Any update on Errata / FAQ clarifications for Advanced Class Guide?


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I've been away from active playing/running for a while but trying to gear up and am excited to make a few new characters (at low levels and to use my DM credits) and to run stuff before and at Gencon.

As such I've been finally taking a full and detailed look at the Advanced Class Guide - but the more I look, the more questions I have about nearly every class and archetype as well as many key feats and items from the guide. The current FAQ and Additional Resources don't really address most of the questions that seem common across the boards about the book.

Since many of these include concerns about how to use abilities that start from level 1 forward and impact build decisions I'm hesitant to build characters as much as I really want to play them.

Any idea when the full Errata and/or updated FAQ's for the ACG will be published? Whether fully or just for PFS play?

(to take a few simple examples:

- how should you handle training a hunter's animal companion with Skirmisher Tricks? Many of the tricks are unclear how they work if it is the animal companion that knows the trick? What's the usage per day? the DC? Is there a DC to "push" an animal companion to use a trick they don't yet know (can you even push them to use a skirmisher trick or is that limited to only "regular" tricks?

- Many of the Swashbuckler's deeds refer to whether or not you can use the Signature Deed feat with them - however nothing in the Swashbuckler Class would actually even qualify you to take Signature Deed (since there is no line that says something like "Swashbuckler's Panache can count as Grit for the purpose of taking Grit Feats etc)

- The Swashbuckler's Level 15 deed - Dizzying Defense talks about taking the fighting defensively action as a swift action - does this include the actual attack which is usually part of such an action? (i.e. is this actually offering another attack at full BAB modified by the penalty?)

and there are questions that remain for nearly every class in the book and many many of the archetypes and feats. While I love the concepts the many questions about how to interpret the rules as written make it hard for me to settle on a class to play.


Rycaut wrote:
Is there a DC to "push" an animal companion to use a trick they don't yet know

It's in the Core Rulebook. The DC to push an animal is 20.

Rycaut wrote:
Many of the Swashbuckler's deeds refer to whether or not you can use the Signature Deed feat with them - however nothing in the Swashbuckler Class would actually even qualify you to take Signature Deed (since there is no line that says something like "Swashbuckler's Panache can count as Grit for the purpose of taking Grit Feats etc)

It's on page 56 of the Advanced Class Guide. The box on the top right says grit users count as panache users and panache users count as grit users for the purpose of feat prerequisites.

On your other points, I agree that they could need a few FAQs.


here is some info on the skirmisher stuff.

Liberty's Edge

Any word on Disable Dweomer on its intended purpose? Also what is the DC if an item is held by someone? Also is there a range to use this ability?


nope, since a few people complained loudly enough there's not going to be any more previews for the ACG errata. So there's basically no word on it till it comes out, which we have no idea when that is, but they might release the errata once it's done even if the books aren't ready to be printed.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andreas Forster wrote:
Rycaut wrote:
Is there a DC to "push" an animal companion to use a trick they don't yet know

It's in the Core Rulebook. The DC to push an animal is 20.

Rycaut wrote:
Many of the Swashbuckler's deeds refer to whether or not you can use the Signature Deed feat with them - however nothing in the Swashbuckler Class would actually even qualify you to take Signature Deed (since there is no line that says something like "Swashbuckler's Panache can count as Grit for the purpose of taking Grit Feats etc)

It's on page 56 of the Advanced Class Guide. The box on the top right says grit users count as panache users and panache users count as grit users for the purpose of feat prerequisites.

On your other points, I agree that they could need a few FAQs.

Problem: You count as a Grit user, but Signature Deed explicitly requires Gunslinger levels, and Grit user doesn't mean Gunslinger.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

a few follow up items:

- can a hunter PUSH an animal companion to use a Skirmisher Trick? (i.e. use one that the animal companion hasn't yet been trained on)? I don't think this is entirely clear - my instinct would be no - but I'm not 100% certain

- re Swashbuckler's and grit vs panache feats. There are few which I think it would be very reasonable if the line that says that "levels of Swashbuckler can be used as levels of fighters for the purpose of feats" were to be expanded to also include Gunslingers (No Name for example makes perfectly good sense as a feat for many swashbucklers but mechanically it calls out gunslinger levels). And if the general rules are that hybrid classes count as their parent classes for these purposes why are they making pains to call out the classes that get to count as fighters for the purposes of feats?

