Does anyone think Paizo should slow down a little?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello my friends!

So, I really loving 2ed, (to be true I already loved the playtest...) but is it just me that it's a little worried about the speed Paizo is making new books?

They did a great launch (Core, Bestiary, Lost Omens), but as I see, there were some petty erros and some things that passed most likely because it was made in a fast state... (Alchemist, materials, and other FAQ/errata materials).

What worries me, it's that they are already working in: A new playtest (the new classes), Gamemastery Guide, Bestiary 2, Lost Omens Character Guide, Lost Omens Gods & Magic... This excluding the AP's and the new module from Mr Mona.

Not that I'm not excited about those books (i'm really am!), but with so many things, i'm little worried that things get a little rushed...

So, what you guys think?


17 people marked this as a favorite.

There's always going to be a baseline error rate, even if they're so slow it infuriates the players and even if they hire an army of proofreaders.

I don't think there are any egregious examples of them making huge mistakes that could have been caught with minimal effort. All of the ones I know of seem to be minor errors that took a lot of work to find.

That seems acceptable to me.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely, it's obvious that their work rate is outstripping their competence. It was obvious from the playtest.

The thing they do best are APs, and those are chugging along just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They just want to put a lot of options that were avaiable befroe so DMs and players have a lot of options within a short amout of time, without having to wait 5 years to get what they had in 1e. They said they want to start doing new stuff, so I'm guessing they just want to get the "old" things out of the way first.

I'm fine with their schedule.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Watery Soup wrote:

There's always going to be a baseline error rate, even if they're so slow it infuriates the players and even if they hire an army of proofreaders.

I don't think there are any egregious examples of them making huge mistakes that could have been caught with minimal effort. All of the ones I know of seem to be minor errors that took a lot of work to find.

That seems acceptable to me.

So it's a minor problem for a specialization of a class to have two defining features literally not do anything? And not a peep from the developers on the nature or timeline of a fix in any way?

Because that seems like more than a minor error, it seems like something rushed out the door to meet a deadline.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

I see what you mean. It seems to me that it may be a good idea to let the Core options "breathe" a little bit. This gives the authors a few months to work out any kinks or bugs, and thus any future content will be created based off of corrected rules, instead of having multiple hardcovers already in the pipeline that could be based on rules that will be changed.
But I also understand the desire to allow players to realize their concepts as quick as possible, and also they need to "make up" the money they are missing from having monthly Campaign Setting and Player Companions being gone. So therefore, they need to pump out hardcovers at a quicker rate.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Watery Soup wrote:

There's always going to be a baseline error rate, even if they're so slow it infuriates the players and even if they hire an army of proofreaders.

Exactly. This topic always comes up, and it is always the same discussion. I always feel like the folks that are yelling the most about the need to slow down because of the presence of errors have never worked in a professional business, and probably haven’t paid close enough attention to the errors in the printed products they have read over the years.

As to the OP, I am fine with the rate. The more the merrier.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice! We went from "maybe they should slow down" to "they are aren't working fast enough" in only 4 replies. That's a new record, folks!

Sarcasm aside, no, I don't particularly think the current PF2 release schedule is too ambitious since it seems to technically be slowing down from the PF1 release schedule by a little bit.

And yeah, there are some significant errors in the book at current... but the unfortunate truth is that the ease of making those errors and the ones that people are much more accepting of is identical; it's not that a significant error resulted from lack of effort - it's just luck of the draw that small piece of text that went unnoticed had a more significant impact than most small pieces of text would have.

Liberty's Edge

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
And not a peep from the developers on the nature or timeline of a fix in any way?

This part isn't true. Jason Bulmahn has stated that some errata-type stuff will be out before the October APG Classes playtest. So we do have a timeline.

.
.
.
Personally, I don't think PF2 has had more errors than most RPG books I've seen. Or not too many more anyway.

And even if it does, that seems to be less true going forward. I think I've noticed one whole error in the LOWG (the Aldori Dueling Sword should be 2 GP rather than 20 GP). One error is not a big deal, IMO.


