Can we get a Paizo update about when a rules update / clarification is coming?

[tivadar27]

So around a month ago a bunch of the developers came on video and indicated that a rules update was in the works. A few things were mentioned that were being fixed. To my knowledge, since that time we haven't gotten any information as to this update. My question is basically two-fold:
1) Did I miss something/was a timeline for when we can expect either a FAQ or clarifications mentioned at some point?
2) If not, can we get some indication from Paizo about when this is expected? I'm fortunately not trying to play an alchemist right now, but I do have a couple of characters (for PFS) where I'm not sure if something I'm doing is legal/the way things are supposed to work, and it would be good to have clarification around this.

Extra credit: An anticipated frequency of updating "Character Options" for PFS play would also be nice. Towards the end, I know this document was being updated approximately twice a year, and with 3+ hardcover books of material coming out in the first 3 months of the game, that rate feels fairly slow.

[Nicolas Paradise]

I too would like some clarity sooner rather than later. I am not going to stop buying or playing but it feels like 2E dropped and than support for it other than new stuff coming went away.

Don't get me wrong I am a fan of new stuff and catch up content to get some 1e fan favorites back but if the base is broken(which maybe it isn't but it has a few nasty cracks)no amount of new stuff will fix that. 1E still has tons of stuff that gets ruels questions daily on the forums that never get answered and I don't want to see that happen with 2E.

[Anguish]

I had really hoped-for/expected a new era with PF2's release.

It seemed obvious that with this many hundreds of pages of new content, there were inevitably going to be some misprints or misleading wordings. From there, I honestly figured (some of) the devs would be here, filling in the blanks. My imagination had a much higher level of engagement.

As it stands, the setting site is getting excellent support. You can drop a casual comment about such-and-such a change with such-and-such an NPC in such-and-such a country and almost hold your breath before James Jacobs shows up and explains why things are the way they are. He's a super star for sure, and nothing new about that.

I was just hoping for something similar from the rules folks. The frequency of "no, that Bulk number is wrong, thanks for pointing it out, we'll add that to our list" seems really low.

[Gorbacz]

I, for one, don't care. FAQ/errata are pretty much solely the interest of super-invested forum denizens. And they'll never be happy with whatever you give them, anyway.

[Draco18s]

Gorbacz wrote:

I, for one, don't care. FAQ/errata are pretty much solely the interest of super-invested forum denizens. And they'll never be happy with whatever you give them, anyway.

OTOH, Mutagenist does Actually Nothing.

[PossibleCabbage]

Gorbacz wrote:

I, for one, don't care. FAQ/errata are pretty much solely the interest of super-invested forum denizens. And they'll never be happy with whatever you give them, anyway.

I dunno, there's some errata that's literally just a goof (e.g. Wizards getting an extra feat, the Dueling sword's price being multiplied by 10, etc.) and it would just be nice to have that written down somewhere instead of having to go from word of mouth from someone who watched the correct twitch steam.

[Ssalarn]

Draco18s wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

I, for one, don't care. FAQ/errata are pretty much solely the interest of super-invested forum denizens. And they'll never be happy with whatever you give them, anyway.

OTOH, Mutagenist does Actually Nothing.

That's only true if you're already using the design team's social media commentary as a FAQ/Errata system. Otherwise it works fine but all non-fighters who multiclass monk are pretty inaccurate with their unarmed strikes. Fast errata isn't necessarily good errata. I'd rather know that the folks who need to do it are taking the time to do it right.

[thenobledrake]

Draco18s wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

I, for one, don't care. FAQ/errata are pretty much solely the interest of super-invested forum denizens. And they'll never be happy with whatever you give them, anyway.

OTOH, Mutagenist does Actually Nothing.

True.

From my experience, however, I would expect that the majority of people out there that have bought PF2 and plan to play it are fixing that on their own or outright skipping that option and not considering it a deal-breaker or complaining to those that will listen that the game is "literally unplayable" or something (note: I haven't seen anyone declare PF2 unplayable... but I have seen it a lot with other games recently released).

[The Gleeful Grognard]

It has been nearly two months, while it would be nice to get some stuff cleared up. I am happier to wait for better delivered errata.

[Draco18s]

thenobledrake wrote:

or complaining to those that will listen that the game is "literally unplayable" or something (note: I haven't seen anyone declare PF2 unplayable... but I have seen it a lot with other games recently released).

PF2 is playable. It has some issues, sure, but its playable.

Its 6th edition Shadowrun which is unplayable. There's entire sections of the book that were copy-pasted word for word from 5th edition, despite several mechanics no longer being a Thing.

Then there's the wild die which you get "on some tests" which counts as 3 successes when it's a success, or when it rolls a 1 makes all your 2s count for glitches. There's 6 mentions of it in the entire book. 3 are in the mechanic's own description.

Its real bad.

But no, Pathfinder 2 is not that flawed. Right now PF2 players can work around the problems and have a decently functional system, even if there are subsystems that aren't working correctly.

But those missing/broken subsystems are important enough that anyone who wasn't on the preorder list for a book is going to wait for a second printing, with the errata included before they buy. And maybe will even wait for the errata before they play at all.

[thenobledrake]

Nope. 6th edition Shadowrun has a significant number of errors in the book, more than a few of which are very serious errors, but it too is playable - I know from the playing it.

[Captain Morgan]

So I wouldn't count on getting a timeline on things like this. They've made it pretty clear they don't want to promise something and then have it be broken when they fail to hit a deadline for themselves. A lot of businesses try to keep details like this vague for similar reasons.

[Blave]

The most official word we have is this:

"The update will be released before the APG playtest. The playtest will be released late October."