Grand Lodge

Rycaut wrote:
And if the general rules are that hybrid classes count as their parent classes for these purposes why are they making pains to call out the classes that get to count as fighters for the purposes of feats?

Because there IS no general rule that hybrid classes count as their parent classes for anything.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

in playtesting, there was a consideration for multi-classing that the parent classes of the new hybrid classes could not be multi-classing into their parent classes. They removed that restriction (a mistake, in my opinion) in the final printing.

Instead, there are abilities and class features that do not stack with parent classes and such, making leveling into a parent class a less optimal choice.

The "general rule" about parent classes was altered because of this. I assume you remember something from the playtest that didn't make it into the final product in this regard.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
nope, since a few people complained loudly enough there's not going to be any more previews for the ACG errata. So there's basically no word on it till it comes out, which we have no idea when that is, but they might release the errata once it's done even if the books aren't ready to be printed.

Does that mean that the rest of us can complain more loudly so we can get more errata?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There's actually a forum where this is (or was) being discussed.

The Rules Forum isn't the place for it, but I can't recall which forum it was in.

Grand Lodge

Nefreet wrote:

There's actually a forum where this is (or was) being discussed.

The Rules Forum isn't the place for it, but I can't recall which forum it was in.

Perhaps that's why the rest of us didn't weigh in on it. I've been (im)patiently waiting for more updates.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Just as an FYI, little comments like "I've been (im)patiently waiting" do not further the discussion at hand. They instead make the forums a bit more hostile in tone, and put the developers reading your comment on the defensive, rather than opening up a dialogue where posters can be regarded as equals.

Developers used to chime in regularly during rules discussions, for example, but as soon as those discussions evolved into debates, their posting frequency dropped dramatically. It's no different when they're trying to correct a self-admitted mistake, and people continue to point out that they've made a mistake.

They *know* you've been waiting, and we *know* that they know, so really, just be a bit more respectful =).

Grand Lodge

Is Paizo disowning the ACG? Is that why this thread got moved to the third party forum? (I don't see why it doesn't belong in the rules forum, though, since it has to do with faq/errata)

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Also not a helpful way to word your comment =P

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Nefreet wrote:
They *know* you've been waiting, and we *know* that they know, so really, just be a bit more respectful =).

+1

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Here's the thread that addresses the ACG misprints:

Advanced Class Guide Potential Errors


Nefreet wrote:

Just as an FYI, little comments like "I've been (im)patiently waiting" do not further the discussion at hand. They instead make the forums a bit more hostile in tone, and put the developers reading your comment on the defensive, rather than opening up a dialogue where posters can be regarded as equals.

Developers used to chime in regularly during rules discussions, for example, but as soon as those discussions evolved into debates, their posting frequency dropped dramatically. It's no different when they're trying to correct a self-admitted mistake, and people continue to point out that they've made a mistake.

They *know* you've been waiting, and we *know* that they know, so really, just be a bit more respectful =).

*shrug* I don't see the respectful part. People want new items, be they errata or books. The fact that it's errata vs a new book shouldn't matter much other than the errata has no set date which makes people ask about it more. Saying I'm waiting for the errata is no more respectful than me saying I'm waiting for unchained. Both are true but I only know when one is coming out...


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I saw that huge thread (over 2000 posts I think) which tells me that an errata and / or a lot of faqs are needed for the ACG. I want to catch up on the errata - but reading through a 2000+ posts thread is a painful way to do so.

The Exchange

Chess Pwn wrote:
nope, since a few people complained loudly enough there's not going to be any more previews for the ACG errata. So there's basically no word on it till it comes out, which we have no idea when that is, but they might release the errata once it's done even if the books aren't ready to be printed.