Things will slow down soon, if I remember what they were saying.
They just want to get more options out fast. A lot of us come from 1E, and that's got 10 years of content (not to mention 3.x), having more to explore in 2E would likely encourage the transition.
So I'm not too worried, I expect we'll slow down to a more sane rhythm soon enough.
Like, do we know what comes after the LO Character Guide? I know the APG is not coming for basically a year, but I forget what the schedule for Lost Omens products is supposed to be...

I will say that it's not the first time the big Gencon deadline led to releases that felt rushed and unpolished, and that I very much dislike, especially since it's usually things that would be caught and dealt with with just a little bit more time to work.
I have no idea how important the thing really is to the industry from a continent away (a lot, apparently), but I'm definitely not fond of that particular side effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aricks wrote:
And not a peep from the developers on the nature or timeline of a fix in any way?

This part isn't true. Jason Bulmahn has stated that some errata-type stuff will be out before the October APG Classes playtest. So we do have a timeline.

.
.
.
Personally, I don't think PF2 has had more errors than most RPG books I've seen. Or not too many more anyway.

And even if it does, that seems to be less true going forward. I think I've noticed one whole error in the LOWG (the Aldori Dueling Sword should be 2 GP rather than 20 GP). One error is not a big deal, IMO.

So is there a sticky post? A blog post? An offhand comment in a thread or stream does not effective community feedback make.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I kinda hope that it will slow down a bit.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
So is there a sticky post? A blog post? An offhand comment in a thread or stream does not effective community feedback make.

It was in a thread where people specifically asked the question. And I certainly wouldn't object to a stickied message, but it's still better to have information than not have it.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.

What they could do is, publish as pdf, hold the book publishing efforts. After getting all erratas done, patch the PDF and then Publish the book material.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Takamorisan wrote:
Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.

This.

I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I want them to go full steam ahead at whatever pace they feel is sustainable, and prevents any of their team from burning out.

I'm on record as saying I will take their system on a bundle of bar napkins as long as the underlying principles are sound. Worrying too much about typos and specific, easily rectifiable errors is a last century mindset.

Like in computer games, I will take a well thought out, fun, interesting game with a bunch of bugs over a highly polished, bug-free, snoozefest any day. Bugs can be fixed, but an over-engineered, over-wrought system can get in its own way.

While I would obviously prefer if there were no typos and rules errors, from a cost-benefit standpoint I think I don't think it would be worth the extra wait.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Aside from the Mutagenist, the vast majority of stuff I've seen is simple typos, the 2e Core book is probably one of the least error filled books they've had in awhile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:

There's always going to be a baseline error rate, even if they're so slow it infuriates the players and even if they hire an army of proofreaders.

I don't think there are any egregious examples of them making huge mistakes that could have been caught with minimal effort. All of the ones I know of seem to be minor errors that took a lot of work to find.

That seems acceptable to me.

So it's a minor problem for a specialization of a class to have two defining features literally not do anything? And not a peep from the developers on the nature or timeline of a fix in any way?

Because that seems like more than a minor error, it seems like something rushed out the door to meet a deadline.

Isn't the correlation between alchemist issues and the deadline just an assumption? Everything is so tight, like sneak attack specifically naming unarmed attacks because unarmed attacks don't function as weapons, but miss something as obvious as unarmed scaling with simple proficiciency?

Could be it's just a mistake on account of redoing a whole system they've been rooted into since forever. Could be it's a really big difference and some things slipped through. Perhaps the issue is less deadline and more transparancy on playtests.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Thebazilly wrote:
Takamorisan wrote:
Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.

This.

I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.

I would not be surprised if that thread showed up anyways.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

My only concern is that I believe we will have need for a PF2.5 far faster than in 3 years. But the release schedule seems closed for such a thing for at least 2 years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aricks wrote:
So is there a sticky post? A blog post? An offhand comment in a thread or stream does not effective community feedback make.
It was in a thread where people specifically asked the question. And I certainly wouldn't object to a stickied message, but it's still better to have information than not have it.

Fair enough on that point. Maybe their community relations person could have a running sticky post with all official comments so they're easy to see?

