| 48 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More and more these days we are seeing Paizo reprint existing rules with distinctive changes. I'm not talking about official errata, but what some refer to as "stealth errata."
Examples of this phenomenon include the Lore Warden fighter archetype from the Pathfinder Field Guide in 2011, which was later reprinted (with several changes) in the Adventurer's Guide this year; or the JuJu oracle mystery, which originally appeared in Pathfinder Adventure Path #39: City of Seven Spears in 2010, but was reprinted in Pathfinder Player Companion: Faiths & Philosophies in 2013 with dramatically different mechanics.
There are dozens, if not hundreds more example out there, running the full gamut from equipment to spells, archetypes, feats, and much more.
Is it the intent of Paizo that these "updates" (for lack of a better word) should be treated more or less as errata? I know there is nothing stopping us from using whatever version of these rules we want in our home games, but I'm curious to know a bit about the behind-the-scenes thought process the designers go through when reprinting (and changing) existing material in newer source books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it certainly treated as such for PFS, but for home games, who gives a f***. My Cha to saves from Divine Protection doesn't care.
EDIT: in the context of changes that this makes in PFS, I consider a d** move on Paizo's part, because many people bought things like PF Field Guide exclusively for that Lore Warden archetype, or Cheliax for Cornugon Smash.
yes - probably thought about a bit more and balanced better
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of want this thread to explore the way Paizo does things and why, not have it become a Paizo bashing thread. My hope is that it will inform people, not ostracize developers before a lock.
For AP content, my understanding is that AP's are where potential new features and subsystems are tried out before being committed to the rules. So, anything you play in an AP can potentially be superseded later by a splatbook.
I have no insights on PFS, only empathy.
When you really, really, really need to undo a gordian knot on some cool ability or rule point, it would seem logical to take the most recently published source as the definitive answer to any such questions.
Obviously it would be up to an individual DM whether or not to allow some earlier version, depending on the perceived cheese content and his personal tolerance for cheese. <g>
As far as the question of the way Paizo does things and why, my bet is that it all comes down to imperfect writing, editing and rules knowledge. And I'm also willing to bet that some changes *are* intentionally "stealth errata" when some later author or editor felt it was time to cut down on the cheese content here or there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but for home games, who gives a f***
Well, the GM might. It puts yet another decision on their shoulders, unless the player successfully keeps the reprint secret - which is not good style.
Some GMs might go an easy route (reprint always wins or it's always the player's choice), but personally I can't force myself to such a general attitude. Hence I'd have the effort to check it on a case-by-case base - if my players would come up with it. Even the ambitious ones don't, so far.
Errata would have a better reputation if there were more changes in players' favor. Heck, there are a lot of weak options that could directly be elevated to an average power level.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For PFS yes, and for home games I tend to go by the latest version of an ability/feat/class/etc also, and Paizo should have some official policy on this. I think it is worth an FAQ to be honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember right, it was said that unlike the RPG line, the various campaign settings didn't have the Paizo Development Team look at their power level before publishing (which is why spells like snowball get out there). I may be wrong, but that's what I'm vaguely remembering. Personally, I feel that reprints in the RPG line should be considered errata... but that's my feeling. I don't really care all that much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For PFS, it's whatever PFS decides.
If I'm running a home game, it's whatever version comes up first when I Google it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The general principle in Table-Top RPG publishing is that the most recent printing of a Game Element is the 'correct' one to use (assuming both were printed for the same edition). However, it is also considered common curtesy to note when a given game element has been reprinted that the newer version is intended to replace the older. For example, "This version of [Feat Name] replaces the feat of the same name from [Feat Source Citation]."
It is also worth noting that Paizo has a really bad habit of misusing the concept of Errata to make whole-cloth revisions to their game mechanics that the general principle indicates would deserve a change of edition. Which has given Pathfinder players a distorted view of what Errata actually is. According to the principle of the thing, we are technically using the Pathfinder Role Playing Game Core Rulebook 6th Edition (which just happens to be extremely backwards compatible with the previous 5 editions), regardless of what Paizo wants to call it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Examples of this phenomenon include the Lore Warden fighter archetype from the Pathfinder Field Guide in 2011, which was later reprinted (with several changes) in the Adventurer's Guide this year
Just outta curiosity, can you say what was changed, or do I have to wait for d20pfsrd?
