Should reprinted player options be treated as errata?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Yeah, but without any clarification, that's all just conjecture, graystone.

If you're like me and you want to know more about what is what and why, hit FAQ on the first post.

but it isn't conjecture. The gamemastery guide calls out the core's minimal rule then goes into explaining the optional rules that expand on the core.

Downtime is a system of interlocking rules that cover non-adventuring time: if you aren't using that system, you aren't using that research and if you ARE using the system, you're using that research. It's a package deal, downtime system and downtime research: It even SAYS that the core has rules for it and here is how you do it in downtime.

So reading the collected rules gives me a complete view of the rules for spell research that matches my last post. The 2 optional rules call out the base core rule as a base, with one working in the downtime system and the other not.

Thanks for the clarification. I will definitely have to give them a closer look.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
I've actually seen the players set themselves up in this situation before where a PC wizard dropped some pit spells between two buildings with a 5 foot gap between the pits. the baddies were closing in and the front liners had to jump their allied pits to get to safety. i think they were acid pits maybe? anyways, no one wanted to go in the hole and they were very worried about their acrobatics checks to get over them. in this case falling in the pit would also leave you stranded for the baddies to play with after you get all face acided.

I think the problem in this sort of situation can be resolved by actually talking about what the rule in question is before you start doing things. That way, if you establish the DC to jump a 10 foot pit is 10 before you start executing this tactic, you don't really have ground to stand on when you want to claim "it should be 15" after all the monsters easily clear the acid pit.

If GM A runs it as "10" and in a different game six months later with GM B it's "15" and in both cases everybody knows before anybody tries to jump over a pit, I don't really think that's a terrible situation. As long as everybody at the table understands the rule, it doesn't matter if that understanding is different from table to table or time to time.

So what all do we need to cover before running a game? How many threads or FAQ hits in a thread are needed before I should consider making it part of my new player packet of how I rule things?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Specifically if Paizo came out and said "The Lore Warden in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide doesn't exist anymore" what is that going to actually affect? PFS was likely going to do that anyway (so didn't need Paizo to weigh in) and everybody else is free to just ignore what Paizo says and use any version of the Lore Warden they want.

Except that, that's not true at all. If Paizo hadn't reprinted the Lore Warden, PFS would likely have kept using the archtype as it was / is from one of the several books that was published partly specifically for PFS (I'm relatively sure it was a Core Assumption product for PFS for Season 4 or 5).

Unfortunately, however, PFS now has the tendency to rule that any updated versions now replace any print versions that you are required to have in order to play PFS rather than allowing either version or grandfathering older versions as they once did (ex Osirian, Land of Phaoroahs' Living Monolith).

The other issue that arises is that while this is rules content under open source and therefore something many players would have access to online in home games, Paizo, d20pfsrd, and Archives all generally only show the most recent rules revision - there is no legal option to find older materials, so if the GM has for example a 1st printing copy of something (and is using those rules) and a player wants to have access to the same rules material, there is no legal option for them to obtain said rules. (The Adventure Path ACG and 2nd printing ACG being the most glaring example of rules divergence between printings, so a Magus with Slashing Grace would operate VERY differently between those versions of the same product).

I'm likely biased however, since the only reason I purchased most of the Paizo product I own was for PFS and the choices that Paizo is making to reprint and revise rules material from softcovers to hardcovers devalues my softcovers (and AP ACG) and erodes my faith in Paizo's ability to maintain a consistent ruleset or product quality (outside of many their adventures and most of their pregenerated maps, which remain top-tier, IMHO).


TimD wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Specifically if Paizo came out and said "The Lore Warden in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide doesn't exist anymore" what is that going to actually affect? PFS was likely going to do that anyway (so didn't need Paizo to weigh in) and everybody else is free to just ignore what Paizo says and use any version of the Lore Warden they want.

Except that, that's not true at all. If Paizo hadn't reprinted the Lore Warden, PFS would likely have kept using the archtype as it was / is from one of the several books that was published partly specifically for PFS (I'm relatively sure it was a Core Assumption product for PFS for Season 4 or 5).

Unfortunately, however, PFS now has the tendency to rule that any updated versions now replace any print versions that you are required to have in order to play PFS rather than allowing either version or grandfathering older versions as they once did (ex Osirian, Land of Phaoroahs' Living Monolith).

The other issue that arises is that while this is rules content under open source and therefore something many players would have access to online in home games, Paizo, d20pfsrd, and Archives all generally only show the most recent rules revision - there is no legal option to find older materials, so if the GM has for example a 1st printing copy of something (and is using those rules) and a player wants to have access to the same rules material, there is no legal option for them to obtain said rules. (The Adventure Path ACG and 2nd printing ACG being the most glaring example of rules divergence between printings, so a Magus with Slashing Grace would operate VERY differently between those versions of the same product).

I'm likely biased however, since the only reason I purchased most of the Paizo product I own was for PFS and the choices that Paizo is making to reprint and revise rules material from softcovers to hardcovers devalues my softcovers (and AP ACG) and erodes my faith in Paizo's ability to maintain a...

Honestly, the only defensible way for this to not be true is that PFS wanted to only nerf the archetype instead of ban it, but guess what, a lot of archetypes and options which aren't anywhere near as powerful as Lore Warden are still banned, either for flavor, alignment, or balance reasons, which means PFS being in the "nerf but don't ban" camp is highly unlikely, and quite unprecedented to say the least. At worst, it's just wishful thinking that's just asking to get knocked out of the ballpark of expectations that Paizo and PFS have.

Even then, PFS could've just as easily banned the old Lore Warden, then when the reprinted Lore Warden comes out, they'd mandate that usage of the archetype (because the other was either banned prior to or after the new version's creation), so it's not a question of "Does Paizo intend for the current Lore Warden to replace the old Lore Warden," it's a question of "How long do I have to play the old Lore Warden before PFS decides to overwrite/ban it?"

