| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Vic said.
So say us all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Vic said.
So say us all.
Don't get your hopes up too much for some kind of hurricane of FAQs--I'm unlikely to be able to just FAQ up a storm without consulting other people on it, and in that case it also matters if they want to work on the FAQ!
Don't get your hopes up too much for some kind of hurricane of FAQs--I'm unlikely to be able to just FAQ up a storm without consulting other people on it, and in that case it also matters if they want to work on the FAQ!What Vic said.
So say us all.
How short was that straw? :)
And thank you in advance!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get your hopes up too much for some kind of hurricane of FAQs--I'm unlikely to be able to just FAQ up a storm without consulting other people on it, and in that case it also matters if they want to work on the FAQ!What Vic said.
So say us all.
How short was that straw? :)
And thank you in advance!
You guys all don't understand. Due to my roots as a hardcore player and GM (particularly in PFS where sometimes my hands are tied without FAQs), I've been you guys, sitting around and hoping for FAQs, for the past...well forever. I literally helped send out gift baskets to the Design Team twice when they put out a lot of FAQs. So I want to see these FAQs come out as much as you do--let's all rock on and work together to make our community even better!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of us! One of them!
Both! Neither!
I don't know what to yell any more!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congrats Mark on the new Job!
(You poor poor bastich.)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys all don't understand. Due to my roots as a hardcore player and GM (particularly in PFS where sometimes my hands are tied without FAQs), I've been you guys, sitting around and hoping for FAQs, for the past...well forever. I literally helped send out gift baskets to the Design Team twice when they put out a lot of FAQs. So I want to see these FAQs come out as much as you do--let's all rock on and work together to make our community even better!
I wish you luck.
No matter how well you write the FAQ's, certain topics will start flame wars and mass rioting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys all don't understand. Due to my roots as a hardcore player and GM (particularly in PFS where sometimes my hands are tied without FAQs), I've been you guys, sitting around and hoping for FAQs, for the past...well forever. I literally helped send out gift baskets to the Design Team twice when they put out a lot of FAQs. So I want to see these FAQs come out as much as you do--let's all rock on and work together to make our community even better!
Somebody get that man a kitten!
You guys all don't understand. Due to my roots as a hardcore player and GM (particularly in PFS where sometimes my hands are tied without FAQs), I've been you guys, sitting around and hoping for FAQs, for the past...well forever. I literally helped send out gift baskets to the Design Team twice when they put out a lot of FAQs. So I want to see these FAQs come out as much as you do--let's all rock on and work together to make our community even better!Don't get your hopes up too much for some kind of hurricane of FAQs--I'm unlikely to be able to just FAQ up a storm without consulting other people on it, and in that case it also matters if they want to work on the FAQ!What Vic said.
So say us all.
How short was that straw? :)
And thank you in advance!
Let's face it - you took the job for the muffins in the gift baskets didn't you?
Congrats on the new appointment! We look forward to even more great work and rulings from Paizo. From your first name alone I know we can count on you :) Seriously congrats!
Bwahahahahahaha! I get the last laugh, since I actually really do want to write those FAQs :pHey, let's turn the negative into a positive--why not construct a list of links to top FAQable threads, so that way when they do find that replacement, he or she can have an easy place to look to get caught up. Then we all win!Well, we all win except for that guy—sure wouldn't want to be him!
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Yay! Welcome! If you need any advice or help from the Old School days when I was a dev, feel free to ask!
I do know that Mark has some certainly strong opinions on that spell.
Hey, let's turn the negative into a positive--why not construct a list of links to top FAQable threads, so that way when they do find that replacement, he or she can have an easy place to look to get caught up. Then we all win!Well, we all win except for that guy—sure wouldn't want to be him!
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
All I ask is that, please, pleeeeaaaase, find someone who actually knows / comprehends the rules this time.
All I ask is that, please, pleeeeaaaase, find someone who actually knows / comprehends the rules this time.Hey, let's turn the negative into a positive--why not construct a list of links to top FAQable threads, so that way when they do find that replacement, he or she can have an easy place to look to get caught up. Then we all win!Well, we all win except for that guy—sure wouldn't want to be him!
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
... you do realize the very guy he's quoting is the guy they got to do the job, right?
