Official ruling for three questions please.


Rules Discussion

51 to 65 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dekalinder wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
pjrogers wrote:

Also, as I understand it, part of the motivation behind the creation of PF2e is to attract new players to Pathfinder. These new players are going to need support and will need to feel they're investing in a game where the design team is responsive to these newcomers' questions and rules confusion. Otherwise, I suspect they will go elsewhere.

You mean, they'll go play 5e which doesn't have a forum, doesn't have a dedicated FAQ button to make people feel important and where designers don't really interact with player base? Because that's what they've been doing for the last 5 years as PF1 playerbase steadily migrated to 5e.

Having a semi-regular FAQ document and doing errata while making a new print run? Sure. Having a perpetual hotline for handling any rule question, especially ones that aren't really questions? No point.

Forums being outdated doesn't mean that 5e dev are silents. They are more active then ever (somethimes more than they should imho). And, as you can see, on platforms even more informal and inclusive than forums. 5e recieved a healty and steady flux of clarification, and some few erratas, even if they (rightly imho) mostly refrain from "balance patches" ala pf1.

I can pretty much guarantee you that the subset of playerbase that wants an Official, Centralized, Forum-Based FAQ Mechanism will balk at anything else, and in particular at social media posts by private accounts of devs. Cue "how official is this" and "I don't do social media" arguments and "it's just dev X and we know he hates Monks".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Cue "how official is this" and "I don't do social media" arguments and "it's just dev X and we know he hates Monks".

If it's anything like the old pathfinder days, it'd more likely be 'why do we have 2 'official' posts that say opposite things?' So for myself, I'd rather not go back to those days when any off the cuff remark turned into someone's RAW defense.

IMO a streamlined/simplified system would be nice and it would be even nicer if someone could be designated able to answer questions without convening every Dev for a serious debate over every little issue even if it's just for FAQ's. Heck, I'd even take temperately official until the big meeting if they still thing everything needs team input. [it's not like FAQ's didn't change in PF1 like mnk's and SLA and spellcasting requirements].


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

The sage advice pdf

The errata pdfs linked from the sage advice pdf
Anything stated by JC on twitter as mentioned at the very start of the sage advice pdf.

Which is where exactly? I've not seen it on their site (just the latest product ads every time I visit), and it certainly isn't on the forums. Last I checked, the website didn't say "check JC's personal Twitter account for official errata and clarifications either."

I've been following the roleplaying communities and games for 20 years and this is the first I've heard that there even was a 5E Sage Advice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

The sage advice pdf

The errata pdfs linked from the sage advice pdf
Anything stated by JC on twitter as mentioned at the very start of the sage advice pdf.

Which is where exactly? I've not seen it on their site (just the latest product ads every time I visit), and it certainly isn't on the forums. Last I checked, the website didn't say "check JC's personal Twitter account for official errata and clarifications either."

I've been following the roleplaying communities and games for 20 years and this is the first I've heard that there even was a 5E Sage Advice.

From the main page, click on articles. On the options there, one is sage advice. This from someone that's never been to the 5e site before and never played the game past the playtest. It's not exactly hidden and anyone with experience in the old 3.5 site and/or dragon magazine should recognize the name as the FAQ's.


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

Thanks graystone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

The sage advice pdf

The errata pdfs linked from the sage advice pdf
Anything stated by JC on twitter as mentioned at the very start of the sage advice pdf.

Which is where exactly? I've not seen it on their site (just the latest product ads every time I visit), and it certainly isn't on the forums. Last I checked, the website didn't say "check JC's personal Twitter account for official errata and clarifications either."

I've been following the roleplaying communities and games for 20 years and this is the first I've heard that there even was a 5E Sage Advice.

I am detecting a mite hostility from you and I am not sure why.

As for what the site says

"If you have a D&D rules question, please reach me on Twitter (@JeremyECrawford), where I answer questions every month. Many of those answers eventually end up in the Sage Advice Compendium."

Again, I am not saying that wotc does it right. I am saying that in my opinion they did it better than the paizo faq for 1e. Twitter being the vector with an intentional commitment to engaging with questions results in more answers.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/sage-advice-compendium

The link above stays static and is always updated to whatever the most recent document is.

Anyway I will end this discussion thread here as it isn't really relevant to the topic past this point.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
"If you have a D&D rules question, please reach me on Twitter (@JeremyECrawford), where I answer questions every month. Many of those answers eventually end up in the Sage Advice Compendium."

I have to say, I didn't see that quote anywhere on the site when I looked. I have no idea where you found that. Or in the pdf I checked.


It's on the page for the sage advice compendium.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

The sage advice pdf

The errata pdfs linked from the sage advice pdf
Anything stated by JC on twitter as mentioned at the very start of the sage advice pdf.

Which is where exactly? I've not seen it on their site (just the latest product ads every time I visit), and it certainly isn't on the forums. Last I checked, the website didn't say "check JC's personal Twitter account for official errata and clarifications either."

I've been following the roleplaying communities and games for 20 years and this is the first I've heard that there even was a 5E Sage Advice.

I am detecting a mite hostility from you and I am not sure why.

I've been pretty sore with WotC ever since they killed their forums. It's actually one of the biggest reasons why I migrated to Paizo (after Paizo's outstanding quality of game of course).

It was like a slap in the face. A sort of "we don't care about you or your feedback" kind of moment. Paizo was (is) different.

WotC claimed that forums were kind of pointless what with the rise of social media and other avenues of communication. The issue with that though (besides the fact that they did it solely to save money), was that such online communities were fractured, wide-spread, and unofficial. We went from being one big community to a bunch of little ones. There was no centralization or real cohesiveness like that provided by an official forum or community area.