This doesn't make sense to me for a few reasons.

1. I never actually saw any of these supposed previews. I'm not sure where they were hidden but they certainly weren't prominent anywhere. Sorry except one preview that they admitted was addressing issues no one actually asked about.

2. Why would complaining about the need for an errata and the frankly obnoxious delay cause them to stop giving information? Wouldn't they want to give more information to help assure people that work is being done?

3. I don't actually believe there is an errata. I think they're just stalling until we all forget about it. The fact that they've steamed ahead with unchained and occult so much without seeming to slow down at all shows that no real resources were diverted to fixing this mess of a book. So While you and a few others keep insisting on patience, i'll believe it when I see it. Right now, pretty sure it's paizo staff trying to just weather it out till we all forget it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is my biggest grip with Paizo, for when you put out a product, especially one as rule heavy as this game, the follow up should come a lot quicker then it does. Yet to date that has not been the case as far as I am concerned and by no means am I exclusively talking about the ACG.


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
nope, since a few people complained loudly enough there's not going to be any more previews for the ACG errata. So there's basically no word on it till it comes out, which we have no idea when that is, but they might release the errata once it's done even if the books aren't ready to be printed.

This doesn't make sense to me for a few reasons.

1. I never actually saw any of these supposed previews. I'm not sure where they were hidden but they certainly weren't prominent anywhere. Sorry except one preview that they admitted was addressing issues no one actually asked about.

2. Why would complaining about the need for an errata and the frankly obnoxious delay cause them to stop giving information? Wouldn't they want to give more information to help assure people that work is being done?

3. I don't actually believe there is an errata. I think they're just stalling until we all forget about it. The fact that they've steamed ahead with unchained and occult so much without seeming to slow down at all shows that no real resources were diverted to fixing this mess of a book. So While you and a few others keep insisting on patience, i'll believe it when I see it. Right now, pretty sure it's paizo staff trying to just weather it out till we all forget it.

In the thread about it

In the thread on this question
In the thread on this topic
the ACG thread with links to the three above
It's own thread
here saying people didn't like getting previews
1) Here are your errata previews, one had it's own thread. Three were in the largest threads about them, and had links to them from the ACG error thread. I'm not sure what more you want for them making it well known.

2)It wasn't complaining about the need for an errata, it was complaining about getting the previews.

3)here
here
and here
Are places the developers are talking and telling us what is going on and why the new books are coming out without delays. Plus there's more in that thread but these are highlights. And with threads like this popping up every few weeks and this issue being brought up in the discussions of the new books, I'm pretty sure they aren't expecting us to forget it.


I have to say I never saw #2. I saw people that didn't like/agree with an FAQ (sniper has some issues). I saw some people that didn't like that they went out of their way to pick FAQ's no one asked for over important ones. What I didn't see was anyone saying that they hated the fact that FAQ's where getting previewed. The only hint I found about it was Mark saying something about it but no actual preview complaint posts.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I have to say I never saw #2. I saw people that didn't like/agree with an FAQ (sniper has some issues). I saw some people that didn't like that they went out of their way to pick FAQ's no one asked for over important ones. What I didn't see was anyone saying that they hated the fact that FAQ's where getting previewed. The only hint I found about it was Mark saying something about it but no actual preview complaint posts.

In a truly bewildering coincidence, I went on a fact-finding mission for you to see if I could find those posts, and I found that most of them had been removed due to quoting or referencing an extremely inflammatory removed post, the first one to complain about the ACG previews.

But where's the bewildering coincidence, you're probably asking? That first removed post in that other thread of previews, clearly responding to the previews, is from the same poster Chess Pwn was just responding to on this thread saying they never saw any previews...


I agree that I didn't feel the negative response to the previews either, but Mark's post said they did, maybe it was all in private messages? But that's the reason he gave for not doing more previews.


Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
I have to say I never saw #2. I saw people that didn't like/agree with an FAQ (sniper has some issues). I saw some people that didn't like that they went out of their way to pick FAQ's no one asked for over important ones. What I didn't see was anyone saying that they hated the fact that FAQ's where getting previewed. The only hint I found about it was Mark saying something about it but no actual preview complaint posts.

In a truly bewildering coincidence, I went on a fact-finding mission for you to see if I could find those posts, and I found that most of them had been removed due to quoting or referencing an extremely inflammatory removed post, the first one to complain about the ACG previews.

But where's the bewildering coincidence, you're probably asking? That first removed post in that other thread of previews, clearly responding to the previews, is from the same poster Chess Pwn was just responding to on this thread saying they never saw any previews...

Now that is funny. Guess he's just trying to cause problems.


Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
I have to say I never saw #2. I saw people that didn't like/agree with an FAQ (sniper has some issues). I saw some people that didn't like that they went out of their way to pick FAQ's no one asked for over important ones. What I didn't see was anyone saying that they hated the fact that FAQ's where getting previewed. The only hint I found about it was Mark saying something about it but no actual preview complaint posts.

In a truly bewildering coincidence, I went on a fact-finding mission for you to see if I could find those posts, and I found that most of them had been removed due to quoting or referencing an extremely inflammatory removed post, the first one to complain about the ACG previews.

But where's the bewildering coincidence, you're probably asking? That first removed post in that other thread of previews, clearly responding to the previews, is from the same poster Chess Pwn was just responding to on this thread saying they never saw any previews...

LOL I had a feeling those redacted posts might have been the issue, but I never saw them before they vanished. If those where the only ones, I'd attribute them to a few rabble-rousers venting instead of thinking the boards as a whole don't want previews. I think (hope) that most of us would enjoy more of them.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
I have to say I never saw #2. I saw people that didn't like/agree with an FAQ (sniper has some issues). I saw some people that didn't like that they went out of their way to pick FAQ's no one asked for over important ones. What I didn't see was anyone saying that they hated the fact that FAQ's where getting previewed. The only hint I found about it was Mark saying something about it but no actual preview complaint posts.

In a truly bewildering coincidence, I went on a fact-finding mission for you to see if I could find those posts, and I found that most of them had been removed due to quoting or referencing an extremely inflammatory removed post, the first one to complain about the ACG previews.

But where's the bewildering coincidence, you're probably asking? That first removed post in that other thread of previews, clearly responding to the previews, is from the same poster Chess Pwn was just responding to on this thread saying they never saw any previews...

LOL I had a feeling those redacted posts might have been the issue, but I never saw them before they vanished. If those where the only ones, I'd attribute them to a few rabble-rousers venting instead of thinking the boards as a whole don't want previews. I think (hope) that most of us would enjoy more of them.

Here's the thing: while it wasn't one of the forum's biggest outpourings of grar, it happened for a relatively happy sort of errata reveal (three things that had issues that no one thought were too strong got new cool stuff).

If ACG questions get toward the top of the FAQ queue, we won't avoid them either, and we'll use our preliminary errata doc to answer them where relevant, but we've been trying to focus on the top FAQs you guys request rather than bias towards the ACG as we did for a few weeks back then, if that makes sense? We did manage to take out the #1 requested FAQ several times in a row, which I thought was pretty cool.


Mark Seifter wrote:
If ACG questions get toward the top of the FAQ queue, we won't avoid them either, and we'll use our preliminary errata doc to answer them where relevant, but we've been trying to focus on the top FAQs you guys request rather than bias towards the ACG as we did for a few weeks back then, if that makes sense? We did manage to take out the #1 requested FAQ several times in a row, which I thought was pretty cool.

Definitely. The past few FAQs have made awesomely on-point (albeit, not a fan of the SLA reversal myself...), and I'd love to see y'all continue the trend of nailing the high- & long-requested issues first. Thanks!