This one of the biggest reasons why I don't play PFS (the actual biggest being that nobody hosts PFS in my area), and while I don't want to discourage people from enjoying PFS, I can assure you that people who do play PFS would, at the very least, call this a raising concern to their enjoyment of the playstyle.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Please remember to hit FAQ on the opening post.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really understand the FAQ.

If it's for home game it's your choice.

If it's for PFS then you don't get a choice. They decide for you.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cavall wrote:

I don't really understand the FAQ.

If it's for home game it's your choice.

If it's for PFS then you don't get a choice. They decide for you.

The problem is that there is a conflict as things have been stated, and it could have a dramatically poor result on organized play. This is why clarification is requested.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
The problem is that there is a conflict as things have been stated, and it could have a dramatically poor result on organized play. This is why clarification is requested.

Isn't that an issue for the organized play officials to address, rather than the PDT?

It seems that the PFS decision-makers are going to be able to come to a decision on this a lot quicker than the PDT will, at least (we're still waiting on a bunch of more pressing FAQs). Plus, this seems to be an issue that only really affects organized play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
The problem is that there is a conflict as things have been stated, and it could have a dramatically poor result on organized play. This is why clarification is requested.

Isn't that an issue for the organized play officials to address, rather than the PDT?

It seems that the PFS decision-makers are going to be able to come to a decision on this a lot quicker than the PDT will, at least (we're still waiting on a bunch of more pressing FAQs). Plus, this seems to be an issue that only really affects organized play.

PDT should still address it because you will have "RAW is the LAW" tables who won't budge an inch unless the PDT says so.

Granted, there are probably worse problems at play at such a table; still, it'd be nice for them to bring this up.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
The problem is that there is a conflict as things have been stated, and it could have a dramatically poor result on organized play. This is why clarification is requested.

Isn't that an issue for the organized play officials to address, rather than the PDT?

It seems that the PFS decision-makers are going to be able to come to a decision on this a lot quicker than the PDT will, at least (we're still waiting on a bunch of more pressing FAQs). Plus, this seems to be an issue that only really affects organized play.

Honestly PFS has little to do with this - Paizo publishes a ruleset. If you support not advancing to a 2.0 (or whatever) of that ruleset then you should support the idea that we as customers should push for a coherent and supported living ruleset.

Unless your goal is to move the ruleset to a new version - because a backlog of janky/broken interactions is when you push a dev team to the 'it's way to far gone to fix now - it would be easier to just start new' mindset.

That's how it's happened - every time.


"Stop printing stuff and changing stuff and thinking you're allowed to change stuff." - Like, not even 10% of the customer base.

While I get purchases you all made like, a few years ago at most, might have been invalidated via reworks in this hardcover, an equally as negative argument has been levelled at Paizo for a long time about their ever expanding soft cover lineup being the death of the system due to system bloat and an ever weaker system integrity due to the release of so much content as to become unwieldy. There are dozens and dozens of books. Frankly, consolidating some of the content from those softcovers into a single hardcover seems wise just for archival purposes and being able to reprint the content at all (AKA actual errata), since they seem intent on keeping their errata system as equal update and errata system.

I have sympathy for your situation anyone who does play in PFS. But it's not Paizo as a whole that should be mindful of PFS, it's the PFS Team that need to alter their rules in accordance to Paizo's content releases, and these arguments should be brought to them if it is a PFS concern.

And what on earth is the PDT going to provide that will quell even half these concerns?

Whether you like the book or not is on you as a GM, and whether you use it's updated and reprinted material is equally on you as a GM. If you, as a player, are looking for ways to say to your GM that you're allowed to ignore nerfed content because 'the PDT said we don't have to use the new content', I don't actually have any sympathy for you and you should really not be making any comment about the integrity of the system when you're looking for a power game fix.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

"Stop printing stuff and changing stuff and thinking you're allowed to change stuff." - Like, not even 10% of the customer base.

While I get purchases you all made like, a few years ago at most, might have been invalidated via reworks in this hardcover, an equally as negative argument has been levelled at Paizo for a long time about their ever expanding soft cover lineup being the death of the system due to system bloat and an ever weaker system integrity due to the release of so much content as to become unwieldy. There are dozens and dozens of books. Frankly, consolidating some of the content from those softcovers into a single hardcover seems wise just for archival purposes and being able to reprint the content at all (AKA actual errata), since they seem intent on keeping their errata system as equal update and errata system.

I have sympathy for your situation anyone who does play in PFS. But it's not Paizo as a whole that should be mindful of PFS, it's the PFS Team that need to alter their rules in accordance to Paizo's content releases, and these arguments should be brought to them if it is a PFS concern.

And what on earth is the PDT going to provide that will quell even half these concerns?

Whether you like the book or not is on you as a GM, and whether you use it's updated and reprinted material is equally on you as a GM. If you, as a player, are looking for ways to say to your GM that you're allowed to ignore nerfed content because 'the PDT said we don't have to use the new content', I don't actually have any sympathy for you and you should really not be making any comment about the integrity of the system when you're looking for a power game fix.

Not that i am in charge of anything but...

- Paizo should be honest about their products, it is fine to reprint and consolidate old products but they should specify that is what they are doing. If its a mixed bag as this product is than it should still be made clear that they are offering a lot of updated content along with the new stuff.

- If they are changing their old products they should provide a list of changes in some form, FAQ entries or an errata document that should be free of charge. It is dishonest to try to charge their customers for "fixed content"

The only time i want to pay for the "new and improved" Lore Warden is when they redo it for a new edition, until that point i want the company to support the product i paid for, not hide product patches behind a paywall. For that paywall to not even be advertised as where i can find the patch is an annoyance on top of that. This stance is not "stop printing stuff or changing things" i hope they continue to FAQ and Errata the system for years to come. If they dont i will still use the system as is and come up with house rules to fix the things that dont work. But there is something off putting about asking for money to FAQ/Errata old content or using that reprinted material to justify the higher cost of a new product.


Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

"Stop printing stuff and changing stuff and thinking you're allowed to change stuff." - Like, not even 10% of the customer base.

While I get purchases you all made like, a few years ago at most, might have been invalidated via reworks in this hardcover, an equally as negative argument has been levelled at Paizo for a long time about their ever expanding soft cover lineup being the death of the system due to system bloat and an ever weaker system integrity due to the release of so much content as to become unwieldy. There are dozens and dozens of books. Frankly, consolidating some of the content from those softcovers into a single hardcover seems wise just for archival purposes and being able to reprint the content at all (AKA actual errata), since they seem intent on keeping their errata system as equal update and errata system.

I have sympathy for your situation anyone who does play in PFS. But it's not Paizo as a whole that should be mindful of PFS, it's the PFS Team that need to alter their rules in accordance to Paizo's content releases, and these arguments should be brought to them if it is a PFS concern.

And what on earth is the PDT going to provide that will quell even half these concerns?

Whether you like the book or not is on you as a GM, and whether you use it's updated and reprinted material is equally on you as a GM. If you, as a player, are looking for ways to say to your GM that you're allowed to ignore nerfed content because 'the PDT said we don't have to use the new content', I don't actually have any sympathy for you and you should really not be making any comment about the integrity of the system when you're looking for a power game fix.

This thread is about asking for the developers of a ruleset to note if they reprint a rule - they note the original rule (or option, or entire system) and also note if changes are intentional.

BUT WHY?

Because we've found areas where it's been intentional, and those where it wasn't - and it's only fair to know.

What does this do to MY GAME?

If you look at a rule that says "HEY I'M AN UPDATE!" then you know *before you game* that perhaps you, and your GM, and your table are all using the same version of the rule.

Does this make it harder for Paizo to publish new things? Nope.

Does this make it harder for Paizo to publish old things that are updated? Yes - as much trouble as it is for them now to note the source of any feat, spell or ability if it's not in the core rulebook - they seem to handle that kind of thing just fine.

Do new updates invalidate my old books? Yes. In fact they do - because Hero Lab, the online rules locations, the PRD, all will only reflect the new rules. Unless Paizo makes a commitment to have old versions in the rules they are making the old ones invalid - they proudly proclaim you do not need to buy rulebooks to use the system - so that means if the rule is online the default expectation is that's the only rule that matters - which means if they update something - they should flag it in some way so people don't develop mismatched expectations.

Quote:
"Stop printing stuff and changing stuff and thinking you're allowed to change stuff." - Like, not even 10% of the customer base.

Not being argued.

Quote:
I have sympathy for your situation anyone who does play in PFS.

Not about PFS.

Quote:
And what on earth is the PDT going to provide that will quell even half these concerns?

Make a note when something is changed that shows it was intentional - cite the source - it's not hard.

Quote:
If you, as a player, are looking for ways to say to your GM that you're allowed to ignore nerfed content because 'the PDT said we don't have to use the new content', I don't actually have any sympathy for you and you should really not be making any comment about the integrity of the system when you're looking for a power game fix.

This is insulting, and not something anyone here has asked for.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This thread wasn't meant to get clarification for PFS specifically, but for games in general. If it helps PFS, then great, but that's not really my goal here.

It's a question of author intent. How do they intend for us, the consumer/players/GMs, to treat the new reprinted material in relation to the old material we already had?

What should the default assumption be? Clarifications, errata, parallel options, what?

Some repeated options are different enough that they might have possibly been a simple mistake, two options that ended up with the same name through poor editing. If that's the case, then which specific options fall into this group?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, suppose the PDT's response is something to the effect of:

"Use the one you want. We're not telling you to use the Adventurer's Guide any more than we're telling you to use Pathfinder Unchained. It's your game, so use whichever options you and your players like the best."

What then?


Torbyne wrote:

Not that i am in charge of anything but...

- Paizo should be honest about their products, it is fine to reprint and consolidate old products but they should specify that is what they are doing. If its a mixed bag as this product is than it should still be made clear that they are offering a lot of updated content along with the new stuff.

I got the impression from some of next couple of books that this was the intent. They're updating Book of the Damned as well. And have stated that much. I suppose a heads up isn't bad. Just at least to make sure people don't accidentally purchase some of those old books for the newly updated material.

Quote:

- If they are changing their old products they should provide a list of changes in some form, FAQ entries or an errata document that should be free of charge. It is dishonest to try to charge their customers for "fixed content"

...But there is something off putting about asking for money to FAQ/Errata old content or using that reprinted material to justify the higher cost of a new product.

While that's a concern I totally understand (though the book was not just reprints, it was just partially reprints), this stuff does become free access. It enters the OGL for public use in a few weeks at most, so everyone gets to see the new content in time. The new Lore Warden is already on d20pfsrd, as an example. Most of these 3rd parties are already doing it for us. Actually, I'm pretty sure as a hardcover this will go up on the Pathfinder Reference Document site as well. Not as quickly as I would like, but it does happen...eventually. Maybe that needs to be addressed first.

Ckorik wrote:
This is insulting, and not something anyone here has asked for.

If it doesn't apply to you, you need not be insulted. I wasn't speaking for the intentions of everyone in this thread. I was just saying that if that IS your intention, you probably should take a hard look at why you're angry.


The herolab point is kind of interesting and might affect a wider base. If an option is reprinted in a new book but I only have the license for the old material how does herolab handle that. Does my old material get the update for free or am i now locked out of that option? And in PFS would the update to the Lore Warden being in a new book still allow someone to play one who had the original source, or do they new need the new book to keep playing the character?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, suppose the PDT's response is something to the effect of:

"Use the one you want. We're not telling you to use the Adventurer's Guide any more than we're telling you to use Pathfinder Unchained. It's your game, so use whichever options you and your players like the best."

What then?

Then we won and lost by doing so.

