|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm mostly making this thread because my players are really annoyed 1e doesn't do this and I hear about that a lot. And as GM of my player group, I feel responsible to lobby for stuff my players wants, plus seriously, 1e would have really benefited from living errata instead of hoping devs answer on forums(and hunting for those answers not compiled on faq page). So uh yeah, hoping that 2e is new start in errata updating department
|
Define "Living Errata" as different from the way Errata is currently issued on the pages for the core rulebooks as seen here.
Can you expand on what exactly you want Paizo to do differently? Because I get that you feel strongly about it, but not what it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D 4th ed had monthly errata, and it was aimed specifically at their organized play program. And it was awful. Quick errata is often bad errata as you don't take the time to fully understand the problem and work out the best solution. I'm all for errata that's more often than 1-2 years after publication, but not anything close to monthly.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, I'd like:
Print runs removed as a consideration of when errata comes out: once they have figured out what the errata is, post it in the errata section THEN. Then once a new print run comes out, they can move all that section into the new books.
Have centralized errata/FAQ's. Having one line looked over with a fine tooth comb and another mostly ignored isn't good. If it's not possible to put them under the same umbrella at least designate someone that CAN provide answers for each line of books.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, I'd like:
Print runs removed as a consideration of when errata comes out: once they have figured out what the errata is, post it in the errata section THEN. Then once a new print run comes out, they can move all that section into the new books.Have centralized errata/FAQ's. Having one line looked over with a fine tooth comb and another mostly ignored isn't good. If it's not possible to put them under the same umbrella at least designate someone that CAN provide answers for each line of books.
This. This answers sadie's question. Though I'm annoyed they said I feel strongly about this when I said in OP I'm here just forwarding my players' opinion <_<
Also, D&D 4e isn't proof of everything that was in it is bad, living errata is done in a lot of systems, including 5e assuming I don't remember wrong.
Also, D&D 4e isn't proof of everything that was in it is bad,
I didn't say it was. I used it as an example of how you can get living errata wrong. I even said I'd like errata more often then we currently get it (just not monthly).
Did you actually read my post?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, I'd like:
Print runs removed as a consideration of when errata comes out: once they have figured out what the errata is, post it in the errata section THEN. Then once a new print run comes out, they can move all that section into the new books.Have centralized errata/FAQ's. Having one line looked over with a fine tooth comb and another mostly ignored isn't good. If it's not possible to put them under the same umbrella at least designate someone that CAN provide answers for each line of books.
This. This answers sadie's question. Though I'm annoyed they said I feel strongly about this when I said in OP I'm here just forwarding my players' opinion <_<
Also, D&D 4e isn't proof of everything that was in it is bad, living errata is done in a lot of systems, including 5e assuming I don't remember wrong.
The 4E approach was great. All in one place, regular, easy to get to. We didn’t use much of it (and I would have changed the presentation a bit) but it was a terrific model, imo.
|
|
Also, D&D 4e isn't proof of everything that was in it is bad,I didn't say it was. I used it as an example of how you can get living errata wrong. I even said I'd like errata more often then we currently get it (just not monthly).
Did you actually read my post?
Yes, but nobody asked for monthly errata anyway and even then monthly errata can work even though it didn't in 4e according to you at least.
Yes, but nobody asked for monthly errata
Well the whole concept of living errata at the time of my post was undefined.
anyway and even then monthly errata can work
Sure, it can work. Is there any evidence to suggest it would work at Paizo though? If not, I'd be encouraging an errata schedule that is between 2 to 11 months in regularity (greater than monthly but less than annually). In my experience by producing errata on a monthly basis for the printing schedule Paizo have taken with PF 1e you see a significant dip in the quality of errata. I posted on this issue based on my experiences. I am happy to discuss further or just move on if nothing productive can be said further on this topic.
Also, even without "living" errata, if the issue was important enough in PF 1e (e.g. Paladin zero day errata, ACG errata) Paizo were willing to produce errata outside of the usual schedule. I don't see why that would change in Pathfinder 2e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but nobody asked for monthly errata anyway and even then monthly errata can work even though it didn't in 4e according to you at least.
If they had the staff, I think a regular schedule (as with 4E) would be better than intermittent FAQs, blogs and/or messageboard posts. It was really easy to log in and download an entire list of every current fixed issue.
Personally, I think quarterly would be about right, or three times a year skipping convention season. By planning it and building it into the workload, it would presumably be easier to manage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely like a conscious plan and procedure for regular updates and centralization/indexing of "official" errata, FAQs, clarifications, etc. in 2E. There's too much "some dev said something in passing once seven years ago halfway through a 1000 post thread" used as the basis for arguing in Pathfinder in general and PFS in particular.
There's too much "some dev said something in passing once seven years ago halfway through a 1000 post thread" used as the basis for arguing in Pathfinder in general and PFS in particular.
The only way to stop that is by having the devs stop posting on the forums. That will continue no matter what schedule errata is released on. Also it should have zero weight for PFS. For my home games those comments and errata also have zero weight (unless it got incorporated into the PDF before I downloaded it).
I would like the errata’s updated in the PDFs ASAP, even if another print run is months away. Obviously if it needs testing then it can take its time but for things that are just vague or born out of mistakes they should be updated straight away.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
I don't have any strong opinions on frequency of errata or clarifications, but I would like to request that this kind of documentation be as close to the PRD as possible. The PRD is the ideal place to add clarity, intent, links to examples of play, and similar in-the-moment help.
|
Update-Errata is a pain in the ass. It devalues the books by making them no longer 100% accurate, encouraging people to just use an online tool. And causes arguments over what version of a feat or spell is "correct".
Plus, no one likes their character being nerfed.
Errata should only be for fixing typos and actual errors. Maybe a clarification line or two.
Once the mechanics have been released, no updates should be made.