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LeesusFreak wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
If ACG questions get toward the top of the FAQ queue, we won't avoid them either, and we'll use our preliminary errata doc to answer them where relevant, but we've been trying to focus on the top FAQs you guys request rather than bias towards the ACG as we did for a few weeks back then, if that makes sense? We did manage to take out the #1 requested FAQ several times in a row, which I thought was pretty cool.
Definitely. The past few FAQs have made awesomely on-point (albeit, not a fan of the SLA reversal myself...), and I'd love to see y'all continue the trend of nailing the high- & long-requested issues first. Thanks!

With #1 being light and darkness...well, let's just say that there is a plan in motion to nail that one (don't know exactly when, but the preliminaries are in place; certainly not this week), but when it happens, it'll be something bigger than a usual FAQ.

Hard questions and tough clarifications...we're coming for ya!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Great - I guess my request might be for either an errata or an FAQ to clarify the many clear typos/errors in the book - stuff that no amount of board debates can really resolve - but which make playing ACG classes (or archetypes/feats etc) in PFS more subject to table variation than usual.

I agree, resolving long confusing/FAQ requested items is really helpful - but if you know what the errata for a book should be getting that out (and ideally updating the PDF edition if not yet reprinting it) would help a LOT of people (not just PFS players) and resolve many debates/questions


Rycaut wrote:

Great - I guess my request might be for either an errata or an FAQ to clarify the many clear typos/errors in the book - stuff that no amount of board debates can really resolve - but which make playing ACG classes (or archetypes/feats etc) in PFS more subject to table variation than usual.

I agree, resolving long confusing/FAQ requested items is really helpful - but if you know what the errata for a book should be getting that out (and ideally updating the PDF edition if not yet reprinting it) would help a LOT of people (not just PFS players) and resolve many debates/questions

They're waiting for it to be finalized and finished before publishing what they have. I agree that it would be nice to have everything as it was being worked on for this ACG errata to have as much of a fix as soon as possible. But unless it reaches high FAQ we're getting nothing till it's "done"


Mark Seifter wrote:
If ACG questions get toward the top of the FAQ queue, we won't avoid them either, and we'll use our preliminary errata doc to answer them where relevant, but we've been trying to focus on the top FAQs you guys request rather than bias towards the ACG as we did for a few weeks back then, if that makes sense? We did manage to take out the #1 requested FAQ several times in a row, which I thought was pretty cool.

Myself I'm happy to see new FAQ, even though several have not been to my liking (I'm with LeesusFreak on the SLA one). I do think giving ACG FAQ's a bump up on the list might not be a bad idea. It'd be giving players a bone and assure them that things are moving forward. Long standing FAQ's getting answered are awesome but if it hasn't been answered in years a bit longer wouldn't matter. ACG issues are new enough that it's being unanswered can be holding up using it's material in game.

Now I know the majority of the errata will come out at one time but one here and there would, IMO, make everyone much happier and more content to wait for the main errata release. I think the troubles in the preview where just a few people making a fuss just to cause chaos and not the views of a majority of the community.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
If ACG questions get toward the top of the FAQ queue, we won't avoid them either, and we'll use our preliminary errata doc to answer them where relevant, but we've been trying to focus on the top FAQs you guys request rather than bias towards the ACG as we did for a few weeks back then, if that makes sense? We did manage to take out the #1 requested FAQ several times in a row, which I thought was pretty cool.

Myself I'm happy to see new FAQ, even though several have not been to my liking (I'm with LeesusFreak on the SLA one). I do think giving ACG FAQ's a bump up on the list might not be a bad idea. It'd be giving players a bone and assure them that things are moving forward. Long standing FAQ's getting answered are awesome but if it hasn't been answered in years a bit longer wouldn't matter. ACG issues are new enough that it's being unanswered can be holding up using it's material in game.

Now I know the majority of the errata will come out at one time but one here and there would, IMO, make everyone much happier and more content to wait for the main errata release. I think the troubles in the preview where just a few people making a fuss just to cause chaos and not the views of a majority of the community.