We won because we got an answer.
We lost because they didn't even answer the question we asked the way we asked it.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, suppose the PDT's response is something to the effect of:

"Use the one you want. We're not telling you to use the Adventurer's Guide any more than we're telling you to use Pathfinder Unchained. It's your game, so use whichever options you and your players like the best."

What then?

Then we won and lost by doing so.

We won because we got an answer.
We lost because they didn't even answer the question we asked the way we asked it.

Is the Unchained Summoner errata for the Advanced Players Guide?

I think that answer is one to the question you didn't realize you were asking.

Shadow Lodge

KingOfAnything wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, suppose the PDT's response is something to the effect of:

"Use the one you want. We're not telling you to use the Adventurer's Guide any more than we're telling you to use Pathfinder Unchained. It's your game, so use whichever options you and your players like the best."

What then?

Then we won and lost by doing so.

We won because we got an answer.
We lost because they didn't even answer the question we asked the way we asked it.

Is the Unchained Summoner errata for the Advanced Players Guide?

I think that answer is one to the question you didn't realize you were asking.

Doesn't the Pathfinder Unchained book explicitly state that everything in the book is optional? This seems like the one time that Paizo was clear about how the book's potential rules conflicts interact with the ruleset as a whole.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

And yet, for PFS and most subsequent Paizo products the Unchained Summoner is the official supported version.

What Paizo considers errata doesn't have much meaning on the typical home game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, "errata" is "You bought the Advanced Class Guide, it is full of errors, so here's a 12 page document we'll give you for free that fixes a bunch of those errors, sorry!"

Errata is not "a new book came out with a different version of something in an old book" because they're not really correcting errors or oversights so much as "releasing an updated version." Just like with software, you may have good reason for wanting to use the most updated version, but nobody is forcing you to do so.

At the very least it would be weird for Paizo to come out and say "don't use the version of the rule that your players are already familiar with and have easy access to, drop everything and use the new one instead."

Does the "Adventurer's Guide" really pose a fundamentally different question than all those times a different hardback came out and people at various gaming tables sat down and decided whether or not to add Words of Power, Armor as Damage Resistance, the Unchained Action Economy, or Custom Races to the game they're playing? I mean, if I'm in the middle of a campaign and someone is playing a Lore Warden I'm sure not going to (and wouldn't appreciate being told by the PDT to) tell that player to rebuild their character.

The long and short of it is I sincerely believe if you have to pay for it, it's not errata and should not be considered errata.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, suppose the PDT's response is something to the effect of:

"Use the one you want. We're not telling you to use the Adventurer's Guide any more than we're telling you to use Pathfinder Unchained. It's your game, so use whichever options you and your players like the best."

What then?

Then we won and lost by doing so.

We won because we got an answer.
We lost because they didn't even answer the question we asked the way we asked it.

Is the Unchained Summoner errata for the Advanced Players Guide?

I think that answer is one to the question you didn't realize you were asking.

Are both versions available on the PRD - or only one? *edit* Do they both have the same name? Or different?

(I know the answers. This answers that question though)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, suppose the PDT's response is something to the effect of:

"Use the one you want. We're not telling you to use the Adventurer's Guide any more than we're telling you to use Pathfinder Unchained. It's your game, so use whichever options you and your players like the best."

What then?

If that ends up being their stance on the matter, then I would hope they could at least give us some additional insight into the various thought processes that goes into deciding to reprint altered versions of existing material in the first place. That, at least, would allow GMs to better make informed decisions for their own tables.


People are kidding themselves to act "insulted "that this thread isn't about ignoring things that got nerfed.

It's exactly what it's about, and it was the 4th thread started by the OP to either clearly or backhandedly complain about a single archtype. Which also made another poster work like a dog (thanks again) to find and compare everything in the book (which turned out the amount of changes were not huge at all totalled up but I digress there). So at least something came from it.

Things got changed. Some for very obvious reasons as nerfs and others as clear buffs. If you want to use the latter you shouldn't be shocked to see the former be enforced by a GM or organized play.

Let's not pretend that suddenly right after this book release we suddenly want to know if we have to actually consider books updated material.

We got that answer when ultimate equipment came out.

And I still have yet to see a reason for an FAQ based on personal group taste.


Cavall wrote:
We got that answer when ultimate equipment came out.

I mean, we still use the original Quick Runner's shirt, since "Tearing off your shirt a la Hulk Hogan to reveal another shirt beneath it" was a thing that happened in a really memorable moment that we want to keep referencing. No one from Paizo has come to tell us not to.

This is the only version of the Quick Runner's Shirt in any book anybody I play with owns, so there's no reason to change it.


Exactly. What's an FAQ going to tell us, you're doing it wrong?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Cavall, if you're not here in support of this thread, or to contribute something useful, then please don't be here. I'm sure you've got better things to do than trying to malign peoples' reputations. Surely there are other threads out there that you DO support and would better benefit from you putting your energy towards them.

Also, I never made anyone do anything, nor did I personally attack Paizo or their practices in any of my recent threads.


Cavall wrote:

I don't really understand the FAQ.

If it's for home game it's your choice.

If it's for PFS then you don't get a choice. They decide for you.

I don't really understand your post.

If you care about this issue then you can FAQ this thread.

If you don't care about this issue then you don't have to read this thread or post in this thread.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Cavall wrote:

I don't really understand the FAQ.

If it's for home game it's your choice.

If it's for PFS then you don't get a choice. They decide for you.

I don't really understand your post.

If you care about this issue then you can FAQ this thread.

If you don't care about this issue then you don't have to read this thread or post in this thread.

The point of this post is probably to show and remind people that there's other views, or have them question if it's something they really care about. Sometimes seeing another's view helps you realize your personal view might have been off, or without real purpose. This shows he cares about have the issue resolved for people, and if those people can provide good reasoning for why the FAQ is still needed it could help to influence the devs to answer that question.