... you do realize the very guy he's quoting is the guy they got to do the job, right?All I ask is that, please, pleeeeaaaase, find someone who actually knows / comprehends the rules this time.Hey, let's turn the negative into a positive--why not construct a list of links to top FAQable threads, so that way when they do find that replacement, he or she can have an easy place to look to get caught up. Then we all win!Well, we all win except for that guy—sure wouldn't want to be him!
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Nope! That's what I get for quote-responding to a particular post before getting to the end of the thread. :P
/silly
Be nice now.
Be nice now.
I am being nice. I'm also being serious. Right now the FAQ contradicts itself on several things. The thing that springs to mind off the top of my head is pretty much anything involving SLAs.
For example, where you can qualify for prestige classes that require you to cast arcane, divine, or hell, spells in general. Because anyone who owns a rulebook or has access to the PRD can clearly read that SLAs do not allow you to qualify for them.
The Magic Chapter specifically notes that SLAs are not spells, for example. The glossary also notes that SLAs are not spells. The bestiary notes they are not spells, clearest of all.
Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.
Hell, the FAQ itself even says you can't use SLAs for magic item requirements because, hey, they're not spells. But then you have a FAQ entry that says you can qualify for prestige classes because you can cast spells? Um, no...
I really don't think it's asking too much to put someone in charge of FAQ rulings that has these following:
1. The ability to read and comprehend the English language.
2. Access to the rules (such as is available on the official PRD).
3. The ability to parse game mechanics logically (such as if/or statements, triggers, constants, etc).
4. The ability and most importantly willingness to combine 1,2, and 3.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's being nice?
0_o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not being nice. Suggesting our designers don't know the rules and don't know English is quite simply being a jerk. Knock it off.
I suggested neither, actually. :\
EDIT: In my previous post at least. I'll agree that I suggested that when the rules specifically say that SLAs are not spells that saying that they are spells is indeed demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the rules. However, my hopeful criteria didn't imply anything, merely that you have 1, 2, and 3, and be willing to use them together.Which means: 1. Know how to read it (easy enough). 2. Have access to the rules (also easy enough). 3. Be able to parse mechanical text (hardest of the three). 4. Actually do so (apparently the hardest). When the FAQ doesn't clarify but contradicts the rules, you have an obvious disconnect. Somewhere, somehow, the previous steps have fallen out of unity.
The main thing is the willingness to actually take the rules into account when you're answering questions about the rules. The current FAQ proves that doesn't happen as often as it needs to.
I kind of feel like you're kind of missing the forest for the trees in this case, or I'm just too tired right now to actually string my thoughts together in a way that's coherent to everyone else.
It wasn't an insult, so much as a plea for simplicity, consistency, and respect for the role.
EDIT 2: Perhaps a better analogy would be this.
The FAQ-official is kind of like a translator. Some people have a difficult time parsing rules text. It's kind of like a different language so to speak. The FAQ could help with that. However, you want a translator that's actually going to translate your message, not mistranslate the message.
In this case, it's about integrity. Respect your role as a translator and translate it for what it was said, don't cut corners, don't add in stuff 'cause you think it would be funny, or could spice things up, just give the goods. It makes things a lot easier for everyone, especially when your translations matter.
And since FAQ "translations" do matter in some cases, like Pathfinder Society, the FAQ role should be taken very seriously and respected foremost by the person issuing the FAQs. Do that, and respect from those receiving the FAQs comes naturally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not being nice. Suggesting our designers don't know the rules and don't know English is quite simply being a jerk. Knock it off.
He's discussing objective failures of the past and wishing the next person with the responsibility well on avoiding those pitfalls. I don't see how that's being a jerk. Problems don't get fixed if you ignore them and don't expend effort doing things better.
Which FAQ are you talking about, ashiel?
I didn't think they said SLAs are now spells. I thought it was a change to prestige classes (extending the ways you could qualify for them).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, I think you're seriously misunderstanding the way Paizo sometimes uses their FAQs. Pretty clearly stuff like the Spell-Like Abilities ruling is not so much clarifications per se as intentional (pretty specific) rules changes.
