Does anyone think Paizo should slow down a little?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 117 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the problem is the amount of errors in the books, even egregious ones (Mutagenist for instance).

I think the problem is the statements often made by Paizo supporters in threads that they can't put out errata because they are busy on other books.

Now granted, I've never seen an actual Paizo employee say that, but plenty of times I've seen fans say that.

BUT, if that is actually the case (which I will not say is the case, but often the same people saying "they are going the right speed" and the people saying "they don't have time for errata right now" are the same people) then yes, they need to slow down. Not because the books have errors, but because they don't seem to be allowing times to address those errors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, errata is traditionally only issued when the book is reprinted (since it exists to bring older copies up to date with the newer copies.)

What we need is a pipeline to receive updates. PF1 had the FAQ system that I'm pretty sure they want to improve on. During the playtest they just released updates to download every couple of weeks, but the playtest audience was a lot smaller and it was easier to get them in the hands of people. On one of the friday streams a few weeks back they mentioned that they were still figuring out how to do this, so presumably they need to formulate a plan and execute it before they can start giving updates.

But "devs chime in on the forums to give official answers" is a bad way to go about it since that particular information would not disseminate very quickly among all people who would like to know it (most Pathfinder players are not here.)


PossibleCabbage wrote:


But "devs chime in on the forums to give official answers" is a bad way to go about it since that particular information would not disseminate very quickly among all people who would like to know it (most Pathfinder players are not here.)

Boy-o-Boy - well do we need official answers? Is the game better if communication is only for official fixes and hard errata ok'd by committee to print?

Other editions of the game did just fine when rules questions were not answered and people were forced to invent solutions, or if there was an answer it was in a 3rd party magazine that not everyone had access to (nor was it easy to search until much, much later).

Now if there is a very bad issue (for sake of argument) lets say the mutagenest issue qualifies, then perhaps that is the way to go. I'd sure has heck like to see more frequent responses that aren't held to 'but the devs said x' - heck if we are going to opine (and what else are we doing here but that) consider this:

NEW FAQ SYSTEM/ERRATA for PF2 (suggested):

FAQ's (like old) answered quickly - but never as 'an' answer - always as 'we suggest using this as an answer - if you don't like X the dev team considers Y valid as well - and we saw solution Z in the posts that seems like a good fit - pick what works for your table until/if an official rule change is made

Errata: Released as Paizo feels the need - this would be reserved for big bad issues that actually change a fundamental fact or rule - crane wing nerf or changes to the shifter fall under these. Errata of this kind should be easy to find - and possibly kept in a single document for all products as a PDF - thus you could check a single source for anything owned.

And then we players could get the best of both worlds - simple answers on how to run the game on complicated or unsure wording - without the devs having to 'hard line' to answer a question - and real hard answers when the problem is actually affecting the health of the game.

/my two cents.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally prefer the brisk pace.
As others have said trying to achieve perfection would mean no book ever gets published. That, and there -is- such a thing as too much polish. At some point you have to declare it done and put it out. You can second, third, fourth, twentieth guess yourself into absolute stagnation.

Does a brisk pace mean a few more errors? Yes. I would much rather a few errors than waiting months or years down the road, for a product that didn't have those few errors (But absolutely would have different errors).

There is something to be said about quality over quantity. At this point the quality is there. So keep them coming nice and fast.

In my mind the -few- errors that the books have are far outweighed by the overall quality and pace that we're getting them.

Again, give me a book with a few errors -today- than a book with 2 or 3 less errors 6 to 12 months from now.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In business terms they have a "pipeline" of stuff they are releasing months from now. It is being finished, proofed, etc., put on the schedule for printing.

That takes at a minimum months. I wouldn't expect any slowdown as that would have needed to have started months ago to slow anything down.

I would appreciate an official errata soon, but we know it's coming.


Killing off the player companion line is the slow down. To be honest I'm a little worried about the opposite. Some of the groups I run with have gotten bored of waiting for Starfinder (and 5e) to print new material after becoming accustomed to PF1's content pacing and it's kind of turned them off to those systems and I'd hate to see PF2 end up in a similar space in the long run.

Ckorik wrote:
FAQ's (like old) answered quickly - but never as 'an' answer - always as 'we suggest using this as an answer - if you don't like X the dev team considers Y valid as well - and we saw solution Z in the posts that seems like a good fit - pick what works for your table until/if an official rule change is made

Why? "Table solutions" are already a given with the nature of the game itself. Being vague or wishy washy just leaves people who for whatever reason are looking for clear official guidance with nothing to really work with.


I think one of the goals of PF2 is to make official rules answers less important by making the intent of a rule or a mechanic clear and well understood. Understanding the intent, individual GMs are thereby empowered to make the appropriate rulings so that things work the way they are supposed to.

A lot of the thorniest rules problems in PF1 (e.g. Bardic Masterpieces, Gauntlets as weapons) were because "well, how is this supposed to work" was wholly unclear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm fine with "at table fixes", but there are still things that are clearly just wrong. Like the cost of something being different in two different spots in the book. Or the Mutagenist ability literally doing nothing.