Also it's also a viable request for clarification, seeing if there's something they aren't seeing that you are. Under his view he can't understand why you'd want a FAQ, but if your view has good reason to want a FAQ then you could share it to enlighten them. If there's something he's missing he'd like to find out, thus he cares about this to make sure he's not having an oversight.

Both of these provide reasons for their post in the thread. I hope that helps you understand their post better =)


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, suppose the PDT's response is something to the effect of:

"Use the one you want. We're not telling you to use the Adventurer's Guide any more than we're telling you to use Pathfinder Unchained. It's your game, so use whichever options you and your players like the best."

What then?

If it works like unchained, that that in itself is an answer. "These classes can be used alongside their original counterparts", so that would mean both versions are official and correct. That's different than saying 'this officially replaces any instance of this this rule'.


Very funny, Chess Pwn.


graystone wrote:
If it works like unchained, that that in itself is an answer. "These classes can be used alongside their original counterparts", so that would mean both versions are official and correct. That's different than saying 'this officially replaces any instance of this this rule'.

It just feels like this is sort of like asking the PDT "Should I use the Advanced Player's Guide or just the Core Rulebook?" At some point you just have to make an executive decision about the game you're running (unless you're in PFS and someone will just tell you.) No rule in any book that no one at a given table actually owns or has read should ever be considered mandatory, IMO.

This whole thread to me strikes as sort of a "One True Way" thing, as in "the one true way to play Pathfinder is to use the new Lore Warden, never the old one, strike it from your memory." This may not be the intent, I may just be sensitive because that's the opposite of what I want. Whatever way of playing you and your group enjoys playing Pathfinder is the right way to play it, even if you're using the wrong Lore Warden.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It just feels like this is sort of like asking the PDT "Should I use the Advanced Player's Guide or just the Core Rulebook?"

Not even close really.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
This whole thread to me strikes as sort of a "One True Way" thing, as in "the one true way to play Pathfinder is to use the new Lore Warden, never the old one, strike it from your memory." This may not be the intent, I may just be sensitive because that's the opposite of what I want. Whatever way of playing you and your group enjoys playing Pathfinder is the right way to play it, even if you're using the wrong Lore Warden.

There is a VAST difference between asking if an unchained monk is usable in a game and asking if an obsoleted version of a class that's been updated is usable. One is perceived much better and is more likely to get allowed. Different but acceptable and usable vs. deemed unacceptable and needing fixing.

This perception is key for people like me that play online and rarely see the same Dm twice. It's cool to say 'the way your group enjoys playing Pathfinder is the right way to play it', but you assume you only EVER see that one group. Having information be consistent and clear makes it FAR easier to make your case for playing how you want to a new GM instead of having to debate how it even works before you can get down to finding out if it's even acceptable to the DM/group.


I mean, the standard social contract within Pathfinder is that we can set out "these books are allowed, these books are not" right?

So it's a completely normal thing to say before a game "We're not using the Adventurer's Guide" so if we're not using that book, we can't actually consider anything in it to supersede anything that's in a book we are using, can we? That's why I cannot possibly see content that's in one book as being errata for content that's in a completely different book.

Grand Lodge

David knott 242 wrote:

PFS only allows what is named in their Additional Resources document and has rules to cover rebuilds in the event that they suddenly ban something that you are using there, so this issue does not come up there.

^This

In addition, if you don't like a subsequent change to an item, you can sell it back for full price. (Dusty Rose Prism, Clear Spindle, Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, Gloves of Recon., etc.)

There have been other discussions relating to the issue of modified content across multiple sources.

Here is one of the older threads for reference: Rulings with Multiple Sources

I quickly scanned the discussion in this thread, and have hit FAQ. I heartily agree that there should be a very clear, bullet-proof policy on content changes and reprints so that players don't become disgruntled. We should be spending our valuable and positive energy on playing Pathfinder (and soon Starfinder - w00t) instead of gnawing our d20s over how to handle (inevitable) content changes in the absence of greater clarity.

Dentist: "What happened??"
Gamer: "I tried to rage-bite my metal d20."

----------------------------------------------------
Here are my related thoughts if anyone cares to read further:

It has to be OK for designers to be able to make changes, if, in their estimation change is necessary for balance, to correct errors, etc. We shouldn't end up making assertions that Paizo is changing existing items merely to force people to buy new books. I'd rather observe that Paizo is actively working on our behalf to publish lots of great, new content, and is working to ensure a consistent, balanced gaming experience and has our best interests at heart. It's not an error-free process, and it's not easy to evolve a campaign over time to ensure that it stays fresh and interesting. It's amazing that Pathfinder will soon be entering its 9th season!

Further, no matter how good anyone might be as a designer, it's impossible to understand all the myriad ways that something might be used (or even abused) over time as content evolves or how it might impact every type of encounter. And, as a highly creative "crowd computer," the player base will always go in search of total range of feature function, find exploits, reveal where design imbalance exists, or show where there is need for improvement. Enjoy the limited-run power when it occurs and while it lasts, then remember the good old days of the fabled multi-crit Jingasa!

Gamer: "Haha! I am totally immune to your compulsions, can block your crits and sneak attacks, and can see through every wall in your dungeon with my amazing gloves! I laugh at your paltry encounters and attempts to surprise me!"
Designer: "True...sort of...I guess...did we really do that?" <giant eraser rubbing noises>

Logistically, when an item changes and is reprinted and you own the original source of the item, I don't think there is any imperative, PFS or otherwise, to have to buy the new source to continue using your item. But, as others have stated, for PFS, at least, you do have to follow the change once it is formalized in "Additional Resources (or elsewhere - blog, campaign clarifications, errata, FAQ, etc.)," and the various lists handle most cases. And, as above, if you don't like the change, rebuild or resell with no penalty! That part of the policy is simple enough.

