The real problem is, whether it is or not, most of WotC's digital efforts in the last 12 years have come across as an after thought. The 3.0 PHB in 2000 came with a rough but usable character generator on CD-ROM. I had expected there would be continuous upgrades to that product and new tools added but it died after like one patch. 4E debuted with very little and even today the DDI is lacking. I had thought they were on the verge of having the VTT be a mainline tool I'd actually start using but they let it fall apart.
Compare this to the much richer AD&D 2nd Edition tool suite that was released. That had quite a few tools in it and overall was nicely done. You'd have thought with 4E they would have been ready with something comparable. It just surprises me given WotC's size, even if they aren't the biggest slice of the Hasbro pie.
L
|
I think that that is being unfair to what is there now - the Character Generator and the Monster Generator are both very useful tools, as is the Compendium. None of them are perfect - the big thing I dislike about the Character Generator is the inability to customise powers - but they are still pretty handy. Plus the VTT wasn't bad, if the comments above are to be believed, they pulled the plug for commercial reasons. But generally, yes - I really don't understand the serial disappointments aroound a lot the IT, and can only assume there are some serious issues in managing IT projects within WotC (and maybe Hasbro as a whole) coupled with some dubious communication.
|
I found the compendium clunky and hard to navigate, especially compared to the simplicity of the SRD. The search feature was nice, but you had to already know what you were looking for -- it didn't really help when you were looking for something new or interesting. I believe this was by design as Hasbro clearly wanted to force people to buy hardcopies of all their books.
I found the compendium clunky and hard to navigate, especially compared to the simplicity of the SRD. The search feature was nice, but you had to already know what you were looking for -- it didn't really help when you were looking for something new or interesting. I believe this was by design as Hasbro clearly wanted to force people to buy hardcopies of all their books.
The Compendium was designed as a searchable reference. And, frankly, I didn't buy hardcopies of most 4e books, simply because the Compendium gave me access to all the rules elements they contained (not to mention the Character Builder).
I think that that is being unfair to what is there now - the Character Generator and the Monster Generator are both very useful tools, as is the Compendium. None of them are perfect - the big thing I dislike about the Character Generator is the inability to customise powers - but they are still pretty handy. Plus the VTT wasn't bad, if the comments above are to be believed, they pulled the plug for commercial reasons. But generally, yes - I really don't understand the serial disappointments aroound a lot the IT, and can only assume there are some serious issues in managing IT projects within WotC (and maybe Hasbro as a whole) coupled with some dubious communication.
I was just speculating.
|
I found the compendium clunky and hard to navigate
I must admit, I felt this way too to begin with, it wasn't that intuitive. But as I kept using it I figured it out and it all seems simple now. The compendium is very useful to look up stuff (making up to a small degree for the lack of PDFs).
especially compared to the simplicity of the SRD.
I am not the big a fan of the PF SRD tbh, I find too many times I follow links to a page but then have to use my browser's find function to get to a specific section of the rules (e.g. trying to get to the Trip manoeuvre in the Combat section), the search facility helps but is a little clunky for me. I wish PF SRD could be implemented like the 3.5 Sovelior Sage HTML SRD - that is my ideal and what I still use for 3.5.
|
|
The Compendium was designed as a searchable reference.
It did do that pretty well, which I pointed out.
And, frankly, I didn't buy hardcopies of most 4e books, simply because the Compendium gave me access to all the rules elements they contained (not to mention the Character Builder).
Access doesn't mean it's easy to find things you don't already know about. For that you need something that's browseable. Peruseable. Scrollable.
I am not the big a fan of the PF SRD tbh, I find too many times I follow links to a page but then have to use my browser's find function to get to a specific section of the rules (e.g. trying to get to the Trip manoeuvre in the Combat section), the search facility helps but is a little clunky for me. I wish PF SRD could be implemented like the 3.5 Sovelior Sage HTML SRD - that is my ideal and what I still use for 3.5.
I recommend the D20 PF SRD site if you find the PRD cumbersome.
|
|
Access doesn't mean it's easy to find things you don't already know about. For that you need something that's browseable. Peruseable. Scrollable.
Not really - I use it to look up stuff I don't know about all the time and find it very effective for that. It's knowing how to use it. Scrolling through a document online isn't the same as having a good search function, and the organisation of the 3e and PF rules means that a lot of what you want is in more than one place, scattered through different books and, since the SRDs follow the books organisation as well, scattered through the SRD too. The issue with the Compendium is getting used to the filters and asking the right question.
|
|
I recommend the D20 PF SRD site if you find the PRD cumbersome.