At the table fixes should be for things that are a bit vague, not for things that are clearly messed up.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NA Palm wrote:

I'm fine with "at table fixes", but there are still things that are clearly just wrong. Like the cost of something being different in two different spots in the book. Or the Mutagenist ability literally doing nothing.

At the table fixes should be for things that are a bit vague, not for things that are clearly messed up.

Yeah. This.

I'm all for table fixes for vague bits, but things that are clearly and objectively incorrect and result in characters being unfairly punished or the like need direct solutions and need them relatively quickly.

Now, as I said much earlier in the thread, per Jason Bulmahn, solutions for that sort of thing are probably coming by October so they'll be in place for the APG playtest. That's soon enough for me, but we do need them.


Squiggit wrote:

Ckorik wrote:
FAQ's (like old) answered quickly - but never as 'an' answer - always as 'we suggest using this as an answer - if you don't like X the dev team considers Y valid as well - and we saw solution Z in the posts that seems like a good fit - pick what works for your table until/if an official rule change is made
Why? "Table solutions" are already a given with the nature of the game itself. Being vague or wishy washy just leaves people who for whatever reason are looking for clear official guidance with nothing to really work with.

If you want official hard code answers to things - then experience would say you will get to spend much time without any answers.

To be fair to the PF2 ruleset - so far there are less ambiguous areas of the rules, but it's new and shiney - ask again in 3-4 years when the first set of tires needs to be changed and there are a couple of leaky gaskets :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they should rush to release an Unchained book to fix the Alchemist and maybe even rush to release a 3rd edition which would be the 5e of Pathfinder (PF2 being its 4e so far) /s


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the society needs a weekly FAQ type deal to fix the most pressing issues and typos, because those games can't use house rules. For everyone else, getting a society FAQ would likely answer the most pressing questions and then they could house rule anything that's left until we get a reprint errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think what you have to look at is whether or not you like the rules/intent of the rules for A game and go from there. I liked the changes in Pathfinder 2. Some errata does not bother me. I do not know of an Rpg book that has not had errata. I think people are more forgiving of errata if you like the rules/intent of rules than if you do not. The more you are on the extremes of like vs not like the more or less forgiving you are. As far as the pace of releases I do not think it is that much different than PF1.


Faenor wrote:
I think they should rush to release an Unchained book to fix the Alchemist and maybe even rush to release a 3rd edition which would be the 5e of Pathfinder (PF2 being its 4e so far) /s

Tried 5e. It was icky. This is much more enjoyable so far.


Donovan Du Bois wrote:
I think the society needs a weekly FAQ type deal to fix the most pressing issues and typos, because those games can't use house rules. For everyone else, getting a society FAQ would likely answer the most pressing questions and then they could house rule anything that's left until we get a reprint errata.

I know a lot of folks I gamed with would use the Additional Resources and clarification pages for the various product lines, and what they said for PFS, for "official" rulings in their homegames. The pages say they aren't official errata, but the counterpoint was always, "But it's on the site tho." It seemed to work out alright.


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Faenor wrote:
I think they should rush to release an Unchained book to fix the Alchemist and maybe even rush to release a 3rd edition which would be the 5e of Pathfinder (PF2 being its 4e so far) /s
Tried 5e. It was icky. This is much more enjoyable so far.

Edition wars are really not helpful. I do bring up old editions, and I try to do so in context to stop these 'it was never this way' arguments that ignore old farts like me and want to make our feelings about changes invalid. Change is a process and does require people time to 'feel' the change to process it - trying to stifle every negative voice doesn't bring them around to how you think - it just shoves them away.

That said - 5e is a fine game, and if you played it you should easily see how many of the new shiny bits from PF2 are iterations on themes from 5e. The two bits of the game that are brightly unique are the 3 action combat system and the rigid design language. Both I think are great additions to the genre.

It's not a bad thing to be influenced or to borrow from you know - most songs are just past songs with new bits (for example) it's not the influence or idea that is borrowed - it's what you do with them, it doesn't hurt PF2 to acknowledge these things.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
I think the society needs a weekly FAQ type deal to fix the most pressing issues and typos, because those games can't use house rules. For everyone else, getting a society FAQ would likely answer the most pressing questions and then they could house rule anything that's left until we get a reprint errata.
I know a lot of folks I gamed with would use the Additional Resources and clarification pages for the various product lines, and what they said for PFS, for "official" rulings in their homegames. The pages say they aren't official errata, but the counterpoint was always, "But it's on the site tho." It seemed to work out alright.

I haven't had a game where this didn't happen. I also think we need to come to terms with Society being a big deal and that it requires faster movement on rules and FAQs because of the pace and scale of it. I know one of my GMs biggest complaints about the system in Society play is that there's a lot if built in table variance that makes consistent play experience difficult - not counting actual rule issues that make the problem even bigger.

101 to 117 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Does anyone think Paizo should slow down a little? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.