Finally, relating to certain AG changes, the Clear Spindle at 4K with a CL12 Prot. Anything is still a great deal when you compare it to other once/day items like the Horn of Goodness for 6.5K that is only a CL6 Circle of Prot. Evil. Don't leave that circle!! Up! It's a chaotic creature!


PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
If it works like unchained, that that in itself is an answer. "These classes can be used alongside their original counterparts", so that would mean both versions are official and correct. That's different than saying 'this officially replaces any instance of this this rule'.

It just feels like this is sort of like asking the PDT "Should I use the Advanced Player's Guide or just the Core Rulebook?" At some point you just have to make an executive decision about the game you're running (unless you're in PFS and someone will just tell you.) No rule in any book that no one at a given table actually owns or has read should ever be considered mandatory, IMO.

This whole thread to me strikes as sort of a "One True Way" thing, as in "the one true way to play Pathfinder is to use the new Lore Warden, never the old one, strike it from your memory." This may not be the intent, I may just be sensitive because that's the opposite of what I want. Whatever way of playing you and your group enjoys playing Pathfinder is the right way to play it, even if you're using the wrong Lore Warden.

That's not what's being asked, read the thread title again, then come back and see if that's the same question as what you've given.

What's (effectively) being asked is "How can I know whether an option is simply reprinted (and effectively functioning as errata, see Fencing Grace) or was just created as an alternative set of mechanics to follow?"

And that's honestly a very valid question worthy of a FAQ. The problems with it actually getting answered are twofold.

First, answering it is a Damned-if-you-do/don't situation. If Paizo answers it, they're damned for condemning players to effectively succumb to a d%~$+ead GM that is shoehorning a player's character options because it's "more official and recent." If Paizo doesn't answer it, then we're having people wondering what the heck to do in these situations, because they think "GM FIAT" isn't an appropriate answer.

Second, the most accurate answer will probably say it will vary based on the situation, though perhaps a general rule would be that options with similar or identical wording and intent for currently existing options (which is very difficult to judge, since this is Paizo we're talking about here) are most likely to be considered publishing errata. Slashing/Fencing Grace and Lore Warden Fighters are probably the most notable of examples, and probably will serve as precedent for such concepts.


I feel like the slashing/fencing grace situation is pretty clear since the "You do not gain this benefit" clause to slashing grace was added in the literal errata for the ACG, which IIRC was released after ACO added Fencing Grace. One can reasonably infer that those feats should work the same because Fencing Grace only exists because of an oversight due to whatever happened with the ACG. But Paizo never did come out and officially say "You must use the Ultimate Intrigue Fencing Grace" did they? PFS did, but for people's home games it wouldn't make a difference if they did or didn't.

Personally, I think it's very bad form to include errata for something in one book as content in a different book that you charge money for. Errata is "material we released to correct errors we made" and should be free (as it has been thus far in Pathfinder's history.) At the point where Paizo offers free PDF downloads for the errata to every book that has something that goes into the Adventurer's Guide, we can call it errata. Until then it's just two different versions of a thing.

I mean, I don't intend to buy the Adventurer's Guide (I dislike blurring the distinction between the RPG line and the Campaign Sourcebook line), and I do not want to have to buy the Adventurer's Guide, and I do not like the implication that I will need to buy it in order to "fix" things that I already own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
graystone wrote:
This perception is key for people like me that play online and rarely see the same Dm twice. It's cool to say 'the way your group enjoys playing Pathfinder is the right way to play it', but you assume you only EVER see that one group. Having information be consistent and clear makes it FAR easier to make your case for playing how you want to a new GM instead of having to debate how it even works before you can get down to finding out if it's even acceptable to the DM/group.

I think the proliferation of online play is a significant factor here (and a good reason for seeking some kind of "official" clarification).

Similarly the spread of online databases and character building software. My impression is that even if the source is there, it's less obvious when you're using a rule from the core line or a player companion. When you actually dig through the books, the source is far more obvious.

Personally, I think asking for explanations of every change would incur too much opportunity cost. I can't imagine these decisions have simple, one sentence resolutions or explanations. I presume the PDT operates at least partly on a consensus basis, so there may be multiple reasons leading to the final decision. Providing behind-the-scenes commentary is likely to take away from actual rules development.

However, I think it might be useful to have some kind of "suggested" hierarchy along the lines of:

  • Later printings of the same book are intended to replace earlier printed versions.
  • FAQs are similarly intended to "over-write" prior wordings/interpretations
  • Different features in different product lines are intended as multiple options. In cases where the DM wants to have only one option, we suggest:
  • RPG line > Adventure Path instalment > Campaign Sourcebook > Player Companion

(That's illustrative, not intended as a suggestion. I wouldn't have a clue what the actual hierarchy should look like, since "DM decides" works fine for us).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HoloGnome wrote:

It has to be OK for designers to be able to make changes, if, in their estimation change is necessary for balance, to correct errors, etc. We shouldn't end up making assertions that Paizo is changing existing items merely to force people to buy new books. I'd rather observe that Paizo is actively working on our behalf to publish lots of great, new content, and is working to ensure a consistent, balanced gaming experience and has our best interests at heart. It's not an error-free process, and it's not easy to evolve a campaign over time to ensure that it stays fresh and interesting. It's amazing that Pathfinder will soon be entering its 9th season!

Further, no matter how good anyone might be as a designer, it's impossible to understand all the myriad ways that something might be used (or even abused) over time as content evolves or how it might impact every type of encounter. And, as a highly creative "crowd computer," the player base will always go in search of total range of feature function, find exploits, reveal where design imbalance exists, or show where there is need for improvement. Enjoy the limited-run power when it occurs and while it lasts, then remember the good old days of the fabled multi-crit Jingasa!