You have good points, and I'll take them to the PDT to consider. However, that said, I think there aren't really any ACG FAQs in the Top 25 most asked, and those Top 25 aren't all old threads either; some really new threads like the new scorpion whip thread, new mithral armor thread, and even new Knowledge T10 thread have all gotten up there despite being created in the past month or two. From that measure, it seems that more people are finding these issues urgent in their games recently, despite being from much earlier books.

It's a tough line to walk, I can tell you that. Though we always answer questions together, I'm the one who wrangles these FAQs, and I'm doing my best as FAQ wrangler to keep an eye on every topic, and to keep the FAQ timing regular while shooting to answer the most pervasive questions possible. It's not easy, and it'll never be perfect, but I hope that our FAQ process (regardless of whether one prefers the answer to any particular FAQ) has been improving during my time working on it and that it will continue to improve.


I think it's perfectly reasonable to do the top 1-2 requested FAQs every week and that it really makes sense as a company.

Besides, I think ACG needs an errata first to clear up any issues before FAQs happen.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I suspect many people like myself haven't started using the new book because of the confusions. I've been theory crafting some builds but have run into a lot of blockers even at very low levels where I just don't know what is intended - so until the errata is clear many people may just not be using the advanced class guide (so faq requests may be lower)


I've found the Hunter very useable. Since they errated Skirmisher tricks and Hunter options seem free of editing errors.


I for one really like that we're getting FAQ's regularly. It makes FAQing something feel like it matters. Like being able to get mithral armor from new to maybe in the top in just a few weeks, that feels very responsive and motivates FAQs to get things cleared up.


Mark Seifter wrote:

You have good points, and I'll take them to the PDT to consider. However, that said, I think there aren't really any ACG FAQs in the Top 25 most asked, and those Top 25 aren't all old threads either; some really new threads like the new scorpion whip thread, new mithral armor thread, and even new Knowledge T10 thread have all gotten up there despite being created in the past month or two. From that measure, it seems that more people are finding these issues urgent in their games recently, despite being from much earlier books.

It's a tough line to walk, I can tell you that. Though we always answer questions together, I'm the one who wrangles these FAQs, and I'm doing my best as FAQ wrangler to keep an eye on every topic, and to keep the FAQ timing regular while shooting to answer the most pervasive questions possible. It's not easy, and it'll never be perfect, but I hope that our FAQ process (regardless of whether one prefers the answer to any particular FAQ) has been improving during my time working on it and that it will continue to improve.

Thank for the consideration! :)

New threads: Scorpion whip, mithral armor thread, and Knowledge T10 are new threads for old issues. Scorpion whip, for example, has been an issue as long as I've been on these boards. Given this It's easy to see why they quickly got a large number. On the other hand, I think the ACG's issues have fallen off the front pages and stopped getting FAQ's because it's known it's in the works. As such they already know it's getting looked at and there is no active debates on them. That's why I was thinking ACG questions might need a bump as I don't think the numbers actually reflect the correct number of people that want them answered.

FAQ process: Overall I'm happy with it (though often not happy with the actual FAQ) and have very few complaints. You've been doing an awesome job from my perspective.

The Exchange

Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
I have to say I never saw #2. I saw people that didn't like/agree with an FAQ (sniper has some issues). I saw some people that didn't like that they went out of their way to pick FAQ's no one asked for over important ones. What I didn't see was anyone saying that they hated the fact that FAQ's where getting previewed. The only hint I found about it was Mark saying something about it but no actual preview complaint posts.

In a truly bewildering coincidence, I went on a fact-finding mission for you to see if I could find those posts, and I found that most of them had been removed due to quoting or referencing an extremely inflammatory removed post, the first one to complain about the ACG previews.

But where's the bewildering coincidence, you're probably asking? That first removed post in that other thread of previews, clearly responding to the previews, is from the same poster Chess Pwn was just responding to on this thread saying they never saw any previews...

Ok first, stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

I commented on the only preview I ever saw. One which didn't address any issues that were really pressing.

My issue wasn't getting previews, previews are great. My issue was that you were ignoring all the issues actually being asked. The shield champion gets faced every week. Why are you not releasing previews for that?