To get back to the subject of the thread, I think they could take a page from some software and game development companies and post out their planned changes and content, so that reasonable debate and discussion regarding it could be made. Granted you will always have opinions that can be ignored for a variety of reasons but community feedback on beta test versions of systems be enormously useful. See Stellaris by Paradox Interactive and their dev diary blog posts for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Takamorisan wrote:
What they could do is, publish as pdf, hold the book publishing efforts. After getting all erratas done, patch the PDF and then Publish the book material.

That would be great! At least for we users. But I suspect Paizo worries---rightly or wrongly I do not know---about the population that would buy the book if it came out with the PDF, but will buy the PDF if that's all that's available and then never buy the book because hey, they have the PDF. If that population is sizable, that's a lot of money down the drain. :-(

An obvious solution would be to offer an "upgrade" option where if you'd bought the PDF you could buy (one copy of) the book for only the difference in price. But their site might need rewiring to handle that automatically.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Aricks wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:

There's always going to be a baseline error rate, even if they're so slow it infuriates the players and even if they hire an army of proofreaders.

I don't think there are any egregious examples of them making huge mistakes that could have been caught with minimal effort. All of the ones I know of seem to be minor errors that took a lot of work to find.

That seems acceptable to me.

So it's a minor problem for a specialization of a class to have two defining features literally not do anything? And not a peep from the developers on the nature or timeline of a fix in any way?

If you are referring to the Mutagenist Alchemist, only one of its features (the ability to use a mutagen prepared by another alchemist) is non-functional as written. The feature that boosts unarmed strikes is only non-functional if you try to apply a quick podcast summary of upcoming errata to the Mutagenist rules without the actual errata, which I hope would clarify these special cases that were covered quickly in the podcast.


David knott 242 wrote:
Aricks wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:

There's always going to be a baseline error rate, even if they're so slow it infuriates the players and even if they hire an army of proofreaders.

I don't think there are any egregious examples of them making huge mistakes that could have been caught with minimal effort. All of the ones I know of seem to be minor errors that took a lot of work to find.

That seems acceptable to me.

So it's a minor problem for a specialization of a class to have two defining features literally not do anything? And not a peep from the developers on the nature or timeline of a fix in any way?

If you are referring to the Mutagenist Alchemist, only one of its features (the ability to use a mutagen prepared by another alchemist) is non-functional as written. The feature that boosts unarmed strikes is only non-functional if you try to apply a quick podcast summary of upcoming errata to the Mutagenist rules without the actual errata, which I hope would clarify these special cases that were covered quickly in the podcast.

You forgot the being able to benefits from All mutagens, even if Not brewed for you specifically. And lets Not mention that the Alchemist hardly shines when it comes to design. There are at minimum 3 feats each single bomber is going to take because they simply push math. They are the only class that does not habe the ability to attack with their Main stat without multiclassing. To me it seems like the Alchemist Was either rushed die to the removal of Focus, or whoever Designer the class never got the Note a out P2Es Design Philosoph.


Something to consider also is that it's entirely possible they've had these things in the works for a while, so it isn't as rushed as it may seem from the outside. I doubt development on these books started when the CRB dropped.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The only way you could possibly consider the 2e CRB to be a rushed mess is if you are completely unaware of the state the 1e CRB was released in...

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
The only way you could possibly consider the 2e CRB to be a rushed mess is if you are completely unaware of the state the 1e CRB was released in...

I had hoped they'd learnt their lesson.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The only way you could possibly consider the 2e CRB to be a rushed mess is if you are completely unaware of the state the 1e CRB was released in...
I had hoped they'd learnt their lesson.

Did they learn how to add more hours to the day?

No, probably not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The only way you could possibly consider the 2e CRB to be a rushed mess is if you are completely unaware of the state the 1e CRB was released in...
I had hoped they'd learnt their lesson.

I mean, they did. Just looking at the classes 2e has exactly one class that's clearly inferior to the others. 1e... everything other than the Bard and the Paladin were clearly out of line in one direction or the other. Maybe you could make an argument the Ranger was fine, too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do hope Paizo slows down just a bit once they get all the 'critical' books out (GMG, APG, Bestiary 2, LO Character Guide, LO Gods & Magic).