Between getting the GM-Guide to the printer, making the monster creation rules ready for its free release and gettin the APG classes at least done enough to warrant a playtest, I'd say the design team has to juggle quite a number things simultaneously.

I imagine the update (or errata or whatever it's called) is quite some time investment. There's a pretty huge number of things that need to be cleared up, though I agree that the game is perfectly playable as it is.

Still, all those issues must be evaluated (i.e. is this thing here important enough to come up in the first critical errata?) and it probably takes the whole design team to come up with a solution. And I mean they have to talk about this stuff and decide in which direction to take unclear rules. I'm not saying any individual designer wouldn't be able to fix stuff.

[tivadar27]

Blave wrote:

The most official word we have is this:

"The update will be released before the APG playtest. The playtest will be released late October." ...

Thanks, I think I had missed this. Regarding the rest of your post, I'd agree this will take some time and I understand. Knowing it's coming within a few months of release seems perfectly reasonable to me, TBH.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

Draco18s wrote:

Its 6th edition Shadowrun which is unplayable. There's entire sections of the book that were copy-pasted word for word from 5th edition, despite several mechanics no longer being a Thing.

Then there's the wild die which you get "on some tests" which counts as 3 successes when it's a success, or when it rolls a 1 makes all your 2s count for glitches. There's 6 mentions of it in the entire book. 3 are in the mechanic's own description.

Its real bad.

Thanks for the heads up on Shadowrun. I had been considering getting it. I haven't played Shadowrun in years, but thought it'd be cool to check out the latest edition for old time's sake.

When I want some sci-fi or sci-fantasy, I've been doing Numenera or Starfinder.

But, yea. I'd dig some errata. But I figured a first printing would have some janks in it. PF1 went thru six printing. I'm sure that first rulebook had some stuff in it.
Nothing has broken our game yet.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Hey there folks,

Turns out, getting the GMG to the printer, combined with prepping for the APG playtest, all the while collecting and collating updates, has left us in a bit of a crunch. So.. here is what I can tell you.

The updates are being compiled and we are getting much closer to releasing the first list of patches and corrections. We want to get these right, and while is will in no way be comprehensive, we hope to hit a lot of the concerns all at once.

It will come out before the APG playtest, which is still on schedule for sometime in October (trending toward late October at this point).

We take this very seriously and avoid giving "off the cuff" responses to problems, as they often lead to more confusion than they solve. Unfortunately, that means we give less advice that some would prefer, but it is the only way to keep the machine moving forward and to keep things clear for all of you.

Hope that helps.

[Saros Palanthios]

Huzzah! Keep up the great work sir!!

[VestOfHolding]

Sweet, looking forward to it.

[Rysky]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

has left us in a bit of a crunch.

I hate that word, don't overwork yourselves please!

[tivadar27]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

Turns out, getting the GMG to the printer, combined with prepping for the APG playtest, all the while collecting and collating updates, has left us in a bit of a crunch. So.. here is what I can tell you.

The updates are being compiled and we are getting much closer to releasing the first list of patches and corrections. We want to get these right, and while is will in no way be comprehensive, we hope to hit a lot of the concerns all at once.

It will come out before the APG playtest, which is still on schedule for sometime in October (trending toward late October at this point).

We take this very seriously and avoid giving "off the cuff" responses to problems, as they often lead to more confusion than they solve. Unfortunately, that means we give less advice that some would prefer, but it is the only way to keep the machine moving forward and to keep things clear for all of you.

Hope that helps.

Thanks! Glad to hear the update and that this is still presumably on schedule. I understand wanting to get it right, and I had clearly missed the first timeline provided, my bad there.

You all put in a lot of work, not expecting miracles out of you of course :). Just glad to know when I can reasonably expect some of the open questions to be answered, and glad that's at approximately the 3 month point and not the 1 year point :).

[Draco18s]

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

Thanks for the heads up on Shadowrun. I had been considering getting it. I haven't played Shadowrun in years, but thought it'd be cool to check out the latest edition for old time's sake.

This video goes into good detail about where the system is. The first 20 or so minutes is general feelings, then they dive into specifics.

[graystone]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

It will come out before the APG playtest, which is still on schedule for sometime in October (trending toward late October at this point).

Thanks for stopping in to the forum to let us know! I was afraid that when something was said it'd be on some social media platform or pod cast I don't use. ;)

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

We want to get these right, and while is will in no way be comprehensive, we hope to hit a lot of the concerns all at once

Sounds great: just hearing that it's in the works and having a rough timeline is enough to make me happy.

Rysky wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

has left us in a bit of a crunch.

I hate that word, don't overwork yourselves please!

I think it could be the PF2 tagline at this point: they've said that they made an "aggressive schedule" and that comes along with it.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

They are kind of getting pulled in 2 directions (the nature of the business they're in). On one hand, they've put out an incredible new game that everyone loves. And the community is screaming for more content.
But on the other hand, while putting out content to appease the fans, they don't want to rush things or make comments, like Jason said, "off the cuff."

[Anguish]

Words that (apparently) have never been said at Paizo: "in my spare time".

[Draco18s]

Anguish wrote:

Words that (apparently) have never been said at Paizo: "in my spare time".

To be fair I'm not sure I say those at my job either.

I spent an hour wresting with a tree view of every enum available in every assembly in a workspace.

Just doing fully-qualified-assembly-namespace -> enum works well enough

But if I want to have nested folders for each . in the namespace, I either got only the top level or ran out of memory.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Quick heads up.

If folks want to compile their own house rules and errata to the game, they are more than welcome to do so, but posting about it should occur in the Home-brew and Houserules forum, not here in a request for official errata.

Thanks

[Chetna Wavari]

Anguish wrote:

Words that (apparently) have never been said at Paizo: "in my spare time".

This is why Mona hasn't given us a Nex book.