I purchased a book that doesn't work. I'm just upset that you've taken 6 months and are apparently no closer to fixing it. I'm upset that you expect people to buy more copies if a broken book before you'll fix it. Frankly that shows a disregard for the customer I've not seen in a long time.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The ACG errata previews had more FAQ requests than the shield champion, which is not even in the Top 75 most frequently asked questions. We are answering the questions people are asking. They just aren't asking about that one very much.

You are the one of the people who started a picket for us to FAQ the most requested issues. And we listened, and are now focusing on those issues. I am sorry that the issues you want to hear about most are not actually the most requested. It is what people are calling "irony" these days, but if you had not started a call for us to answer the most-requested FAQs, perhaps we would have instead previewed more ACG errata by now including the ones you wanted (I really can't predict how things would have turned out). Personally, I'm thrilled that we got that 566 FAQ damage dice thing done, so I'm not unhappy with our new focus.

Silver Crusade

Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
But where's the bewildering coincidence, you're probably asking? That first removed post in that other thread of previews, clearly responding to the previews, is from the same poster Chess Pwn was just responding to on this thread saying they never saw any previews...
Ok first, stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

It seems to me that, "saying they never saw any previews," is a well-within-reason description of your statement here:

Rushley son of Halum wrote:
1. I never actually saw any of these supposed previews.

Hardly "putting words in your mouth," I'd say.

Now, from your other comments—trying to figure out what you're objecting to here, out of idle curiosity—, I'm guessing that you probably meant "these supposed previews" (emphasis added) as "these supposed previews [i.e. specifically any previews other than the one that I actually saw, and commented on]."

So it seems there was a miscommunication, which led Mark to his apparent "bewildering coincidence." But come on—taking "I never actually saw any of these* supposed previews" to mean "never saw any previews" is pretty understandable, isn't it? Doesn't seem like something worth getting prickly over. And getting prickly doesn't help anything anyway.

As for the shield champion, well, I guess the only thing to do—other than wait for the general release of the errata document—is to rally posters to click the FAQ flag! :-)


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
I have to say I never saw #2. I saw people that didn't like/agree with an FAQ (sniper has some issues). I saw some people that didn't like that they went out of their way to pick FAQ's no one asked for over important ones. What I didn't see was anyone saying that they hated the fact that FAQ's where getting previewed. The only hint I found about it was Mark saying something about it but no actual preview complaint posts.

In a truly bewildering coincidence, I went on a fact-finding mission for you to see if I could find those posts, and I found that most of them had been removed due to quoting or referencing an extremely inflammatory removed post, the first one to complain about the ACG previews.

But where's the bewildering coincidence, you're probably asking? That first removed post in that other thread of previews, clearly responding to the previews, is from the same poster Chess Pwn was just responding to on this thread saying they never saw any previews...

Ok first, stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

I commented on the only preview I ever saw. One which didn't address any issues that were really pressing.

My issue wasn't getting previews, previews are great. My issue was that you were ignoring all the issues actually being asked. The shield champion gets faced every week. Why are you not releasing previews for that?

I purchased a book that doesn't work. I'm just upset that you've taken 6 months and are apparently no closer to fixing it. I'm upset that you expect people to buy more copies if a broken book before you'll fix it. Frankly that shows a disregard for the customer I've not seen in a long time.

I'm pretty sure they said that they'll release the Errata once it's done, regardless of the print release. And also if you followed this well (or looked at the links I gave) you'll have known that it's left the development team and is being reviewed by the other people that need to check it. Like the phrasing team, and the layout team. So they are very much closer to fixing it than they were 6 months ago. I sympathize because it has taken much longer than I expected for the errata to come, but the links I shared gave insight as to why it was taking a long time. And they are following the "advice/criticism" where people said they'd rather wait for a good book than having a poor book rushed out to them.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Does the system add up faq clicks on similar posts? As a fan I'm not sure which posts in a given thread to click as possible FAQs on many of the items I would like to see answers on.