I understand the desire to get that critical mass of content out since that's kinda what people who play Pathfinder want, I just don't want Paizo to crunch their staff or have any of the books be of subpar quality in order to accomplish that.


From memory PF1 had day 1 errata with paladins in the CRB and they couldn’t even spell region correctly in their inner sea map (creating the now famous reigon map). That was for 3.5 and PF1.

Errors are always going to happen.


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

No. I want them to get to PF1e levels of options ("bloat") ASAP.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The only way you could possibly consider the 2e CRB to be a rushed mess is if you are completely unaware of the state the 1e CRB was released in...
I had hoped they'd learnt their lesson.
I mean, they did. Just looking at the classes 2e has exactly one class that's clearly inferior to the others. 1e... everything other than the Bard and the Paladin were clearly out of line in one direction or the other. Maybe you could make an argument the Ranger was fine, too.

They did better, but the same kind of mistakes are still there. And I fear that like 1e we'll be dogged by errors and oversights from the CRB for the next decade.


I actually thought from the title of this post that it would be about my concern that Paizo is putting out options at such a rate that 2 or 3 years from now we will start talking about "bloat" and newcomers being intimidated by the number of options.

I'm actually okay with the current rate of new classes and archetypes, since there is some need to "catch up" to approximate some of the concepts that were possible in PF1. But I hope it slows down after the APG. At the current rate we will have 32 classes, 56 ancestries and over 300 archetypes. I hope that Paizo is planning for a rollout that makes the release of new splat books feel "fresh" longer than 5 years from now. For me PF1 started to feel like it was digging up for new content about 5 years into its run. I hope that they're planning for a longer lifespan than PF1 had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
Takamorisan wrote:
Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.

This.

I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.

I would not be surprised if that thread showed up anyways.

It already indirectly has what with the number of people criticising lack of options (but nearly always comparing to 1E) or asking for feats to “fix” the proficiency system (which could come in a later book)

So there might not have been a specific thread asking for them to speed up but there have been lots of threads and comments asking for more content


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My worries are not only for errors, but I don't wanna the people in the office start suffering from Burnout! There is a lot of pressure now.

So, just wanna make it clear that I I've 2ed, and think the errors are little small!

But let's hope they keep the good work, and keep the sanity too!


John Lynch 106 wrote:

From memory PF1 had day 1 errata with paladins in the CRB and they couldn’t even spell region correctly in their inner sea map (creating the now famous reigon map). That was for 3.5 and PF1.

Errors are always going to happen.

Was paladin smite really day 1 errata ? I wish I had known that when running Reign of Winter with two paladins ...

That somehow passed me by
Or do you mean a clear major error noticed on day 1?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:

There's always going to be a baseline error rate, even if they're so slow it infuriates the players and even if they hire an army of proofreaders.

I don't think there are any egregious examples of them making huge mistakes that could have been caught with minimal effort. All of the ones I know of seem to be minor errors that took a lot of work to find.

That seems acceptable to me.

So it's a minor problem for a specialization of a class to have two defining features literally not do anything? And not a peep from the developers on the nature or timeline of a fix in any way?

Because that seems like more than a minor error, it seems like something rushed out the door to meet a deadline.

In a word, yes.

That the example is the alchemist is funny. My favorite class in 1E was alchemist. I have only read one class more than once in the 2E CRB, and it's alchemist.

I didn't notice whatever errors exist.

Let me repeat: of the entire CRB, I've read that alchemist section like 5 times and I didn't notice.

Maybe I don't pay very much attention. Maybe I don't know the system very well. Maybe I suck at alchemisting. And that is exactly what I mean - there are only a fraction of people who will catch that mistake.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with everything WatersLethe said, and want to add the following.

It's conceivable that people got used to the "slow" release schedule during the (partially secret) development of PF2, when there was only one hardback released in 2018 and the pace of player's companions and campaign setting books slowed down.