You can certainly argue that that's an inappropriate use for the FAQ system, if you wish, but it's not due to a lack of rules knowledge. Or lack of logic, or anything else you cite. It's just a difference in FAQing philosophy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they were going to use the FAQ that way they wouldn't have errata. They're two different things for a reason.
And even if Paizo did inexplicably decide to do something like that, it would still have problems because of self-contradiction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ash, I suggest throwing the shovel to the side before you dig a deeper hole :)
So the problem was that the last person couldn't understand English and didn't know the rules?....yep that's not rude nope uhhu not at all..It's not being nice. Suggesting our designers don't know the rules and don't know English is quite simply being a jerk. Knock it off.He's discussing objective failures of the past and wishing the next person with the responsibility well on avoiding those pitfalls. I don't see how that's being a jerk. Problems don't get fixed if you ignore them and don't expend effort doing things better.
It's okay, you see, because it's objective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's okay, you see, because it's objective.So the problem was that the last person couldn't understand English and didn't know the rules?....yep that's not rude nope uhhu not at all..It's not being nice. Suggesting our designers don't know the rules and don't know English is quite simply being a jerk. Knock it off.He's discussing objective failures of the past and wishing the next person with the responsibility well on avoiding those pitfalls. I don't see how that's being a jerk. Problems don't get fixed if you ignore them and don't expend effort doing things better.
Ohh...ok...I..think..I understand..wait no I don't.
Oh wait is that kinda how old ladies in the south use "bless your heart" to cleverly hide their insults in a veil of kindness?
So the problem was that the last person couldn't understand English and didn't know the rules?....yep that's not rude nope uhhu not at all..
It's not. People mess up. People untrained or unprepared for responsibilities end up with them. It happens. It's clearly what happened here, or else we wouldn't have a FAQ with so many issues.
We can talk about things that need improvement and congratulate the new guy. Or you could keep trying to dog pile someone for pointing out a fact you don't like.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with "I disagree with this FAQ". I have a problem with "You guys can't read English, don't read the rules or don't understand them".
If Ashiel wants to improve the FAQ or the rules, he should point out what's wrong with them and say what he thinks should be changed, not speculate on what he thinks are the failings of the people who produced the last ones.
^
What Steve said...granted it lacks my dismissive tone but it's better than what I would say.
Ash, I suggest throwing the shovel to the side before you dig a deeper hole :)
Dig deep enough and you'll see light again. Sometimes I think I might have some sort of disability relating to others. I sometimes feel like I "think" differently than most people, and situations like this, where I say something and it's interpreted as being very insulting, whereas to me, it just...isn't. It doesn't feel insulting, it doesn't seem insulting, it wasn't intended to be insulting.
But there it is. Even after attempting to explain in further detail, there's still a lack of communication. Though I sincerely feel that Aratrok gets it, and for that I'm happy.
I'm still struggling to "get it" myself. I'm "a jerk" but I'm failing to understand why that is, because from my understanding, I see a position or a role, with previous technical failing, a request for less technical failing, an example of said failings, a request to make a sincere effort and to respect what the gravity of the role.
The next thing I'm seeing is Vic acting like I called somebody illiterate. I'm sitting here like, "Well, no, that's not what I was saying at all", so I tried a different route to explaining the thought process, this time with allegory using the symbolism of a translator and the importance of consistency and care.
Oh well. Stand back, I don't want to hit you with my shovel.
It's not a lack of communication, it's a difference in opinion as to what constitutes rudeness. In my view:
Criticising the FAQ is great. Criticising unnamed people for lack of literacy, lack of rules comprehension, failing to look the rules up or just unwillingness to do a good job is not. You're not in any position to know whether your categorisation of potential errors is correct. (What you term a technical failing in your latest post had only one of four causes in this post - are you sure that's all it could be? Not much wiggle room in your initial point).
Stick to criticising the rules, not those who wrote them and you won't be being a jerk (and will derive greater utility).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ash, I suggest throwing the shovel to the side before you dig a deeper hole :)Dig deep enough and you'll see light again. Sometimes I think I might have some sort of disability relating to others. I sometimes feel like I "think" differently than most people, and situations like this, where I say something and it's interpreted as being very insulting, whereas to me, it just...isn't. It doesn't feel insulting, it doesn't seem insulting, it wasn't intended to be insulting.
