Rolling errata / rules clarifications


Rules Discussion

Grand Lodge

Historically, in the time of paper-only texts, publishing errata and rule clarifications in batches was the only way to disseminate this type of information. I can only imagine collecting and collating this type of data takes significant time and effort, leading to long periods of time between updates.

Could I suggest transitioning to a hybrid model, where individual points of clarification could be published online on a rolling basis, similar to the website for organized play sanctioning, and then collected at intervals (every 6 months?) and published as a PDF?

Issues that have come up frequently in the forums over the past weeks to months since the original CRB errata were published include property runes for magical staves, Ancient Elf/Eldritch Trickster compatibility, effects of Sun Blade on a failed strike, etc. Having an online repository that can be amended or added to as new issues are discovered would allow common points of confusion to be address more easily and in a timely way.

P.S. I love Paizo and Pathfinder and think you guys are doing a great job!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would be opposed to this idea.

Trying to keep up with whatever the current clarification would be very difficult. This is a problem, in my view, with the organized play approach. Makes it difficult to keep track of stuff.

I much prefer knowing where to find the FAQ and/or errata.

And I agree, the Paizo staff is doing a great job, especially during these trying times.


I prefer staying with batch-style so that I can be given a "there's new errata for X product" notice and then go see the new errata and adjust for it.

More rapid, but smaller-scale errata just being added to a change log would either not have notifications so I'd have to periodically check back in order to be sure I'm up to date, or it would have notifications and I'd get annoyed by their frequency and/or popping in to find out the only change added was something I already adjusted because it was obvious to me.

Plus, I know that a more constantly updated database would mean someone spending more time/effort keeping that in order and that would take them away from their other duties more than the current situation and I'd rather they be able to stick with their current priorities as-is.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Gary Bush: You'd still know where to find the FAQ/errata - it would be on a searchable, updated website. There would also be "digests" of compiled errata with the same information published periodically. We all win.

To thenobledrake's last point, someone is already doing the work of keeping track of these. I am just suggesting that they are released when ready, not held for batch publication.

None of this is relevant to 99% of the publish content, just areas of confusion or for clerical errors, so I don't think being intimately familiar with the most up to date errata is necessary to run a game.

But when two people are debating whether a Sun Blade does full damage on a missed strike... oh, I just looked it up and here's the answer.

Devs used to sometimes comment in the forums on areas of confusion, but I think Paizo is trying to avoid this now. The last (and only) errata for the CRB was published in Oct 2019. There have never been other errata published for any other the other 2e sourcebooks or Lost Omens guides. Putting out an exhaustive errata document seems to take a very long time. More frequent, smaller updates would help players and GMs clarify points of confusion and hopefully lead to more enjoyment of this excellent game.

Liberty's Edge

I'm just glad that Paizo is explicitly hiring someone for their team who works CS stuff and has dedicated FAQ and Errata responsibilities, the whole new edition of the RPG will benefit greatly from it.

It's just a shame that they can't really hire someone to do remote work-from-home tasks because they're located in Washington which makes it prohibitively difficult and expensive to do. Their pool of available talent is dramatically cut to a tiny fraction of the response volume that it would be if they didn't require someone to move to Washington and live in proximity to Redmond, a particularly affluent region of the country and do so with a 5 figure salary somehow.


drober76 wrote:
To thenobledrake's last point, someone is already doing the work of keeping track of these. I am just suggesting that they are released when ready, not held for batch publication.

It was the added work of maintaining whatever web space or other delivery/distribution method for the public-facing database of errata that I was talking about when I mentioned them doing more work - and that absolutely is not already being done, nor is it an insignificant task to do in a professional manner. This isn't just a Google doc shared among a gaming group sort of thing.

drober76 wrote:
None of this is relevant to 99% of the publish content, just areas of confusion or for clerical errors, so I don't think being intimately familiar with the most up to date errata is necessary to run a game.

No one said it was necessary. I will make a statement now about how is necessary though; not errata. We don't need official clarifications in order to make the rules work for our groups even if what we find in the books to base our rulings on is missing parts, full of typos, or otherwise not clearly communicating the author's intentions for a rule.

drober76 wrote:
Devs used to sometimes comment in the forums on areas of confusion, but I think Paizo is trying to avoid this now.

Back when it was a regular occurrence that a dev would look around for questions to answer and confusion to clear up, it was also a regular occurrence for forum users to treat them extremely hostilely over it. So they're aren't really so much trying to avoid popping in to comment - as some pop in and comment on topics they find interesting - as they are using their time to do other things that don't come with the risk of getting eye fulls of vitriol because some forum user didn't like not getting their opinion how something should work backed up by an official ruling.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
No one said it was necessary. I will make a statement now about how is necessary though; not errata. We don't need official clarifications in order to make the rules work for our groups even if what we find in the books to base our rulings on is missing parts, full of typos, or otherwise not clearly communicating the author's intentions for a rule.

For home games, I guess that’s true: you can house rule whatever you want. I play a lot of PFS, and for Society play, clarification on certain points would be helpful, because only cannon options are allowed.


drober76 wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
No one said it was necessary. I will make a statement now about how is necessary though; not errata. We don't need official clarifications in order to make the rules work for our groups even if what we find in the books to base our rulings on is missing parts, full of typos, or otherwise not clearly communicating the author's intentions for a rule.
For home games, I guess that’s true: you can house rule whatever you want. I play a lot of PFS, and for Society play, clarification on certain points would be helpful, because only cannon options are allowed.

I've been a league GM before (not for PFS, but we're talking fundamental level here and all league play is fundamentally the same). Nobody comes and flips the table and takes your books away if you self-correct for errata-worthy issues. So yes, helpful to have clarification - but absolutely not a necessity. And also still "cannon options" only.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do miss FAQ Fridays.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
I do miss FAQ Fridays.

I just miss FAQ's... And the FAQ button... Pretty much anything FAQ related... And don't get me started on errata..


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Gisher wrote:
I do miss FAQ Fridays.
I just miss FAQ's... And the FAQ button... Pretty much anything FAQ related... And don't get me started on errata..

Yeah, gonna say it again... even twitter posts are better than what we have atm :(


The next errata update after the 1st was stated to be scheduled for January after the new year. The next piece of info I saw was that the next errata release would be right after Gencon.

I mean, I understand, dread plague and everything else, but it would be nice to see something officially posted about it. I'm not thrilled if they slip a date, but I'm ok with it if they're upfront about why.

I'd love to see a list of what is being looked at. Pazio != a software company, but I'd love to see community feedback such as:

"this month we're looking into concerns A&B, and whether they'll need clarification or a rules change"

or

"we're looking at identified problem C, and possible solutions X,Y, or Z, but we're still testing which is the best solution."

heck, even just info like "we're working with AP authors on some new guidelines for material, and our first draft of the new expansion book was compiled yesterday, we're excited to start testing it."

Am I missing some source of source of regular information like this? I mostly check the blog but it feels like this is out there somewhere but I'm not seeing it.


Aricks wrote:
Am I missing some source of source of regular information like this?

Got a ouija board? :P

They make comments are so many different platforms it's hard to say: I sometimes think they overlook here in an effort to be everywhere else. I have a feeling we'll hear about new errata when someone accidentally trips over in being already posted somewhere vs getting an announcement beforehand.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Rolling errata / rules clarifications All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.