Like in 2017 they released 4 hardcovers, 13 player's companions, and 6 campaign setting books; in 2016 they released 3 hardcovers, 10 player's companions, and 11 campaign setting books; in 2015 they released 4 hardcovers, 11 player's companions, and 12 campaign setting books, etc. Paizo's release schedule has always been torrid, since on top of all of that they've been doing an adventure path issue every month for 10+ years.

If they think they can sustain it with good content and happy developers, they should. If they want to slow down, they should be able to. It only seems like they're going fast since they have to lay out the foundation for the game in advance- the game is literally unplayable without a rulebook and a bestiary, you need an overview of the setting for people to make sense of it, and the GMG is going to have a lot of rules people want in it (which don't make sense to put in a rulebook since it's GM focused stuff). Beyond that, all they're publishing from August through January is the LO Character Guide and the Gods & Magic book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

From what I understand, isn't the 2e release schedule so far very similar to the 1e initial release schedule? We are even getting the APG at the exact same point in the schedule.

@Angel Hunter D: I don't know if this is your intent, but taken together your posts seem to imply that if Paizo had spent longer on 2e, it would have resulted in a game that is closer to what you personally want.

I do not believe that to be true.

Scarab Sages

MaxAstro wrote:

From what I understand, isn't the 2e release schedule so far very similar to the 1e initial release schedule? We are even getting the APG at the exact same point in the schedule.

@Angel Hunter D: I don't know if this is your intent, but taken together your posts seem to imply that if Paizo had spent longer on 2e, it would have resulted in a game that is closer to what you personally want.

I do not believe that to be true.

I know I'm not getting exactly what I want, but they keep making the same kind of mistakes and I was hoping they'd learned from the last decade. Some of this stuff is pretty basic, some of it I know is just that people enjoyed 1e for different reasons.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Takamorisan wrote:
What they could do is, publish as pdf, hold the book publishing efforts. After getting all erratas done, patch the PDF and then Publish the book material.

That would be great! At least for we users. But I suspect Paizo worries---rightly or wrongly I do not know---about the population that would buy the book if it came out with the PDF, but will buy the PDF if that's all that's available and then never buy the book because hey, they have the PDF. If that population is sizable, that's a lot of money down the drain. :-(

An obvious solution would be to offer an "upgrade" option where if you'd bought the PDF you could buy (one copy of) the book for only the difference in price. But their site might need rewiring to handle that automatically.

I have no idea how big the cohort is, but I don’t use PDFs. So this approach would lose sales from people like me as well (I imagine the hype dying down after the PDF release would have an impact).

Paizo Employee

20 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Takamorisan wrote:
What they could do is, publish as pdf, hold the book publishing efforts. After getting all erratas done, patch the PDF and then Publish the book material.

That would be great! At least for we users. But I suspect Paizo worries---rightly or wrongly I do not know---about the population that would buy the book if it came out with the PDF, but will buy the PDF if that's all that's available and then never buy the book because hey, they have the PDF. If that population is sizable, that's a lot of money down the drain. :-(

An obvious solution would be to offer an "upgrade" option where if you'd bought the PDF you could buy (one copy of) the book for only the difference in price. But their site might need rewiring to handle that automatically.

I have no idea how big the cohort is, but I don’t use PDFs. So this approach would lose sales from people like me as well (I imagine the hype dying down after the PDF release would have an impact).

PDFs are also borderline worthless from an advertising perspective without a print product to show off, mail to reviewers, put on shelves, etc.

A lot of times people assume that because a 3pp company can do something like trickle out pdf releases for year-long playtests and then compile them into a print book that Paizo might benefit from doing something similar, but there's a ton of issues with that idea.

1) Paizo works on projects far further out than most 3pps. There's stuff I wrote for Paizo at about the same time I was working on 3pp projects; pretty consistently the Paizo stuff came out a year after the 3pp product, because Paizo has professional editors and internal development that continue to work on books, as well as a more rigid production schedule since they sell to a massively larger market than any of the companies making 3pp PF materials.