Examples of this phenomenon include the Lore Warden fighter archetype from the Pathfinder Field Guide in 2011, which was later reprinted (with several changes) in the Adventurer's Guide this yearJust outta curiosity, can you say what was changed, or do I have to wait for d20pfsrd?
You will probably have to wait until May 31st to get a complete breakdown. Meanwhile, you can find a few hints in the Adventurer's Guide product thread.
Examples of this phenomenon include the Lore Warden fighter archetype from the Pathfinder Field Guide in 2011, which was later reprinted (with several changes) in the Adventurer's Guide this yearJust outta curiosity, can you say what was changed, or do I have to wait for d20pfsrd?
It got Nerfed, hard. Here's a pseudo list it's a few of the posts there
this is the best thing we have as far as I'm aware.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Found a very interesting post by one-time game developer SKR on the new Juju mystery. Perhaps it will provide some insight?
As it appeared in an adventure path, not a core book, it's not in Paizo's PRD. Other sites (such as the PFSRD) have their own policies and I don't speak for them, but I doubt they're replace the first version with the second version.
Why?
Because nothing in the second version says "this updates are replaces the version of the juju mystery that appeared in another book."
Both are valid.
The second one is actually valid for PFS play (the first one was never allowed in PFS), so you actually have more options than before. Hey, perhaps that's why the change was made. Or perhaps it was made to make the juju concept actually be more like the real-world vodun religion that inspired it, instead of the intended-only-for-NPCs version in City of Seven Spears.
Nobody at Paizo is trying to take the first version away from your character. Nobody at Paizo cares that your character is using the first version. If your GM forcing you to change your character, that's a problem with your GM, not Paizo.
Seems to be pretty clear: A new option doesn't replace an old option unless it specifically says it does. Be sure to tell your overbearing GM! :P
That'll work to satisfy my curiosity for now. Thanks! :D
I don't know if the Red mantis prestige class is specifically said to be errata and the others aren't, but it seems to be that Paizo considers this a form of errata.
One of the things I was most relieved about being able to do this book was to get errata in for the Red Mantis assassin prestige class.
Someone with the Adventure's guide could check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I draw the line at enforcing a subscription to paizo to use stuff you've bought.
Personally, I would say that unless the text spells out "this replaces that" or there's a strong reason to say "no" to a thing (e.g. the chained summoner is arguably too strong) then if there's two versions of something, just use the one you prefer.
Considering how often existing softcover options have been reprinted in hardcover books lately, I'd say it would count as errata, especially in the case of PFS, because PFS will rule the hardcover option over the softcover option, even if you bring the respective source(s).
As an aside, it doesn't matter what SKR said, because these things still happened even while he was employed at Paizo. I won't say that he's a liar, all I'm saying is that, like official rules, unless the PDT account comes in here and clarifies things, SKR's word is just that: his word.
And nothing more.
Do Archives of Nethys or d20pfsrd have known policies for dealing with such maybe-errata? I don't mean to imply any argument for what a GM should do, I'm just curious.
Yes, we should. I'd really prefer it if Paizo didn't do this, since it kind of slaps people who bought the original product it was in for the original.
It seems far too money grabby and sleazy.
How is it different than any other errata? Reprints and Errata's don't show up on our home books either... so is this a complaint about Errata in general or Errata in a different place?
Personally, I don't mind the idea of Errata if the idea is to clean up some rules, I'd rather that than just letting bad stuff stick around.
Granted, I have not been pleased with the choices of what they decide need errata and what doesn't...
The policy of D&D 3.x was that if a new version of something was printed, the latest printed version was the correct one, and superseded all others.
I don't know that Paizo has such an explicit rule, but I do remember seeing comment to the effect that that versions of Universal Monster Abilities from the latest Bestiary where they appear should take precedence because they are the most correct.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is it different than any other errata? Reprints and Errata's don't show up on our home books either... so is this a complaint about Errata in general or Errata in a different place?