Mark Seifter wrote:

The ACG errata previews had more FAQ requests than the shield champion, which is not even in the Top 75 most frequently asked questions. We are answering the questions people are asking. They just aren't asking about that one very much.

You are the one of the people who started a picket for us to FAQ the most requested issues. And we listened, and are now focusing on those issues. I am sorry that the issues you want to hear about most are not actually the most requested. It is what people are calling "irony" these days, but if you had not started a call for us to answer the most-requested FAQs, perhaps we would have instead previewed more ACG errata by now including the ones you wanted (I really can't predict how things would have turned out). Personally, I'm thrilled that we got that 566 FAQ damage dice thing done, so I'm not unhappy with our new focus.

Just curious, does your team need to do any work to release a preview? Like don't you have it there and just need to post it? I expect there's more than I can think of right now, and I'm not upset or dissing your priorities. But it does seem like you could just release a preview and still do the FAQ for the week.

The Exchange

Mark Seifter wrote:

The ACG errata previews had more FAQ requests than the shield champion, which is not even in the Top 75 most frequently asked questions. We are answering the questions people are asking. They just aren't asking about that one very much.

You are the one of the people who started a picket for us to FAQ the most requested issues. And we listened, and are now focusing on those issues. I am sorry that the issues you want to hear about most are not actually the most requested. It is what people are calling "irony" these days, but if you had not started a call for us to answer the most-requested FAQs, perhaps we would have instead previewed more ACG errata by now including the ones you wanted (I really can't predict how things would have turned out). Personally, I'm thrilled that we got that 566 FAQ damage dice thing done, so I'm not unhappy with our new focus.

And you know that I meant addressing the most urgent issues in the acg not just the most faqed issues in general. If you can't keep your regular faq schedule and also fix the acg then maybe you should consider not releasing that kind of poor quality in the future.

Paizo Employee Designer

Rycaut wrote:
Does the system add up faq clicks on similar posts? As a fan I'm not sure which posts in a given thread to click as possible FAQs on many of the items I would like to see answers on.

I recommend clicking FAQ on the first post of a thread with a clear question. It's your best bet. The system doesn't add up the similar posts; hurdle of auto-determining that aside, there's a pretty good reason why not (suppose that someone wanted to push their pet FAQ to the top and so they found a thread with 100 posts [not too long for a rules debate thread] and FAQed all of the posts).


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So as someone who wasn't active on the boards for a few months around the holidays I probably missed hitting faq on the right posts. :(

Paizo Employee Designer

Rycaut wrote:
So as someone who wasn't active on the boards for a few months around the holidays I probably missed hitting faq on the right posts. :(

Posts remain there to be found; you can always search 'em up (and perhaps lend the thread a bump too!).


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

The ACG errata previews had more FAQ requests than the shield champion, which is not even in the Top 75 most frequently asked questions. We are answering the questions people are asking. They just aren't asking about that one very much.

You are the one of the people who started a picket for us to FAQ the most requested issues. And we listened, and are now focusing on those issues. I am sorry that the issues you want to hear about most are not actually the most requested. It is what people are calling "irony" these days, but if you had not started a call for us to answer the most-requested FAQs, perhaps we would have instead previewed more ACG errata by now including the ones you wanted (I really can't predict how things would have turned out). Personally, I'm thrilled that we got that 566 FAQ damage dice thing done, so I'm not unhappy with our new focus.

And you know that I meant addressing the most urgent issues in the acg not just the most faqed issues in general. If you can't keep your regular faq schedule and also fix the acg then maybe you should consider not releasing that kind of poor quality in the future.

You know, it might not have been clear you mean highest ACG and not highest in general. To you it might have been, but what you said might not have been as clear as you thought it was.

Also again since you're not getting it. The designer team portion of the fix has been done for a bit now. So them working on other FAQs isn't slowing down the ACG at all.

They've publicly said that the ACG was an unacceptable quality of work and that they are going to avoid such mishaps in the future, that's also partly why the ACG is taking a while, they are making sure it's top quality work.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Any update on Errata / FAQ clarifications for Advanced Class Guide? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.