2) Paizo has actual staff. Most 3pps don't have more than one or two full-time employees, and those folks usually have day jobs as well. They can afford to sit on a book for as long as they need to before publishing, because they don't have the same amount of mandatory month-to-month expenses. When they do have a hard release date, it's usually tied to crowdfunding (meaning they've already been paid for the products) and those dates are pretty commonly missed anyways.

3) There's actually not much evidence that doing so would meaningfully improve the product. I've playtested for many different 3pp companies, and for Paizo. I can point at numerous 3pp products (I won't because that would be a kind of crappy thing to do) that spent up to a year or more in playtesting and still came out with more errors than exist in the entirety of the new Core Rulebook. Most of those books aren't even close to the size of the CRB. Any book that gets published is going to have errors; it's actually pretty impressive when you consider how big the CRB is and what an aggressive and thorough playtest it actually had how few errors are in there. Which brings me to point 4...

4) There is a point where too much playtesting can actually become detrimental to a project. Designers and developers are creative folks, and they're often holding six or seven different versions of a rules set in their heads as they try things out, roll them back when needed, replace those removals with alternate systems, or roll out entirely new materials that fill unanticipated needs. There is a hard point in every playtest where you're no longer improving the game but instead just taxing the mental resources of your team and swirling on sections that are functional but which people have split feelings about or some similar obstacle. 5E had a multi-year playtest and still had tons of errata and changes that started flowing out shortly after it hit print. You cannot make a perfect book; all you can do is make the best possible book you and your team are capable of making at that point in time.

5) It's also worth noting that Pathfinder second edition is selling incredibly well. It obliterated sales records at GenCon, it's garnering hugely positive press from companies, reviewers, and players who never even glanced twice at PF1, and it's been hanging out between #10 and #15 on the Amazon fantasy gaming best sellers since it's release; that's not something PF1 ever did except when it didn't have any real competition in the market. So it's important to note that what some people might see as "mistakes", many other people might see as "the reason I even bought this game in the first place". Obviously that doesn't apply to things like typos or post-publication, pre-release updates that missed another update in a different part of the book, but those are also extremely uncommon in the new book. There's a lot of stuff in there that's working for a lot of people really well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nah, this is good.

I see their pace as important for a couple reasons.

- Rounding out the game. It's going to be a year before they get out the books they'll generally expect tables to be referencing. (CRB, Bestiary, GMG, APG.) Bestiary 2 will be necessary to balance summoning spells, and the game still needs its NPC building

- Presenting options. Right now, PF2 has PF1's core classes, plus one. Right now, 5e also has PF1's core classes, plus one. 5e also has a lot more races than PF2 has ancestries.

- Playtest has to be done well in advance. That's probably the part that'll feel the earliest. Personally, I'm really glad that players who want more class options get some early access.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Thank you for the post, Ssalarn.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber

Slowing down does not eliminate errata. Look at D&D and how many reprints they have done, always slipping the latest errata into the latest printing. This despite having a stated policy to step way back from their 3.5/4e days of splat books and start doing very very long iterative playtesting.


I'm cautiously sure that constant Errata will round things out for the books (too bad for the early buyers, though).
Remember, the PF1 CRB Monk could not deal cold iron/silver treated unarmed strikes until the 6th printing (my 5th printed hardcover says so).
Important rule errors can and will be patched if enough voice of reasons gather up.


Lanathar wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

From memory PF1 had day 1 errata with paladins in the CRB and they couldn’t even spell region correctly in their inner sea map (creating the now famous reigon map). That was for 3.5 and PF1.

Errors are always going to happen.

Was paladin smite really day 1 errata ? I wish I had known that when running Reign of Winter with two paladins ...

That somehow passed me by
Or do you mean a clear major error noticed on day 1?

From memory (and this is going back 11 years so dont take it as gospel), paladins were given errata between the book going to the printer and the book being given to players. But again, that's going back 11 years so I could be mistaken.

I'm a bit confused by your Reign of Winter comment. That wasnt the first AP so if you had interest in applying errata to the CRB (I often dont bother unless it's really egregious) you had plenty of opportunity to.

1 to 50 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.