For years after I only ever saw product ads on their site. I stopped checking after a time, and so likely missed the revival of Sage Advice of my own accord.

So yeah, there's some hostility, but not towards you or anyone else here. I apologize for letting it show through quite so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
WotC claimed that forums were kind of pointless what with the rise of social media and other avenues of communication. The issue with that though (besides the fact that they did it solely to save money), was that such online communities were fractured, wide-spread, and unofficial. We went from being one big community to a bunch of little ones. There was no centralization or real cohesiveness like that provided by an official forum or community area.

For what it's worth, there might be more to it than profitability.

I've spoken to a number of RPG companies who have tried to get some forums going and it is very, very common (apparently) for them to be flops, even when the specific community on reddit, twitter, facebook, twitch and so forth is vibrant.

The way I heard it (though I hate it and like you came to Paizo in large part due to the forums) was that there has been a really significant shift in how the RPG community connects and that forum participation was declining even as social media interaction was going through the roof.

I do share your preference, but it's perhaps a perspective worth bearing in mind. It wouldn't surprise me (although it will make me sad) if Paizo's forum also continues to decline in activity in future years, even with PF2's launch as a large proportion of the newly engaged userbase interact via those disparate online communities you mentioned.


Squiggit wrote:
It's on the page for the sage advice compendium.

LOL I didn't even know that was a PDF too. I didn't jump out at me. *shrug* I'm actually quite glad I dropped 5e after seeing the site after all these years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
WotC claimed that forums were kind of pointless what with the rise of social media and other avenues of communication. The issue with that though (besides the fact that they did it solely to save money), was that such online communities were fractured, wide-spread, and unofficial. We went from being one big community to a bunch of little ones. There was no centralization or real cohesiveness like that provided by an official forum or community area.

For what it's worth, there might be more to it than profitability.

I've spoken to a number of RPG companies who have tried to get some forums going and it is very, very common (apparently) for them to be flops, even when the specific community on reddit, twitter, facebook, twitch and so forth is vibrant.

The way I heard it (though I hate it and like you came to Paizo in large part due to the forums) was that there has been a really significant shift in how the RPG community connects and that forum participation was declining even as social media interaction was going through the roof.

I do share your preference, but it's perhaps a perspective worth bearing in mind. It wouldn't surprise me (although it will make me sad) if Paizo's forum also continues to decline in activity in future years, even with PF2's launch as a large proportion of the newly engaged userbase interact via those disparate online communities you mentioned.

Yeah, I imagine you're right. It just seems to me like a lot of the other communities (Facebook, Reddit, et al) don't have discussions like one finds on the forums. More often than not, it's little more than memes and other meaningless distractions. Occasionally, you will get a question or two from a new player, but it doesn't really spawn discussion. People just answer it with 100% certainty that their way is the right way.

It's just not the same as a forum (especially a centralized official forum).

Anyways, this is probably off topic for this thread, so I'm going to move on.


Ravingdork wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
WotC claimed that forums were kind of pointless what with the rise of social media and other avenues of communication. The issue with that though (besides the fact that they did it solely to save money), was that such online communities were fractured, wide-spread, and unofficial. We went from being one big community to a bunch of little ones. There was no centralization or real cohesiveness like that provided by an official forum or community area.

For what it's worth, there might be more to it than profitability.

I've spoken to a number of RPG companies who have tried to get some forums going and it is very, very common (apparently) for them to be flops, even when the specific community on reddit, twitter, facebook, twitch and so forth is vibrant.

The way I heard it (though I hate it and like you came to Paizo in large part due to the forums) was that there has been a really significant shift in how the RPG community connects and that forum participation was declining even as social media interaction was going through the roof.

I do share your preference, but it's perhaps a perspective worth bearing in mind. It wouldn't surprise me (although it will make me sad) if Paizo's forum also continues to decline in activity in future years, even with PF2's launch as a large proportion of the newly engaged userbase interact via those disparate online communities you mentioned.

Yeah, I imagine you're right. It just seems to me like a lot of the other communities (Facebook, Reddit, et al) don't have discussions like one finds on the forums. More often than not, it's little more than memes and other meaningless distractions. Occasionally, you will get a question or two from a new player, but it doesn't really spawn discussion. People just answer it with 100% certainty that their way is the right way.

It's just not the same as a forum (especially a centralized official forum).

Anyways, this is probably off topic for this thread, so I'm going to...

Doom's way is the 100% correct way!


graystone wrote:
I have to say, I didn't see that quote anywhere on the site when I looked. I have no idea where you found that. Or in the pdf I checked.

Page I linked and the pdf :P

Third paragraph just above the "About the author title"

And yeah, as a person who was a professional web developer for 9 years their site is... not great. Could be worse, but could be a lot better.

Ravingdork wrote:


It was like a slap in the face. A sort of "we don't care about you or your feedback" kind of moment. Paizo was (is) different.

So yeah, there's some hostility, but not towards you or anyone else here. I apologize for letting it show through quite so much.

Oh I get that, I have many many many many more gripes with WotC than I do paizo.

Onwards and upwards :)


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Page I linked and the pdf :P

Third paragraph just above the "About the author title"

I went to the site without the link to see how hard it was to find things just going there: if I was a new person, I wouldn't have a link.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
And yeah, as a person who was a professional web developer for 9 years their site is... not great. Could be worse, but could be a lot better.

Yeah, it was pretty simple finding sage advice section but at a glance I took the compendium image as a header for the section: I'd have totally missed it looking on my own.

While this has been interesting, I'll agree with Ravingdork that it most likely time to move on from the derail. ;)

51 to 65 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Official ruling for three questions please. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.