| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Xethik said, Ranged study is for investigators, not slayers. Notice how the feat requirements studied combat not studied target.Ah! thanks Xethik and Abraham. One less thing to worry about. And I'm happy the Slayer finished up with only a few editing errors (although only a few Slayer talents in the ACG). Pretty good class and fun to play.
In hindsight the designers could have named their class abilities with a more noticeable difference.
I feel like the at some point in playtest, it was Studied Combat and Favored Target, but the ability was renamed to make a bit more sense. Sadly, it collided with the investigator a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should Pack Flanking be a Combat Feat?
It's only listed as a Teamwork Feat, but when else do you flank?
Threesome?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even I never said something like that lol. I've been a pretty serious naysayed for a while, but I never said that the reason for X is because they're evil.
If anything I'd say the biggest problem is actually very little transparency from some of the top brass.
I nearly did a spit take when I read your last sentence here. In all the time I have been gaming, Paizo has been one of the most communicative/transparent companies out there.
Especially for where they are in the industry. Certainly, over the last few years some of the "old-timers" at Paizo have been less communicative they are also much busier now. the more successful the company the more work required of the people at the top. At least with a company Paizo's size.
It bugs me that the wild child's art has a slingshot, but the wild child has no abilities that allow it to effectively use slings.
Well, if that's a problem, I guess that means we found all the serious issues already :)
Well, if that's a problem, I guess that means we found all the serious issues already :)
Eh, there's some stuff that I think are design missteps rather than grammatical errors. Problems more aligned with the sniper slayer archetype than, say, the text describing how hunters teach tricks to their animal companions.
For example, the flying blade gets several deeds that A) aren't very useful and B) made irrelevant by feats she can easily qualify for (subtle throw being outclassed in every way by Point Blank Master / Close-Quarters Fighting is a perfect example). Worse still, the archetype has the intent of being a thrown weapon fighter but has the feat progression of a melee character. It could use something like the inspired blade's inspired finesse: instead of being able to finesse all weapons, it can only finesse daggers and star knives, but gains Precise Strike as a bonus feat or something similar.
It also bugs me that the war priest gets more bonus feats than the swashbuckler in addition to having six levels of cleric spell casting.
But in terms of grammatical errors and omissions, I think this thread has just about all of them spotted.
Or the Empiricist Investigator being just plain better than base Investigator.
Or the Daring Blade outclassing mr Swash.
or most Arcanist archetypes.
Well, if that's a problem, I guess that means we found all the serious issues already :)Eh, there's some stuff that I think are design missteps rather than grammatical errors. Problems more aligned with the sniper slayer archetype than, say, the text describing how hunters teach tricks to their animal companions.
For example, the flying blade gets several deeds that A) aren't very useful and B) made irrelevant by feats she can easily qualify for (subtle throw being outclassed in every way by Point Blank Master / Close-Quarters Fighting is a perfect example). Worse still, the archetype has the intent of being a thrown weapon fighter but has the feat progression of a melee character. It could use something like the inspired blade's inspired finesse: instead of being able to finesse all weapons, it can only finesse daggers and star knives, but gains Precise Strike as a bonus feat or something similar.
It also bugs me that the war priest gets more bonus feats than the swashbuckler in addition to having six levels of cleric spell casting.
But in terms of grammatical errors and omissions, I think this thread has just about all of them spotted.
In some cases like flying blade it looks like it comes from the Ivory Tower School of Design. Something that Paizo has obviously tried to avoid in the past and with post-ACG material (like the Kineticist class from Occult Adventures).
Ivory Tower School of Design
I've never heard this phrase before. Clarify please?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Design paradigm of 3.0 that PF has moved / is moving away from. It's based on the idea of system mastery, and as you get better you are able to better find the intentionally bad aspects of the system and avoid them, so you as a player get better at it.
The main problem with it from PF's perspective is that things that weren't intended to be bad can be seen as bad, and people will assume that it's intentional.
Ivory Tower School of DesignI've never heard this phrase before. Clarify please?
The concept "Ivory Tower School of Design" comes from the WOTC design team (from memory, Skip Williams proposed the idea) who were working on D&D 3.0. Monte Cooke wrote an essay about it.
It is about the idea of having D&D feats, spells and magic items like Magic: The Gathering cards, in the way there are some rare powerful cards, but you have to pay for many common and not-so-powerful cards.
Players will need a plethora of sourcebooks to create a powerful character, because powerful feats and spells are rare (like the super awesome spell- Wings of Cover), with mediocre ones more common.