Should books you don't own affect your character? Because that's the central problem with the "it's always the latest version" policy.
In order to make sure your character is legal, it would be mandatory for ever player to buy and thoroughly study ever single book Paizo ever releases on the off-chance that something they're using got reprinted.
Example: If you don't own Ultimate Intrigue, you can search for every FAQ and erratum for Advanced Class Origins and won't ever learn that your TWF Fencing Grace character is illegal.
Errata and FAQs are free, new books aren't (and not all of them are on the PRD). Is the time I get to keep my character legal dependant on when the guy from Archives of Nethys finds time to put up new material?
Misused errata/FAQs (i.e. nerfs in erratum/FAQ form) are bad enough, but if following my books in the newest printing plus the respective FAQs isn't enough to buuild a legal character, that would take it to a whole new level.
Also, does every Wizard with the Pact Wizard archetype from Familiar Folio get changed to the Pact Wizard archetype from Haunted Heroes Handbook? THey have the same name, after all! Where is the line between "obviously it's the same with modifications" and "it's a genuinly different thing"?
This is similar to the "5 evil spells make you evil" b~+~~+#$ in Horror Adventures, where a new books tries to affect games that don't use the book.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not every single book they put out, it's everything in Rulebook line, which PDFs are $9.99, so cheaper than the PDF of the Softcover you got that the option originally appeared in.How is it different than any other errata? Reprints and Errata's don't show up on our home books either... so is this a complaint about Errata in general or Errata in a different place?Should books you don't own affect your character? Because that's the central problem with the "it's always the latest version" policy.
In order to make sure your character is legal, it would be mandatory for ever player to buy and thoroughly study ever single book Paizo ever releases on the off-chance that something they're using got reprinted.
Example: If you don't own Ultimate Intrigue, you can search for every FAQ and erratum for Advanced Class Origins and won't ever learn that your TWF Fencing Grace character is illegal.Errata and FAQs are free, new books aren't (and not all of them are on the PRD). Is the time I get to keep my character legal dependant on when the guy from Archives of Nethys finds time to put up new material?
Misused errata/FAQs (i.e. nerfs in erratum/FAQ form) are bad enough, but if following my books in the newest printing plus the respective FAQs isn't enough to buuild a legal character, that would take it to a whole new level.
Also, does every Wizard with the Pact Wizard archetype from Familiar Folio get changed to the Pact Wizard archetype from Haunted Heroes Handbook? THey have the same name, after all! Where is the line between "obviously it's the same with modifications" and "it's a genuinly different thing"?This is completely disingenuous and you know it.
This is similar to the "5 evil spells make you evil" b~+@$~!* in Horror Adventures, where a new books tries to affect games that don't use the book.
Evil spells have always been evil, moving on.
Sadly, this appears to be the only avenue they are willing to take to change or fix things in splat books or AP's, since they don't make actual errata changes to those products. Kind of a mess that COULD be fixed, but once in the wind, those products are all but abandoned by the general development group.
|
|
Sadly, this appears to be the only avenue they are willing to take to change or fix things in splat books or AP's, since they don't make actual errata changes to those products. Kind of a mess that COULD be fixed, but once in the wind, those products are all but abandoned by the general development group.
They have lightened up on that, I don't know the exact workings but if PFS Additional Resources tackles some of it then Softcover topics can be FAQed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had thought you used whatever book you had, so if all you have is Advanced Class Origins you use that.
It is incredibly greedy, insensitive, and s&!@ty to make people people buy a new book (which, ten bucks is a huge amount to spend for me) to use something they already spent 14 bucks on.
|
|
I had thought you used whatever book you had, so if all you have is Advanced Class Origins you use that.
It is incredibly greedy, insensitive, and s*$&ty to make people people buy a new book (which, ten bucks is a huge amount to spend for me) to use something they already spent 14 bucks on.
You only have to use the new one if there's been changes to the thing you're using, to my understanding.