Gamer: "Haha! I am totally immune to your compulsions, can block your crits and sneak attacks, and can see through every wall in your dungeon with my amazing gloves! I laugh at your paltry encounters and attempts to surprise me!"
Designer: "True...sort of...I guess...did we really do that?" <giant eraser rubbing noises>

Logistically, when an item changes and is reprinted and you own the original source of the item, I don't think there is any imperative, PFS or otherwise, to have to buy the new source to continue using your item. But, as others have stated, for PFS, at least, you do have to follow the change once it is formalized in "Additional Resources (or elsewhere - blog, campaign clarifications, errata, FAQ, etc.)," and the various lists handle most cases. And, as above, if you don't like the change, rebuild or resell with no penalty! That part of the policy is simple enough.

Finally, relating to certain AG changes, the Clear Spindle at 4K with a CL12 Prot. Anything is still a great deal when you compare it to other once/day items like the Horn of Goodness for 6.5K that is only a CL6 Circle of Prot. Evil. Don't leave that circle!! Up! It's a chaotic creature!

There's a fine line between "balance" and "turn into useless garbage that shouldn't have been published in the first place." Paizo rarely does the former, and often does the latter, usually out of kneejerk reactions to PFS complaints, because PFS is their biggest source of playtesting. I'm looking at you, Crane Style, Master of Many Styles Monk, and Jingasa, three perfectly solid, flavorful, and cool player options turned to garbage because of PFS complaints (that should've just been solved in PFS in the first place).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that rules changes are made so that players can buy books. *sees Scarred Witch Doctor nerfs as Occult Adventures was released with the Kineticist class* But I can understand why people would make such a claim, and if the cycle repeats with an option being nerfed to increase the attractiveness of another option in a future book, all that does is perpetuate their claim further.

Nobody's saying they understand the myriad of ways that the game is broken. In fact, people say the exact opposite, that they don't understand, or even that they don't care. (I'm actually one of the people that says it's the latter.) It's the #1 reason why the Caster/Martial disparity exists, and also possibly why PFS doesn't really exist past 12th level, because A. They don't know it exists (or don't care that it exists), and B. If they tried to fix it, the game probably still wouldn't be published.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the standard social contract within Pathfinder is that we can set out "these books are allowed, these books are not" right?

So it's a completely normal thing to say before a game "We're not using the Adventurer's Guide" so if we're not using that book, we can't actually consider anything in it to supersede anything that's in a book we are using, can we? That's why I cannot possibly see content that's in one book as being errata for content that's in a completely different book.

You seem to have missed or ignored the fact that the 'allowed books' can contain multiple versions of rules with no clear way to figure out which is correct. For instance, The DM could clear [or exclude] a rule because they are reading a different one that you are. [for instance, he used an actual book instead of looking online or he used the Adventurer's Guide and I used the original [but allowed] source.

Knowing the correct one[s] clears things up nicely, as you know which is correct and which requires pointing it out as different than the expected base rule. A simple 'this version replaces x' or 'players can use this or x book for this rule' lets people know another version is out there. Hopefully if something has multiple correct versions, the online sources would give both to help things out too.

EDIT: As I noted about, I often play online and it's not uncommon to see the allowed books as 'official pathfinder material available online'. Multiple versions can only lead to issues as it's unclear how to treat them.

PS: I'll also say that I unconcerned about the new changes: for instance, I've never played or would likely play a Lore Warden [not a maneuver fan]. If anything, I'm unhappy that the monk archetype isn't compatible with the unchained classes and the general glut of prestige classes [not a fan of these either, let alone REPRINTED ones].

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol wrote:
Nobody's saying they understand the myriad of ways that the game is broken. In fact, people say the exact opposite, that they don't understand, or even that they don't care. (I'm actually one of the people that says it's the latter.) It's the #1 reason why the Caster/Martial disparity exists, and also possibly why PFS doesn't really exist past 12th level, because A. They don't know it exists (or don't care that it exists), and B. If they tried to fix it, the game probably still wouldn't be published.

I think there is probably a different big-picture interpretation relating to the full spectrum of what it takes to create and manage complex products, the ongoing Pathfinder campaign and global infrastructure (PFS or otherwise), its evolution, and the very enthusiastic and dedicated userbase. I would also question the attitude that anyone may hold that the extremely hard-working crew at Paizo shows up for work every day not caring or understanding what they do. I find that kind of rhetoric surprising.

All it takes is one trip to a major CON to see the extent to which Paizo goes to honor its users, contributors, 3rd parties, staff, etc., and provide a great gaming experience. So, try not to let individual frustration color broader perception vs. understanding that wherever there are new products and passionate users, various customer satisfaction issues will arise.

One quick trip across the forums shows that there are lots of things that people passionately like/dislike, gray areas, pending changes, debates that span pages, etc. and that's what the FAQ button and general feedback are for, as in this thread. Response time issues vs. user need for immediacy are primarily an indication of available resources, necessary prioritization and network carrying capacity, rather than lack of caring. There are only so many hours in the day and Paizo seems to run at max carrying capacity.

Hopefully, over time, Paizo will eventually apply the necessary focus to address problems/issues/user concerns and add more resources where needed to manage increased demand(s), while also continuing to create great content. Continuing Quality improvement and customer service response time are issues in every business model, where the best companies do what they can to ensure positive, incremental change. I'm glad there is an FAQ process. It doesn't always address the passionate user's need for immediate resolution, but hopefully leads to necessary change over time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're overgeneralizing my statement. I didn't say they don't care about the game as a whole. Obviously if they didn't, they'd do nothing more with it and move on to something they do care about. (People can speculate that's the case with Starfinder, but I personally doubt it since I imagine they'll still publish Pathfinder content; it makes more sense that this is merely an expansion of their company than it is moving onto a different style of game.)

What I mean is that they don't care about the game the same way we do (which has multiple implications besides intensity). They might not care about balance in regards to X, but when it comes to Y, they'll react so fast that it (can) cause(s) more damage than it helps. (Think of Caster/Martial disparity as X, and Y as Dexterity to Damage, just for one example of common correlation.)