It is also about system mastery. You need a broad and intimate knowledge of the source material to be really good at it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's possible to "move away from it". Any system that has the ability to choose between options at a given point is going to have some of those options be flat out worse than other.
On the other hand, Paizo seems to instead have heavily encouraged it, offering some options "that are intended for NPC's", for example.
I also don't think its as much an issue with people "seeing" some things as bad, as much as that the it doesn't work the way whoever wrote it thought it did, or perhaps wasn't familiar with other options that do the same thing already existing. But that's an issue that goes back to the beginning with a billion traits that all give a +1 to something, and then a few of them also giving more.
The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)
The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)
I agree.
Except that the Ivory Tower model was primarily about getting customers to buy a plethora of books to master a role-playing game.
Paizo avoids that completely as the content of their books is free online.
And there is less disparity in power of feats, spells and magic items. Less pitfalls for beginners while still giving opportunity for expert players to experiment with powerful combinations of feats and items and alternative class abilities.
|
The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)I don't know if it was ever explicitly stated, but some of the Witch Hexes definitely seem intended for NPCs. The classic "evil fairy tale witch" ones like "Cook People" and "smell children".
I do remember one of the designers or other Paizonians saying " hey remember that these books have to provide options for NPCs too!" in response to some complaints about the Feats chapter of the ACG (which is pretty underwhelming, IMO—a couple good feats and a couple crazy standouts but not the general pool of interesting *player* options that I at least had hoped for).
|
Contributor
|
I wish we'd gotten something like the old 3.5 feats that allowed specific classes to stack for the purposes of certain class features. I kind of miss tactical feats, too. Ah, well.
It sometimes seems like feats have gotten way less interesting and exotic in Pathfinder. And when they are interesting or exotic, it's usually either crushingly bad... or something like Sacred Geometry. :/
(That reminds me... I have to try a Bless Equipment character one of these days.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't that true of 3.x, as well? Which is what the "Ivory Tower" model is most often associated with.The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)I agree.
Except that the Ivory Tower model was primarily about getting customers to buy a plethora of books to master a role-playing game.
Paizo avoids that completely as the content of their books is free online.
No it is explicitly untrue of 3.X. The only material legally available online for 3.5 is PHB, DMG, Monster Manual (minus certain Monsters, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Unearthed Arcana. That is maybe 10% of the core line material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping the errata of the ACG will address the action economy issue of Shield Champions. As of now if one was to use a shield without the throwing add-on from Adventurer's Armory or Ultimate Combat, unstrapping (move action) a shield and full-attack flurrying by throwing it is impossible in one round. Getting the shield back at end of one's turn means you don't get a free action or any action to strap the shield back on for defense when everything gets its turn against the shield champion.
My current PFS character is resorting to worshipping Gorum for Shield-Trained trait for shield as weapons proficiencies and using light throwing quickdraw shields (one of adamantine, cold iron, and silver) with the Quick Draw feat in order to use the archetype close to how it's probably intended to use. With close weapon mastery the damage via flurrying is fine, though I'm sad I can't two-hand a large shield for 1.5xStr with Power Attack for 1:3 damage, due to Shield-Trained making me treat large shields as a light weapon.
|
|
The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)
It actually very much does, as the classic example, Toughness, was designed only to keep low level casters alive at 1st level, and to give NPCs a small boost in challenge.
The idea is that its an option, but not a very great one for experienced players. Not thats its terrible, but there are usually better ones once you learn the system, and the Strategy Guide reinforces this.
:)
|
|
No it is explicitly untrue of 3.X. The only material legally available online for 3.5 is PHB, DMG, Monster Manual (minus certain Monsters, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Unearthed Arcana. That is maybe 10% of the core line material.Wasn't that true of 3.x, as well? Which is what the "Ivory Tower" model is most often associated with.The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)I agree.
Except that the Ivory Tower model was primarily about getting customers to buy a plethora of books to master a role-playing game.
Paizo avoids that completely as the content of their books is free online.
A great deal of PFs material is likewise not legally available online, and some of that contains the better options, (Blood of Angels/Fiends). With 3E D&D, and the OGL/SRD, the idea was that those materials where intended to be universal, and not generally different based on an individual setting, so its a little different than how PF works. But that's because they have different functions, and has little to do with a general consensus that Power Attack is better than Skill Focus Appraise most of the time. There are cases when anything can be an exception, specific builds, but that plays right back into the idea, that that comes with system mastery.
