Well, for starters, the GM decides. But that probably won't appease you if you're looking at this level of precision.
Can you give us a specific example where the Errata contradict the subsequent printing? I thought the Errata were merely the listed corrections for the subsequent printing.
Since the Dev's chose to remove something for the second print it would be the accurate ruling as the status quo was reduced not expanded. The simultanious realese is what probable led to he lack of Errata.
Can you give us a specific example where the Errata contradict the subsequent printing? I thought the Errata were merely the listed corrections for the subsequent printing.
Look here, if you dare.
However the Errata doesn't speak of the issue at hand whereas it was intentionally changed in the second print ergo its the offical ruling.
The errata should go into the latest printing. If the errata did not make it into the book then Paizo needs to be notified.
In short if errata is printed today, and the next book printing is released in 4 weeks then that errata should be in that book. One of the main points of a new printing is to include new errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where did I leave that power drill?
And my book on autotrepanation...
Can you give us a specific example where the Errata contradict the subsequent printing? I thought the Errata were merely the listed corrections for the subsequent printing.Look here, if you dare.
I did not even read the entire thing, but it seems Bruno is just bad at math or something. That is just a math issue, not a rules issue.
I think you are misunderstanding how Errata work.
Errata are not to the rules, they are to specific printings.
If you have the PDFs, and look at your downloads, you should see the following :
- Errata for Core Rulebook First Printing v1.2: 1.3 MB zip PDF
- Errata for Core Rulebook Second Printing v2.1: 1.3 MB zip PDF
- Errata for Core Rulebook Third Printing v3.0: 1.3 MB zip PDF
Note that the errata is by printing. The errata for second and third printing would never have the correction, since they have the correctly printed material. The same is true for other books, like APG etc.
So, the only issue you have is that the errata for the first printing was not updated to bring the first printing in line with the third printing. Whatever is in the most recent printing plus it's errata is the correct and current rules. Any errata to older printings that aren't updated do not make those rules magically valid. It just means someone made a mistake on updating the errata of the first print run.
In other words, there is no rules conflict, there is only an editing mistake. The rules are the most current print run plus current print run errata.
@Bruno: What's your GM say?
If you already have the PDF, can't you just download the 2nd printing? It was my understanding that updates to Paizo PDFs are free, no matter when you purchased them.
"as per rules" dang dude fully read the first post or my second post
Oh I read it. The rules specify the presence of a GM to arbitrate ambiguities. That's the procedure for this situation, as per the rules.
The latest printing is what you should follow, it will have the most corrections in it. Idealy speaking errata should take you from one printing to another but that wont always be the case.
You should use the latest printing. Paizo produces Errata the way the word is meant to be used: A list of changes between printings. If the errata does not correctly list the changes between printings then the errata is incorrect, not the new printing. Once Paizo is notified of this they will fix their errata document to be correct within a reasonable amount of time. (Give them at least a week before complaining horribly about it.)
Errata is not "changes we think should be made" the way other RPG companies seem to use the word.
Aye deinol, i agree with your errata statement which is why the question. The errata changes nothing , and if "its the way it should be". Then 2nd print is in error.
That's the exact opposite of what I said.
2nd Printing is the latest version.
Errata is *supposed* to be a list of changes between 1st and 2nd printing. If the errata does not list the changes between printings, it is the errata that is in error.
wraithstrike read and fully understand the whole post before you flame
I was just going by the link, and I was not flaming. I dont need to read an entire post to know that 1/4 of a favored class point equals 1 evolution point means I need to sacrifice 4 favored class points. There is no possible way to get 100 no matter how you look at it.
Now if anything came up after the math issue you can bring that up or you can not. It does not matter to me one way or the other.
MDT the issue is not the core rule book its the apg , and pdf's we have are 1st print and errata to first print, now the other side we have 2nd prine which does not match the errata to the first print. So 1st print +errata does not = second print
Which is precisely what I said above, only using the core book. The APG printing 2 is the most up to date rule set for APG. It should be the APG 1st print + errata, but if it's not, it's an issue with a mistake in editing of the errata for 1st print, it is not a rules issue.
This also applies to UM, Bestiary I and II, and any other book ever printed by any RPG company for the entire history of time. The most accurate rule is the most recent printing plus any errata for that printing. There is no confusion. The rules are what they are in the most recent printing, plus any errata for the most recent printing, plus any FAQ explanations. Anything that doesn't conform to the most recent printing from earlier editions is not a confusion of the rules, it's an editing mistake with the errata of the earlier printings.
If you reread my post, you will see that I said that originally, and I'm repeating it again multiple times and ways in hopes you will get it.