That does seem to be nicer - can it be downloaded to use offline?
My other worry with that is that it is not necessarily correct; as seen in the Turn Undead thread where it came to light that the text "(except for channel energy)" had been put in the wrong section of the Incorporeal description implying that damage caused by Channel wasn't halved against incorporeal dead (when it in fact is).
Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
Isn't that what the PRD says too? I know there's been issues with errata on this, but I thought the rules had settled on channeled positive energy not being halved vs. incorporeal undead.
EDIT: Wording on d20PFSRD.com looks identical to the PRD, and the FAQ entry from Jason Buhlman verifies that the CRB has been errataed to match d20PFSRD.
|
|
Isn't that what the PRD says too? I know there's been issues with errata on this, but I thought the rules had settled on channeled positive energy not being halved vs. incorporeal undead.
No, they are different:
Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature.
Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water affects incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature (except for channel energy).
Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature (except for channel energy).
The official PRD matches the Bestiary, but both of those differ from the d20 PF SRD. Basically Channelling for Damage suffers the half damage against incorporeal, whereas Channelling for a non damaging effect (e.g. Turn Undead) does not suffer the 50% failure chance.
TL;DR the d20 PF SRD has at least one discrepancy, which for me puts in doubt all of it :(
Quote from the PRD:
An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
Quote from d20PFRSD.com:
An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
I don't see the difference. I believe the PRD itself has been errataed to match d20PFSRD. Are you quoting from an older version?
|
|
Quote from the PRD
[...]
I don't see the difference. I believe the PRD itself has been errataed to match d20PFSRD. Are you quoting from an older version?
Well, this is interesting I copied and pasted mine from the online PRD as part of my previous post. Now I realise that I copied from the Incorporeal bit under Bestiary 2!!!!! I didn't realise that, I got to it via the search function.
So the online PRD seems to have multiple copies of that section (one for each bestiary):
What I got directed to via the search function (Bestiary 2):
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalMonsters/universalMonsterRules .html#incorporeal-(ex)-
Your reference (Bestiary 1):
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/universalMonsterRules.html#inco rporeal
The Bestiary 3 PRD definition matches the Bestiary 2 section as well as the Bestiary PDF I have. I have also checked both errata documents for the Bestiary as well and there is no mention of channel in them.
So my belief is that the PRD Bestiary 1 reference is incorrect and that unfortunately the d20 PF SRD took its cue from that.
So this just makes me not even trust the official PRD!!!!! :(
According to this, it was in the the 1st to 2nd printing errata, but somehow it dropped out of the errata for the 3rd printing. :(
Personally, I'll take the PRD as canon over any printing of the book, however.
According to this, it was in the the 1st to 2nd printing errata, but somehow it dropped out of the errata for the 3rd printing. :(
Personally, I'll take the PRD as canon over any printing of the book, however.
Could it have "dropped out" of the errata for the third printing because it was incorporated into the 2nd printing of the book?
Well, it's not in the 1st to 3rd printing errata, nor is it in the PDF of the latest printing; the "incorporeal" entry has reverted to 1st printing text.
Well, it's not in the 1st to 3rd printing errata, nor is it in the PDF of the latest printing.
Ah, gotcha. Whoops. :P
and BTW, nice catch...
What about flaging it and moving on, since it's rather off topic here :(
Sadly, no FAQ button in this subforum. Taking the Channel Energy errata issue over here.
EDIT: Bugley, you can FAQ the post I linked to. I also posted about the discrepancy in the PRD feedback thread.
What about flaging it and moving on, since it's rather off topic here :(
Thought about it, but there doesn't seem to be a "Errata or FAQ" flag. In any case, there is really no more to discuss, except perhaps how to best bring it to Paizo's attention.
What about flaging it and moving on, since it's rather off topic here :(Thought about it, but there doesn't seem to be a "Errata or FAQ" flag. In any case, there is really no more to discuss, except perhaps how to best bring it to Paizo's attention.
Make a topic on the Rule Question Board?
|
|
[sarcasm] I just love how anything you ever do on their site and with any of their products is theirs not yours. [/sarcasm]
Like when WOTC said DnD next was going to be a public playtest, but when the beta rules came out they said you could not share them with anyone that did not go and sign up to test?
Like when WOTC said DnD next was going to be a public playtest, but when the beta rules came out they said you could not share them with anyone that did not go and sign up to test?
I don't see any contradiction in "the general public can test this, but has to agree to certain conditions."
This thread is about the failure of the DDI gametable, it is not an invitation to pile on WotC for all their shortcomings -- real or imagined.