To expand on that even further, they might not care about things like the Caster/Martial Disparity because it's a problem well beyond their ability to fix (without introducing a brand new edition with a completely revised set of rules), or they might not even believe that such a problem exists or is relevant to their product, because all it is to them, is a common term used to express a theoretical/hypothetical sense of balance that isn't founded except in the rough drafts of personal character sheets that hasn't commonly approached at official Paizo-ran tables (i.e. PFS). Ironically enough, several of these "gamebreaking" options just outright don't exist in PFS (since it caps off at 12th level, the level where the Caster/Martial Disparity is assumed to start taking place), and as far as we know, PFS is the only Paizo-endorsed agency that actually runs Pathfinder, which means that it will always be that hypothetical balance concept that won't ever reach the developers' ears (or eyes, in this case).

While I understand your point of not letting my personal concepts cloud what most other people see, there's one other problem with that belief: other, numerous consumers agree with, or even at the very least understand the concerns I pose in relation to the balancing they've done for options, which makes this much more than just a personal concept that I refuse to acknowledge that it has changed. (I actually always acknowledge changes, it's just that I might disagree with the reason and purpose behind said changes; there is a difference.)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Should books you don't own affect your character? Because that's the central problem with the "it's always the latest version" policy.

Most players don't own the DMG or various monster manuals, and changes in those affect their characters in myriad ways.

Otherwise, if your archetype class is changed, I seriously doubt anyone at PFS is going to insist that you own the book that changed the class rather than the one that introduced it. (The exception to this would be archetypes which PFS had previously banned, such as the various summoners.) Basically, just Post-It the changes to your book, snarf a free rebuild where applicable, and carry on.

~ ~ ~

(If you think what happened to Lore Warden represents nerfing, let me tell you something: Go check out the Hospitaler PrC in Defenders of the Faith. Holy crap was that good: Full-BAB, full-spellcasting, LoH, feats every other level like a fighter, easy qualify at 6th. ...Now go see the same class in Complete Divine. It took a golf-club right between the eyes. *wad up character-sheet* <3pt toss Living Greyhawk PC over shoulder into trash can>)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

To be fair, Defenders of the Faith was kind of a trainwreck all around. Remember the armor ability that gave you constant 3.0 haste - +4 AC and an extra move or standard action every round - for a +3 equivalent bonus?

Good times. ^_^

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed. Hospitalar was also a d8 class, and all a d4 wizard had to do to get in was take a couple mounted feats and get two skills to five ranks, which he could easily do without taking any martial dips. As a gish platform, they made d6 Eldritch Knights look like chumps.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

13 people marked this as a favorite.

No FAQ Required: This is not a rules FAQ for any Pathfinder RPG product, but rather a question about our publishing practices on pick-ups. When a new book comes out in the RPG line, chances are at this point that there have been Player Companions, Campaign Settings, or other products on a related topic at some time in the past, but these products have smaller print runs than RPG line products. At product launch meetings, staff members including the developers of these previous products suggest other books to reference for pick-ups. A pick-up essentially means that a rules element begs for a broader audience, rather than asking a freelancer to produce something new but almost identical without regard to the essential foundation built from the design and development work on the previous lines. That said, a pick-up is not a reprint: those pick-ups receive multiple additional development passes just like the new material for the book, refining them beyond their original version. Sometimes these development passes won’t yield any change, and sometimes they lead to substantial changes.

The fully refined version will be Paizo's default version for adventures, NPC compilations, and the like moving forward, since it benefited from two development cycles and is available on the PRD, but as always feel free to use the version that your group prefers, or make your own variant. In Pathfinder Society, always check the Additional Resources page to see what versions are legal and the Campaign Clarifications page for the Pathfinder Society team’s updates on how to use those options in the Pathfinder Society campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

No FAQ Required: This is not a rules FAQ for any Pathfinder RPG product, but rather a question about our publishing practices on pick-ups. When a new book comes out in the RPG line, chances are at this point that there have been Player Companions, Campaign Settings, or other products on a related topic at some time in the past, but these products have smaller print runs than RPG line products. At product launch meetings, staff members including the developers of these previous products suggest other books to reference for pick-ups. A pick-up essentially means that a rules element begs for a broader audience, rather than asking a freelancer to produce something new but almost identical without regard to the essential foundation built from the design and development work on the previous lines. That said, a pick-up is not a reprint: those pick-ups receive multiple additional development passes just like the new material for the book, refining them beyond their original version. Sometimes these development passes won’t yield any change, and sometimes they lead to substantial changes.

The fully refined version will be Paizo's default version for adventures, NPC compilations, and the like moving forward, since it benefited from two development cycles and is available on the PRD, but as always feel free to use the version that your group prefers, or make your own variant. In Pathfinder Society, always check the Additional Resources page to see what versions are legal and the Campaign Clarifications page for the Pathfinder Society team’s updates on how to use those options in the Pathfinder Society campaign.

Great reply.

Ascetic Style and Advanced Weapon/Armor Training are that way --->

Get reprintin'!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're asking them to nerf(as the past shows is the most likely thing to happen) one of the things that really helps Fighters out?


Azten wrote:
You're asking them to nerf(as the past shows is the most likely thing to happen) one of the things that really helps Fighters out?

Asking them to reprint them in an RPG line book. And perhaps give an editing pass to it.

I wouldn't mind getting it tweaked and normalized.

For example, it'd be cool to remove the level restrictions from the AWT and AAT feats while making sure some of the options are more in line with, say, AAT options.

For example, you could be able to pick up the AWT feat with every Fighter combat feat, but Versatile Training only affects 1 skill per serving, and Fighter's Reflexes becomes based off of Bravery rather than Weapon Training, so it doesn't scale with Gloves of Dueling.

Would also be cool to see normalized options like a Crafting feat for Weapons.

And yeah, I'd love to see Warrior Spirit nerfed a bit.

151 to 200 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Should reprinted player options be treated as errata? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.