A great deal of PFs material is likewise not legally available online, and some of that contains the better options, (Blood of Angels/Fiends). With 3E D&D, and the OGL/SRD, the idea was that those materials where intended to be universal, and not generally different based on an individual setting, so its a little different than how PF works. But that's because they have different functions, and has little to do with a general consensus that Power Attack is better than Skill Focus Appraise most of the time. There are cases when anything can be an exception, specific builds, but that plays right back into the idea, that that comes with system mastery.No it is explicitly untrue of 3.X. The only material legally available online for 3.5 is PHB, DMG, Monster Manual (minus certain Monsters, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Unearthed Arcana. That is maybe 10% of the core line material.Wasn't that true of 3.x, as well? Which is what the "Ivory Tower" model is most often associated with.The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)I agree.
Except that the Ivory Tower model was primarily about getting customers to buy a plethora of books to master a role-playing game.
Paizo avoids that completely as the content of their books is free online.
I don't think Archives of Nethys/D20pfsrd are doing anything 'illegal'. It's all part of the gaming license Paizo uses. Unless I am mistaken or there is something different about the Blood of X line.
|
|
I don't think Archives of Nethys/D20pfsrd are doing anything 'illegal'. It's all part of the gaming license Paizo uses. Unless I am mistaken or there is something different about the Blood of X line.A great deal of PFs material is likewise not legally available online, and some of that contains the better options, (Blood of Angels/Fiends). With 3E D&D, and the OGL/SRD, the idea was that those materials where intended to be universal, and not generally different based on an individual setting, so its a little different than how PF works. But that's because they have different functions, and has little to do with a general consensus that Power Attack is better than Skill Focus Appraise most of the time. There are cases when anything can be an exception, specific builds, but that plays right back into the idea, that that comes with system mastery.No it is explicitly untrue of 3.X. The only material legally available online for 3.5 is PHB, DMG, Monster Manual (minus certain Monsters, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Unearthed Arcana. That is maybe 10% of the core line material.Wasn't that true of 3.x, as well? Which is what the "Ivory Tower" model is most often associated with.The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)I agree.
Except that the Ivory Tower model was primarily about getting customers to buy a plethora of books to master a role-playing game.
Paizo avoids that completely as the content of their books is free online.
True and also I specifically called out the Core, or RPG, line. Which is all completely available in the PRD.
That all being said, it does change when you introduce organized play. I believe the case with PFS is that you need to own and have on you any non-core book that you use for your character.
A great deal of PFs material is likewise not legally available online, and some of that contains the better options, (Blood of Angels/Fiends). With 3E D&D, and the OGL/SRD, the idea was that those materials where intended to be universal, and not generally different based on an individual setting, so its a little different than how PF works. But that's because they have different functions, and has little to do with a general consensus that Power Attack is better than Skill Focus Appraise most of the time. There are cases when anything can be an exception, specific builds, but that plays right back into the idea, that that comes with system mastery.I don't think Archives of Nethys/D20pfsrd are doing anything 'illegal'. It's all part of the gaming license Paizo uses. Unless I am mistaken or there is something different about the Blood of X line.
The non-core books aren't available on the PRD. But the rules content is certainly available online. (Including the Blood of Whatever books, at least on AoN.) Which is completely different from 3.5 - any site that had rules content beyond the limited scope of the SRD was illegal.
The non-core books aren't available on the PRD. But the rules content is certainly available online. (Including the Blood of Whatever books, at least on AoN.) Which is completely different from 3.5 - any site that had rules content beyond the limited scope of the SRD was illegal.A great deal of PFs material is likewise not legally available online, and some of that contains the better options, (Blood of Angels/Fiends). With 3E D&D, and the OGL/SRD, the idea was that those materials where intended to be universal, and not generally different based on an individual setting, so its a little different than how PF works. But that's because they have different functions, and has little to do with a general consensus that Power Attack is better than Skill Focus Appraise most of the time. There are cases when anything can be an exception, specific builds, but that plays right back into the idea, that that comes with system mastery.I don't think Archives of Nethys/D20pfsrd are doing anything 'illegal'. It's all part of the gaming license Paizo uses. Unless I am mistaken or there is something different about the Blood of X line.
D20PFSRD also has the character options from the Blood of <whatever> books, it just doesn't have any of the non-rules content and has to remove all references to the Golarion setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding was that AoN has special permission, whereas other online sites are required to stick to the PRD material, which is why D20PFSRD needed to change the names and reword a lot of that material, but I could be wrong.
It's the opposite—due to gaining a store, d20pfsrd has special non-permission.