But there it is. Even after attempting to explain in further detail, there's still a lack of communication. Though I sincerely feel that Aratrok gets it, and for that I'm happy.
I'm still struggling to "get it" myself. I'm "a jerk" but I'm failing to understand why that is, because from my understanding, I see a position or a role, with previous technical failing, a request for less technical failing, an example of said failings, a request to make a sincere effort and to respect what the gravity of the role.
The next thing I'm seeing is Vic acting like I called somebody illiterate. I'm sitting here like, "Well, no, that's not what I was saying at all", so I tried a different route to explaining the thought process, this time with allegory using the symbolism of a translator and the importance of consistency and care.
Oh well. Stand back, I don't want to hit you with my shovel.
"My mum, the guy in the mirror and my favorite puppet all tell me that I ain't a jerk, but then I go out and open my mouth and crap it happens again. I don't get it."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TIL listing a number of reasonable qualifications needed for a job is rude.
Next time I fill out a job application and they give me silly criteria like "Must be able to read and write English fluently" or "Must be familiar with Microsoft Office" I'll give them a piece of my mind.
Implying I'm incapable of doing those things. How insulting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surely it doesnt really need pointing out, but nobody is saying its rude to suggest applicants for a designer position need to understand the rules, it's the implication that past/current employees don't:
"....find someone who actually knows / comprehends the rules this time."
That was rude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, I wasn't intending to be rude. I apologize, sincerely, for being so. As a general principle I try to never say anything to anyone else that would be offensive if our roles were reversed (golden rule, I guess?), but that seems to draw attention to some sort of difference in mentality (that I find concerning) that reminds me that for whatever reason I have difficulty relating and understanding people (which brings me much woe).
My criticism of the FAQ and rules knowledge is one of technical ability and qualification (though I apparently failed catastrophically in communicating that idea). When the rules specifically say X is not Y, and the FAQ says X is Y, then the FAQ is wrong and it appears clear that whomever issued the FAQ did not actually consult the rules because this is not a matter of interpretation or opinion, it's just a matter of Y/N. It wasn't that hard to find the answer if you've been playing the game for a while as there's a fairly simple process for seeking out rules in our admittedly scattered ruleset (the question was about spells/SLAs, so I first checked the Magic chapter, then the glossary, then checked the Universal Monster Rules, in an ordered process made trivial by Ctrl+F search functions).
Ergo, it appeared to me, that the last person in the position either A) didn't know the rules, B) didn't understand them, or C) didn't respect the position enough to go through that much trouble (which wasn't much). I'm not sure what other conclusion there was to draw. Should I have assumed that the FAQ writer was being intentionally malicious? I don't think that was the case, as I'd assume that Sean is genuinely a good person and not interested in actively being malicious (beyond acting like players were stupid on the forums, but as I seem to be prone to upsetting people unintentionally I couldn't hold that against him). I also have too much respect for Sean's work history to assume laziness was at fault.
The concept of an FAQ is a brilliant one. As I noted above, the ruleset is horribly scattered. There are important things to know about all sorts of mechanical subsystems that are scattered through different chapters and sometimes even books. Someone who knows how to navigate that and answer questions for people just trying to enjoy the game has the opportunity to build a good value for customers and make getting into the game much easier. However, if the FAQ doesn't match the rules then it diminishes the value of the FAQ and discredits it as a respectable source.
I would propose that in future FAQ entries (and current ones) that the relevant rules were quoted in the FAQ entry, so that the FAQ not only gives an answer, but shows you where the answer came from and where to find it yourself. In situations where there really isn't a rule for it, then polling the rest of the staff and noting that there is not a specific case ruling and some suggestions for how to deal with it follow.
Isn't the FAQ a group thing anyway? I didn't think they were the work of one person.
My criticism of the FAQ and rules knowledge is one of technical ability and qualification (though I apparently failed catastrophically in communicating that idea). When the rules specifically say X is not Y, and the FAQ says X is Y, then the FAQ is wrong and it appears clear that whomever issued the FAQ did not actually consult the rules because this is not a matter of interpretation or opinion, it's just a matter of Y/N. It wasn't that hard to find the answer if you've been playing the game for a while as there's a fairly simple process for seeking out rules in our admittedly scattered ruleset (the question was about spells/SLAs, so I first checked the Magic chapter, then the glossary, then checked the Universal Monster Rules, in an ordered process made trivial by Ctrl+F search functions).
