the book lowers
2) the thing will become progressiveliy a real mess. and will be more difficult to write new rules if the old ones are not clear. I can think to at least an archetype written by someone with a bad grasp on a combat style.
* I nevertheless think that some oversight is weird - an example? Stuns and similar effects with no save. How can be this be just conceived in first place O_o?
|
|
So rather than acknowledge there are issues, you'd rather flame the guy because as a new user of the book he found something confusing that you find trivial?Make fun of people which dare considering some ruling not clear.. does it take in consideration very clear rules like the "attack action" mess and the subsequent 1 thread/week about vital strike?I might understand that, but we're talking about ability checks here. :)
What, you started to read my posts today? Man, what fun have you missed :)
At no point did I state that every rule is perfectly clear. But if the OP has a problem with Initiative rolls and blames it on poor editing, duh.
I think at this point you are just trying to be a difficult person.
I don' Mind Editing mistakes, they happen but there is one Paizo Policy that does not help with Editing Mistakes.
Not putting out Erratas until they Reprint a book, I can't Stand this Policy, I think it is a terrible one They truly need to stop saying the don't have the time to update a living errata and just do it. Waiting for a reprint in not a good plan and should be stopped. Yes I think it is actually important enough to have to change things around if they have to or Hire more people.
Also they finally need to actually use the FAQ for clearing things up.
They need to use both these and then people wanting to wait for the next print won't be an issue since they know they will get an Errata and FAQ before the next print.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YESYES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
|
|
At no point did I state that every rule is perfectly clear. But if the OP has a problem with Initiative rolls and blames it on poor editing, duh.I think at this point you are just trying to be a difficult person.
I don't have to try, I am a difficult person.
However, I am not afraid to use my brain. Sometimes.
my opinion exactly mdt.
I don't blame Paizo for errors*. I always state that APG, as an example, is like 4 old completes and the A&EG all together. Would be hypocritical by my part not accept errors in that sheer amount of stuff.
This does not means that unavoidable errors must not be fixed. This is what I expect from a game which is supported.
Oversights, missing parts, OP/UP stuff if really silly must be addressed or:
1) the quality of the book lowers
2) the thing will become progressiveliy a real mess. and will be more difficult to write new rule if the old ones are not clear. I can think to at least to an archetype written by someone with a bad grasp on a combat style.
* I nevertheless think that some oversight is weird - an example? Stuns and similar effects with no save. How can be this be just conceived in first place O_o?
I will say this. I don't know what my opinion is on making rules changes to the powers of feats etc etc on a faq. I will say that including a FAQ on the website that CLARIFIES what the rules are in the first place would be JUST PLAIN AWESOME!!!
I will say this. I don't know what my opinion is on making rules changes to the powers of feats etc etc on a faq. I will say that including a FAQ on the website that CLARIFIES what the rules are in the first place would be JUST PLAIN AWESOME!!!
There is one, it's on the product pages in the Paizo Store. Find the Core Rule Book, and the FAQ is a tab on that page. Unfortunately, it seems that the powers that be consider it to be of no priority at all. Until and unless consumers push hard for it, it will languish in disuse. If customers want the FAQ to be updated, they'll have to make enough complaints for Paizo to realize that their customers want it. Otherwise, it will never be used, as it doesn't result in income.
EDIT :
And for those new to the forums, if you see a person posting trolling material, just flag it as violating other posting rules (being troll/flame bait) and just don't respond to it. Don't feed the trolls, they always want more.
|
|
I want the devs to clarify what the word "dice" means in the FAQ.Dice
How the heck am I supposed to roll him?
How the heck am I supposed to roll him?I want the devs to clarify what the word "dice" means in the FAQ.Dice
Spike his drink.
I want the devs to clarify what the word "dice" means in the FAQ.
Flash news:
Blind defense* brings to.. nothing. People criticizing the material want not bash Paizo. They are just customer seeking for quality.
Improvements come from criticisms. Being unable to accept them is a very bad sign.
Moreover, at least from my part, is a sign of care. I don't care of other companies because I think that nothing that can be done if not remake the game from the grond.
I support Paizo with my money and criticize what I think is wrong because I think that they are able to do the best. otherwise I would not waste my time.
If the game is not longer suppoerted, OTOH.. good riddance.
And Gorbacz.. seriously. Stop it. Even if the specific question does not fit the topic, the problem does exist. Your are not beneficial in this way.
|
|
I want the devs to clarify what the word "dice" means in the FAQ.Flash news:
Blind defense brings to.. nothing. People criticizing the material want not bash Paizo. They are just customer seeking for quality.
Improvements come from criticisms. Being unable to accept them is a very bad sign.
Moreover, at least from my part, is a sign of care. I don't care of other companies because I think that nothing that can be done if not remake the game from the grond.
I support Paizo with my money and criticize what I think is wrong because I think that they are able to do the best. otherwise I would not waste my time.
If the game is not longer suppoerted, OTOH.. good riddance.
Oh, I do criticize Paizo too. Check my reviews of City of Seven Spears, Memory of Darkness or Adventurer's Armory.
But I'm not calling things "badly edited" without a good reason for it.
Going in circles. Good night.
Awww don't go, you're one of the few people whom I enjoy to spar with!Going in circles. Good night.