Ivory tower game design is about one thing only: making money by printing garbage mixed in with some gems. I disagree 100% that paizo is moving away from that philosophy, considering how many trash feats and spells are released in the new books. If it is not intentional, then it is incompetence with their own system.
Occult Adventures and Pathfinder Unchained could be seen as Paizo's proving ground...to prove the critics of the ACG that Paizo can publish dynamite books for the Pathfinder game...we will see (fingers crossed).
|
|
Ivory tower game design is about one thing only: making money by printing garbage mixed in with some gems. I disagree 100% that paizo is moving away from that philosophy, considering how many trash feats and spells are released in the new books. If it is not intentional, then it is incompetence with their own system.Occult Adventures and Pathfinder Unchained could be seen as Paizo's proving ground...to prove the critics of the ACG that Paizo can publish dynamite books for the Pathfinder game...we will see (fingers crossed).
Paizo has proven this already time and again. Suggesting that they have something to prove is silly. Most of the people who bag on them will always bag on them. Hell 99% of all this is opinion, pure and simple, yet a lot of the people who bag on Paizo act like their opinion is fact, its ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has proven this already time and again. Suggesting that they have something to prove is silly. Most of the people who bag on them will always bag on them. Hell 99% of all this is opinion, pure and simple, yet a lot of the people who bag on Paizo act like their opinion is fact, its ridiculous.Ivory tower game design is about one thing only: making money by printing garbage mixed in with some gems. I disagree 100% that paizo is moving away from that philosophy, considering how many trash feats and spells are released in the new books. If it is not intentional, then it is incompetence with their own system.Occult Adventures and Pathfinder Unchained could be seen as Paizo's proving ground...to prove the critics of the ACG that Paizo can publish dynamite books for the Pathfinder game...we will see (fingers crossed).
Since ACG? Lets face it, ACG was VERY poorly edited and it still hasn't been errata'd yet. I know a few people that always just preordered the next book without thinking are debating on the getting the next few until they see them in actual print. Their rep took a hit and none of this is 99% opinion.
Unless of course you actually believe that the ACG editing was fine and you think that no one should/could be concerned about it's quality and the quality of books moving forward. I hope you see the facts and don't just reply as a yes man. You can in fact like something AND accept that it can make mistakes and needs improvement. Paizo isn't infallible, that's the Pope...
My understanding was that AoN has special permission, whereas other online sites are required to stick to the PRD material, which is why D20PFSRD needed to change the names and reword a lot of that material, but I could be wrong.It's the opposite—due to gaining a store, d20pfsrd has special non-permission.
Indeed, d20pfsrd used to have all of the Golarion named stuff on their website, but once they added a store, they could no longer host it. Anyone else who wants to build a database (like Archvies of Nethys) is free to use proper names, like Dawnflower Dervish or Iroran Paladin.
|
|
Most of it is pretty objective. The amount of garbage feats and spells outweighs what is good by a VERY significant margin
Paizo has proven this already time and again. Suggesting that they have something to prove is silly. Most of the people who bag on them will always bag on them. Hell 99% of all this is opinion, pure and simple, yet a lot of the people who bag on Paizo act like their opinion is fact, its ridiculous.
Your definition of "garbage feats and spells" is the not objective part. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is garbage.
|
|
Paizo has proven this already time and again. Suggesting that they have something to prove is silly. Most of the people who bag on them will always bag on them. Hell 99% of all this is opinion, pure and simple, yet a lot of the people who bag on Paizo act like their opinion is fact, its ridiculous.Ivory tower game design is about one thing only: making money by printing garbage mixed in with some gems. I disagree 100% that paizo is moving away from that philosophy, considering how many trash feats and spells are released in the new books. If it is not intentional, then it is incompetence with their own system.Occult Adventures and Pathfinder Unchained could be seen as Paizo's proving ground...to prove the critics of the ACG that Paizo can publish dynamite books for the Pathfinder game...we will see (fingers crossed).Since ACG? Lets face it, ACG was VERY poorly edited and it still hasn't been errata'd yet. I know a few people that always just preordered the next book without thinking are debating on the getting the next few until they see them in actual print. Their rep took a hit and none of this is 99% opinion.
Unless of course you actually believe that the ACG editing was fine and you think that no one should/could be concerned about it's quality and the quality of books moving forward. I hope you see the facts and don't just reply as a yes man. You can in fact like something AND accept that it can make mistakes and needs improvement. Paizo isn't infallible, that's the Pope...