That and once it goes up on the PRD you can use that as a source.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
But what if I don't have Ultimate Intrigue, can I not use slashing grace then, or do I just have to find out how it's changed if it's brought up I'm using it wrong.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Glad to hear that lore warden just got nerfed, after I made a build out of it.
... Have they nerfed stuff that actually needs it yet?
Like, simulacrum, contengnecy, emergency force sphere?
No?
Of course they haven't.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
But what if I don't have Ultimate Intrigue, can I not use slashing grace then, or do I just have to find out how it's changed if it's brought up I'm using it wrong.
Good question, that would be something you would need ask the PFS people (unless they've already weighed in on it).
But what if I don't have Ultimate Intrigue, can I not use slashing grace then, or do I just have to find out how it's changed if it's brought up I'm using it wrong.Good question, that would be something you would need ask the PFS people (unless they've already weighed in on it).
That's all I needed to hear!
So much for my twelve step program.
But what if I don't have Ultimate Intrigue, can I not use slashing grace then, or do I just have to find out how it's changed if it's brought up I'm using it wrong.
You mean Fencing Grace, and it was changed to the UI wording in the Campaign Clarification.
Does that answer my question. I don't click on links.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what if I don't have Ultimate Intrigue, can I not use slashing grace then, or do I just have to find out how it's changed if it's brought up I'm using it wrong.Good question, that would be something you would need ask the PFS people (unless they've already weighed in on it).That's all I needed to hear!
So much for my twelve step program.
Sadly each case I have seen appears to be different. A lot of times PFS has allowed PCs to grandfather if they have played a character passed 1st level. Whenever there is a change to an existing archetype/PrC/class and placed into a new book, the specifics will always be covered under the Additional Resources document.
I am hoping that is the case with Lore Warden, because from what I have read of the changes I'm not a fan. I could be wrong and might be pleasantly surprised, but I'm skeptical and have a Lore Warden about to go into 2nd level. If it's going to be grandfathered, then I'll play him to 2nd level, but if not... I *really* don't want to be stuck with an archetype that I dislike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More and more these days we are seeing Paizo reprint existing rules with distinctive changes. I'm not talking about official errata, but what some refer to as "stealth errata."
Examples of this phenomenon include the Lore Warden fighter archetype from the Pathfinder Field Guide in 2011, which was later reprinted (with several changes) in the Adventurer's Guide this year; or the JuJu oracle mystery, which originally appeared in Pathfinder Adventure Path #39: City of Seven Spears in 2010, but was reprinted in Pathfinder Player Companion: Faiths & Philosophies in 2013 with dramatically different mechanics.
I think Paizo has been pretty consistent with this policy the entire time. Monsters IIRC get regularly updated/errata'ed when they are taken from CS/AP books and put into a Bestiary. Flavor text also gets regularly revised when it makes it into a hardcover...see the Darklight Sisterhood not being referenced in the Inner Sea Campaign Setting hardcover, or changes to Gods that occurred with Inner Sea Gods. Same thing has happened with the Hardcover AP compilations.
It's just that...well, no one seems to care about how monsters get changed, and flavor text changes tends impact the characterization of a PC more so than its mechanics.
For PFS yes, and for home games I tend to go by the latest version of an ability/feat/class/etc also, and Paizo should have some official policy on this. I think it is worth an FAQ to be honest.
I agree with you.
I think if an archetype is changed or updated it usually because there were balance concerns (or other concerns) with the content.
Juju Oracle for example was changed because the devs didn't want non-evil undead to be an easily available option.
I don't think there is currently a way to make non-evil undead unless you use the old version of Juju Oracle.
Personally, I often find that my sense of balance aligns pretty well with Paizo, such that I usually find the changes they implement to please me.
But no one is holding a gun to anyone's head telling them they must yuse the new version and the old version. If your GM is not like me, they might not have a problem.
I think the default stance of Paizo is "Use the new stuff" in the sense of "why would they release it if they didn't think it should be changed?". So of course they should think to use the newest version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only cases I have found of a new archetype not superseding an older archetype of the same name has been in cases where they accidentally reused an archetype name for a new concept. Examples would be the Pact Wizard and the Wild Caller Summoner -- in both cases, the two archetypes had so little in common that it was clear that one was not meant to supersede the other.