That's part of the problem. Some people don't want to spar Gorbacz, especially when you descend to spouting things like the dice comment. That's just snark, not discussion.
|
|
That's part of the problem. Some people don't want to spar Gorbacz, especially when you descend to spouting things like the dice comment. That's just snark, not discussion.Awww don't go, you're one of the few people whom I enjoy to spar with!Going in circles. Good night.
I'll peg this post and come back to you when somebody will ask for pictures of dice in the Core Rulebook. We both know that day will come. :)
And yeah, I'm sometimes too snarky. I apologize. Ever since I've changed my avatar to that Bag of Devouring, I feel an urge to bite people. Dunno why, really.
Unfortunately, it seems that the powers that be consider it to be of no priority at all.
Comments like this mischaracterize what I do at work every damn day. Thanks.
|
|
Unfortunately, it seems that the powers that be consider it to be of no priority at all.Comments like this mischaracterize what I do at work every damn day. Thanks.
Ok, maybe I am reading this wrong? but really? We have a functional FAQ/Errata (Yes I am putting Errata in there) that gets Updated by you everyday?
Answering questions in Threads is not a FAQ it is a Mess that is hard to wade through.
Complaining to Paizo about Bad editing is one thing that does not fit, Mistakes happen things get through.
But accusing Paizo of Not giving us a Functional FAQ or Living Errata is a Valid excuse and a reasonable reason for someone to say they will wait for the next Print.
Don't tell me we have that because we Don't.
I have been hearing Excuses for 4 years now why we still don't have them, and I am tired of them.
Unrelated to your specific comment, but stop telling us why it is not getting Done and Just do it.
Get Rid of your Policy of Only Erratas with Reprints, give us a Living Errata Page/Document and a Functional FAQ and people will stop complaining about Editing and Stop waiting for the next prints.
This goes for the Non Pathfinder RPG books to.
Guys, you just have to understand, this is gaming. Products don't get a crew of 100 people on them. They just don't. [lots of good stuff deleted]
Clark, if that doesn't get people to understand, nothing will.
Unfortunately, it seems that the powers that be consider it to be of no priority at all.Comments like this mischaracterize what I do at work every damn day. Thanks.
Sean, I don't think his comment is meant to disregard what YOU do everyday. I think it meant to point out that the FAQ could be a huge resource to all of us customers. It could include a lot that we could all use. But I am sure we ALL appreciate your work.
|
|
Unfortunately, it seems that the powers that be consider it to be of no priority at all.Comments like this mischaracterize what I do at work every damn day. Thanks.I have been hearing Excuses for 4 years now why we still don't have them, and I am tired of them.
Pathfinder RPG is around since 2007? Or is this one of those convenient hyperboles people use to help their points get across?
|
|
Pathfinder RPG is around since 2007?
They been Making Stuff since 2008, And I have been requesting an FAQ or Errata since then. 2008 - 2011 = 4 years give or take a few months.
Edit: My first post requesting an Errata
And it has been my Only beef against them since.
Unfortunately, it seems that the powers that be consider it to be of no priority at all.Comments like this mischaracterize what I do at work every damn day. Thanks.
I'm confused. Could you explain?
Complaining to Paizo about Bad editing is one thing that does not fit, Mistakes happen things get through.
Dragnmoon, I agree with just about EVERYTHING you have posted in this thread other than this comment. I think the disconnect lies in how you and I define editing. I agree some mistakes will get through, but some things got through that is still not fixed and I think it goes to my definition of 'editing'.
|
|
They been Making Stuff since 2008, And I have been requesting an FAQ or Errata since then. 2008 - 2011 = 4 years give or take a few months.Pathfinder RPG is around since 2007?
Your first post about errata/faq is dated January 26, 2009.
That's 2 years and 4 months.
Never, ever post approximated dates next to a lawyer with too much spare time on Sunday evening.
I'm just saying:
I have a list of high-priority items we need to add to the FAQ.
Jason has seen this list.
We decided to start blogging about them on the Tuesday designer blog.
And got several of them done.
Then Ultimate Magic preview blogs took over the Tuesday design blog the past few weeks.
And we've been working extra hard to get the Beginner Box done (I literally haven't taken a vacation day since New Year's Day, which is the week we started working full-time on the Beginner Box).
So suggesting that I, or anyone else on staff, consider the FAQ system to be "of no priority at all" is false, and assumes that I don't have anything else to do except address the FAQ. Thus, the statement mischaracterizes what I do every damn day. What I do every day is work hard to make good products--and, when there's time, to get significant issues added to the FAQ with the consensus of the design team.
|
|
Your first post about errata/faq is dated January 26, 2009.
That's 2 years and 4 months.
Never, ever post approximated dates next to a lawyer with too much spare time on Sunday evening.
you Missed my Edit
My first post requesting an Errata
And it has been my Only beef against them since.
Sept 2008
|
|
Your first post about errata/faq is dated January 26, 2009.
That's 2 years and 4 months.
Never, ever post approximated dates next to a lawyer with too much spare time on Sunday evening.
you Missed my Edit
My first post requesting an Errata
And it has been my Only beef against them since.
Sept 2008
I stand corrected, that's 2 years and 8 months.
Still a bit far from 4.
And yeah, I'm being anal, but I deal with people exaggerating things to support their (vaild or invalid) claims daily, and I've developed an auto-immune reaction.