Yes ACG had some major editing problems. Paizo has acknowledged this and put things in place to improve the editing process. Just look through the Ask James Jacobs thread for one place this is stated. That said the book is still completely usable. I have had no difficulties using it.
One bad book, which the ACG may or may not qualify as, does not wipe out all of their history of amazing product. One problem product is not a reason to suddenly worry. Paizo's errata process is well known and stated openly and constantly, so bringing up the errata is irrelevant, other than to point out that they are working on an errata and that they may publish the errata earlier than their standard policy allows.
I completely understand that Paizo is not infallible (neither is the Pope for that matter).
I am not a catholic, but I graduated from a catholic high school and had to learn this stuff. The catholic faith does not hold the Pope as infallible. Rather, the faith allows that the Pope "hears" God's word and thus can make infallible proclamations. There is a specific name for these that I do not remember. The proclamations actually go through a review process before they are accepted as canon as I remember.
I am just sick of the chicken-little the sky is falling bullshit I see over one product with issues. I won't name names, but one of the games I used to be a huge fan of is currently suffering from truly horrifying editing issues, problems that make much of their product actually unusable. A company that has effectively, as far as I am concerned, given their fans a big middle finger salute. So when I see people saying the ACG is unusable or suggest that it indicates a trend in Paizo away from quality it makes me sick. It is ridiculous. Paizo, regardless of any bumps in the road, has gone out of their way to provide amazing customer service and products that their customers want. In my opinion some people are spoiled.
Everyone talk about the editing (which is understandable), but for me that is not even in the top 3 major problems with the book.
Until they fix the editing and I know what the book is actually meant to say, I can't really judge the rest of the book. Your 3 major problems might not be an issue after the correct editing/errata is added.
That said the book is still completely usable.
No, not really. For instance, look at the bolt ace. An archetype that seems tailor made for games that don't allow the gunslinger/firearms. However, a quick look at it shows that it still gets firearms proficiency, the ability to create firearms AND free firearms at start...
That's not usable... Then you have archetype that have important parts cut out of them. I can continue, but I think I made the point. As is, it's not "completely usable".
|
|
Everyone talk about the editing (which is understandable), but for me that is not even in the top 3 major problems with the book.Until they fix the editing and I know what the book is actually meant to say, I can't really judge the rest of the book. Your 3 major problems might not be an issue after the correct editing/errata is added.
That said the book is still completely usable.No, not really. For instance, look at the bolt ace. An archetype that seems tailor made for games that don't allow the gunslinger/firearms. However, a quick look at it shows that it still gets firearms proficiency, the ability to create firearms AND free firearms at start...
That's not usable... Then you have archetype that have important parts cut out of them. I can continue, but I think I made the point. As is, it's not "completely usable".
I guess we have different standards for usable. Should those abilities also have been traded out? Probably, but their presence in the archetype does not make in unusable. Even in a game where the DM does not allow guns, you simply don't use that part of the class. Is it optimal? No, but it does not make the archetype unusable.
I guess we have different standards for usable. Should those abilities also have been traded out? Probably, but their presence in the archetype does not make in unusable. Even in a game where the DM does not allow guns, you simply don't use that part of the class. Is it optimal? No, but it does not make the archetype unusable.
Well, I mean. If you "simply don't use that part of the class" because you literally can't use it, that part of the class literally is, you know, unusable. Because it can't be used.
And since it's the starting part of the archetype, it starts off on a pretty sour note.
I guess we have different standards for usable. Should those abilities also have been traded out? Probably, but their presence in the archetype does not make in unusable. Even in a game where the DM does not allow guns, you simply don't use that part of the class. Is it optimal? No, but it does not make the archetype unusable.
So just don't use part of the class?... Have you looked at what unusable means?...
So, yeah. My standard of usable is that all the elements are actually playable without having to add my own rules and alter the rule elements contained within those options. If that isn't true it's unusable. It's build my own rules or a 'some assembly required' book.
Nicos:
#1 Not sure what you mean. Too many thing using the same design space? Or too much use of class abilities in other classes via archetype?
#2 Hmmm... I don't have much of an issue with this. A simple rule that the daring cavalier can't stack the dex to damage features makes it a much more balance option and not swashbuckler+.
#3 yeah, but it's a caster so that's ok. The idea is to allow the oracle to use CHA for everything right? ;) :P
For the most part, I understand what you're saying but I think that much of it could be fixed/improved by some good editing/errata. It all depends how deep they intend to fix things as several issues need more attention then a quick polish and a band-aid. At the very least I want it to get to the point that it's all usable as/is.