Ergo, it appeared to me, that the last person in the position either A) didn't know the rules, B) didn't understand them, or C) didn't respect the position enough to go through that much trouble (which wasn't much). I'm not sure what other conclusion there was to draw.
Well, fwiw, my conclusion was that SLAs are not spells but people with certain SLAs can qualify for feats and prestige classes which have certain spells as prerequisites.
I don't read many FAQs though - is there one that actually says "SLAs are spells"?
TIL listing a number of reasonable qualifications needed for a job is rude.
Next time I fill out a job application and they give me silly criteria like "Must be able to read and write English fluently" or "Must be familiar with Microsoft Office" I'll give them a piece of my mind.
Implying I'm incapable of doing those things. How insulting.
You know, I was just about to say how surprised I was, because I see stuff like that on application requirements all the time. Then I got it. :P
I'm clearly too tired. o_o
Isn't the FAQ a group thing anyway? I didn't think they were the work of one person.
I was hoping that was just for things that weren't covered in the rules or were for big confusions (like with monks). Getting a job that you don't actually have any more say in than the rest of your co-workers, while being the face for the job is just a bad idea all around.
Well, fwiw, my conclusion was that SLAs are not spells but people with certain SLAs can qualify for feats and prestige classes which have certain spells as prerequisites.
I don't read many FAQs though - is there one that actually says "SLAs are spells"?
Actually, much of the FAQ correctly notes that SLAs aren't spells. For example, if you check FAQs on magic item creation where having spells are requirements for making the item easier, the FAQ responds "No, SLAs are not spells", which is correct as per the rules.
However, then you get to situations were requirements such as "The ability to cast 3rd level SPELLS" or "The ability to cast ARCANE SPELLS" and stuff like that crops up, and suddenly, without explanation, SLAs allow you to qualify for those, despite the fact that the rules make a very clear distinction between Arcane, Divine, SLAs, and even goes so far to say that SLAs are not spells.
How could anyone with a strait face tell you that you meet the prerequisite for casting spells when you don't cast spells and don't have an ability that calls out an exception?
That's like putting a sign up at an amusement park saying you must be 5 ft. tall to ride, and then letting someone on that's 3 ft. 2 inches because they're wearing orange today.
Yeah, I think that's a good analogy. That's kind of my point. The FAQ didn't change the fact that SLAs aren't spells - it changed what you need to qualify for some feats and prestige classes. (Presumably for balance reasons or something, not for some idea of "world consistency").
I think the FAQ basically did say "unless you're wearing orange". It changes how you qualify for some things, not the nature of SLAs.
Yeah, I think that's a good analogy. That's kind of my point. The FAQ didn't change the fact that SLAs aren't spells - it changed what you need to qualify for some feats and prestige classes. (Presumably for balance reasons or something, not for some idea of "world consistency").
I think the FAQ basically did say "unless you're wearing orange". It changes how you qualify for some things, not the nature of SLAs.
But that would require errata. The prerequisites for those things would need to be changed to "The ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells or a spell-like ability that mimics a 3rd level arcane spell".
EDIT: Using the ride example, it would be making an amendment to the sign, "You must be this tall to ride, or be wearing orange", and then it'd at least be consistent.
If I was to try to build a character based around the FAQ entry on the matter and submit it to any of the GMs I know, I'd get turned down for an illegal character. I can't even cite the rules on the matter because the rules don't exist. They can cite the rules against it though, because those do exist.
Frankly I'd do the same thing in their position. If it's really a balance issue, issue errata and change the prerequisites for theurgic classes to 2nd and 1st level spells or something, don't be inconsistent and shady about it.
Well yeah, but I don't think you're correct about there being such a clear distinction between FAQ and errata.
That might be a good ideal, but life isn't perfect.
I think sometimes they change the rules via FAQ. I'm sure they'd rather not, but I think they sometimes think its the lesser of two evils. (Maybe timing issues come into play, maybe they don't want to mess with pagination on the next reprint by increasing word count of various sections).