Considering how often existing softcover options have been reprinted in hardcover books lately, I'd say it would count as errata, especially in the case of PFS, because PFS will rule the hardcover option over the softcover option, even if you bring the respective source(s).
And this is exactly why I think this subject deserves attention. It is a long-running increasingly wide spread practice performed by Paizo. I would like to know more about why they are handling it this way, and how they expect us to treat the newly remade material.
This is completely disingenuous and you know it.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance to have on the matter. I really don't believe there's anything disingenuous about what Derklord said.
That being said, please remember this thread is about finding out more about what's going on behind the scenes and why, not about venting about Paizo's practices.
Glad to hear that lore warden just got nerfed, after I made a build out of it.
Actually, it's better in some respects. For example, the new version lets you choose which abilities you want and when (like rogue talents or rage powers), as opposed to simply statically rolling them out to you at predefined levels in a set order.
Yeah, I'm going to FAQ this too. Why not? Maybe they will do a blog or something.
Also, I've started a thread dedicated to listing the differences between original content and newly reprinted material from the Adventurer's Guide. Please check it out and contribute to the list!
Does that answer my question. I don't click on links.
PFS publishes documents that delineate what choices are legal and what are not, as well as "what version to use" and in at least one case creating an ability out of whole cloth (Basic Phytokinesis).
But regarding Fencing Grace the campaign clarification document says:
Advanced Class Origins
Page 27—Add the following text to the end of the first paragraph of the Fencing Grace feat. "You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied."
So armed with ACO and the Campaign Clarifications I think you can use Fencing Grace, but only the amended version (which is identical to the Ultimate Intrigue version).
So PFS is going to tell you what version to use, and there's precedent for "you use the new version even with the old book, which is enough", I just wonder if they're willing to do that with a whole archetype.
For a home game, errata and multiple versions of something only matter if the people at the table want it to matter. I just say "play with the version you brought" unless I see a big problem with that version of it.
Does that answer my question. I don't click on links.PFS publishes documents that delineate what choices are legal and what are not, as well as "what version to use" and in at least one case creating an ability out of whole cloth (Basic Phytokinesis).
But regarding Fencing Grace the campaign clarification document says:
Advanced Class Origins
Page 27—Add the following text to the end of the first paragraph of the Fencing Grace feat. "You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied."So armed with ACO and the Campaign Clarifications I think you can use Fencing Grace, but only the amended version (which is identical to the Ultimate Intrigue version).
So PFS is going to tell you what version to use, and there's precedent for "you use the new version even with the old book, which is enough", I just wonder if they're willing to do that with a whole archetype.
Thanks! That's exactly what I was wondering about. :-)
|
|
This is completely disingenuous and you know it.I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance to have on the matter. I really don't believe there's anything disingenuous about what Derklord said.
That being said, please remember this thread is about finding out more about what's going on behind the scenes and why, not about venting about Paizo's practices.
Except it isn't, and they were.
"THey have the same name, after all! Where is the line between "obviously it's the same with modifications" and "it's a genuinly different thing"?"
Is being disingenuous in that regard. Aside from accidentally reusing the name the second Archetype named Pact Wizard has absolutely nothing to do with the first. It's not an upgrade or Version 2.
That being said with the complete overhaul the new Lore Warden, which is in fact a modified Lore Warden, got maybe PFS will allow grandfathering or to be able to choose? But I realize that is me being naively optimistic.
Trying to determine whether or not something is wholly new material, or simply meant to function as a rules update is an important distinction though. Just because you don't like the poster's tone doesn't change that. Looks to me less like he's being disingenuous, and merely stressing his point.
That distinction is something that a LOT of people want to know about.
|
|
Okay then, but the Pact Wizards are two very different archetypes.
Whereas the new Lore Warden is a modification on the first, rather than another archetype using the same name, and also has the abilities of the first, same names, or modified names, and modifications, but you can still clearly tell it is a second version of Lore Warden, rather than a new archetype that accidentally used the same name.