There are two different things being discussed in here.
1. When is a natural 20 a critical hit?
2. Has the answer to number 1 been put in the right places?
Best not to conflate the two.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was finally cleared up at a PaizoCon panel: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/633545875?t=1h23m35sNo, it hasn't been. No number of streams, Q&A sessions, or panels can change the rules as printed in the actual books. Only errata can do that.
He actually said that the part where it says a natural 20 is always a critical hit is in error and "We'll need to clean that up". It was confirmed that this will be part of the next errata document which is supposed to be coming before the release of the APG.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if they do not good, they also do not harm
Specifically pushing for broken rules interpretations to spite Paizo's errata process when it's already been made clear that said interpretation is incorrect seems pretty harmful.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if people on the forums continue to hold Paizo to account on stuff like this, it makes it more likely that things will get fixed in the future. Who knows, maybe my posts will move the needle just a little.
We've had the rules forums and FAQ for a long while. The Designers don't respond to the amount of noise made, they respond as they have time and consensus, otherwise P1 would have had a bunch more FAQs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am saying that all rule changes should be in errata so that people don't have to look in faq/posts to find out what the rule should be
People would have to do so for errata, which is posted in a separate errata document.
If you're asking for the PDF of the book itself being updated with every errata/FAQ as they come out I don't foresee that happening, though I'd be happy to be wrong.
I don't think it's unreasonable to request a single thread where all "we have slated this for the next errata" issues are posted.
I also do not think it's unreasonable to simply update a master errata document, rather than releasing multiple versions of errata. Users should be able to use the same link forever and be ensured that the errata PDF they are downloading is always the newest one.
There is no reason to separate them into:
https://paizo-images.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/image/download/PZO2101+Erra ta+1.0.pdf
and:
https://paizo-images.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/image/download/PZO2102+Erra ta+2.0.pdf
That type of document version tracking nonsense is precisely why version control was invented.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The different errata PDFs are based on which printing of the book you have. For example, if your book is a first printing, you want the errata for the first printing; the second printing will have the first printing's errata already included in the text.
As an example, in a putative second printing of the CRB, the Dwarf section will already have the Clan Dagger sidebar, so telling someone who has that printing to add it would be confusing. On the other hand, if someone has a first printing of the book and is directed to the "newest" errata, that will only change problems in the second printing and leave out all of the stuff that changed between printings.
Of course, if you own the PDF of the book, you can always download the latest printing and then apply the newest errata document. But they have to keep the old versions for people who own older hard copies.
Or have I misunderstood your post?
|
|
FAQs were in their own section, by each book, and errata was listed on each page for the product.
Doesn't help that a number of FAQs ended with "no answer/change necessary, rules are working as written.
I rather they still remain separate, with FAQs being along the lines "hey how does this work" and errata being "this didn't work, now it does".
The different errata PDFs are based on which printing of the book you have. For example, if your book is a first printing, you want the errata for the first printing; the second printing will have the first printing's errata already included in the text.
As an example, in a putative second printing of the CRB, the Dwarf section will already have the Clan Dagger sidebar, so telling someone who has that printing to add it would be confusing. On the other hand, if someone has a first printing of the book and is directed to the "newest" errata, that will only change problems in the second printing and leave out all of the stuff that changed between printings.
Of course, if you own the PDF of the book, you can always download the latest printing and then apply the newest errata document. But they have to keep the old versions for people who own older hard copies.
Or have I misunderstood your post?
But if you have the first printing, you are still going to need all of the Errata from Errata 1, as well as the Errata from Errata 2. That means you have to use two Errata documents, rather than just having a single master document and simply ignoring any corrections that have already been implemented in your version of the printed book.
I don't think it's too difficult to label the changes as "All printings prior to 2nd" or something.
Or heck, it's 2020 and the errata is a PDF. Just add a button to select which version of the printed book you own and hide things that aren't relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you have the first printing, you are still going to need all of the Errata from Errata 1, as well as the Errata from Errata 2. That means you have to use two Errata documents, rather than just having a single master document and simply ignoring any corrections that have already been implemented in your version of the printed book.
I don't think so; that's not the way they did for the P1e CRB, anyway. There's one document for each printing, taking each up to the latest (First Printing to Sixth, Second Printing to Sixth, etc.)
But if you have the first printing, you are still going to need all of the Errata from Errata 1, as well as the Errata from Errata 2. That means you have to use two Errata documents, rather than just having a single master document and simply ignoring any corrections that have already been implemented in your version of the printed book.I don't think so; that's not the way they did for the P1e CRB, anyway. There's one document for each printing, taking each up to the latest (First Printing to Sixth, Second Printing to Sixth, etc.)
Right. We're suggesting that a Decade later, there is a better way to do things.
Edit: I think you are saying that they do update the V1 Errata with the stuff from the V2 Errata, etc...
If that's the case, that's great. It's just one more step to combine those into a single document with a selector based on your printed version.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suppose I have a first printing CRB, Aratorin has a second printing, and Joana has a third printing, and Paizo's just launching the fourth printing. Then there'd be a bunch of errata documents:
1.2, taking a first printing to second printing. Obsolete.
1.3, taking a first printing to third printing. Obsolete.
1.4, taking a first printing to fourth printing. Current. This is the PDF that I would use.
2.3, taking a second printing to third printing. Obsolete.
2.4, taking a second printing to fourth printing. Current. This is the PDF that Aratorin would use.
3.4, taking a third printing to fourth pritning. Current. This is the PDF that Joana would use.
So you could try to combine all of those into a single document but... why? Each person needs only a single current document, the rest are all obsolete or don't apply to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's too difficult ...
Note, I am clearly taking this phrase out of context.
This phrase always gets me, because every time I hear it in a professional setting, it will, more often than not, come up when the person saying it has little idea what is involved.
My sense is that if an approach met the goal, and was less difficult, then it would be done, especially when we are talking about seasoned professionals.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for new ideas, and suggestions, but let's be a bit careful when we start thinking that something is simply easier or less difficult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's too difficult ...Note, I am clearly taking this phrase out of context.
This phrase always gets me, because every time I hear it in a professional setting, it will, more often than not, come up when the person saying it has little idea what is involved.
My sense is that if an approach met the goal, and was less difficult, then it would be done, especially when we are talking about seasoned professionals.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for new ideas, and suggestions, but let's be a bit careful when we start thinking that something is simply easier or less difficult.
As a Corporate IT Professional at a major national telecommunications company, and before that, a 10 year employee of Best Buy, I can tell you that companies don't give a flying flip about what makes sense, is easy, or will get the job done. They care about what costs the least amount of money, or lines the pockets of their friends, contacts, and themselves, even if it is a demonstrably worse solution.
We've changed ticketing systems 3 times in 5 years, losing more and more usability and functionality each time.
I also have a fair amount of programming experience, so I'm quite aware of what is involved.
MorePurpleMoreBetter is a single person who develops and maintains a fully automated D&D 5.0 character sheet in PDF format.
Certainly Paizo can handle a simple interactive document.
In fact, I know they can, because they do it for the maps.
How many different teams are involved in interactive maps? Do you know how many teams touch the errata documents?
What is manageable for one can be prohibitive at three or more.
How many different teams are involved in interactive maps? Do you know how many teams touch the errata documents?
What is manageable for one can be prohibitive at three or more.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you over the specifics of implementing a suggestion that neither you nor I know if full.
I made a quality of life suggestion. Stop trying to start a fight because you don't like it.