So. Is there any option of establishing a community based FAQ or Wiki?
Would there be any value in the community trying to come to some sort of concensus. Even if that concensus was grey on some issues?There is value on the very rare occasions that the community achieves something approximating consensus.
But that happens very, very rarely. To take the subject of this particular thread as an example, many many threads have not led to anything approximating consensus.
There IS also value in the community coming up with a place where the various arguments on a particular subject can be recorded. But doing that in an unbiased way is quite difficult and doing it in a biased way would be worse than not doing it at all.
Honestly it would be kind of cool to have something like this where in areas of active controversy, a succinct statement of the key arguments on each side appears. Would have to be curated by folks who were invested enough to understand what was at stake in each controversy but not so invested that they edited polemically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I don't actually think it's "most folks" interacting with the rules digitally. Pretty sure most still buy hard copy books, store them on shelves, and have a vague awareness that errata is a thing at best, but rarely ever actually go find or use it because it's not an issue to them.
I would be shocked if this were the case, but I suppose data would be helpful here. I buy hard copy books, and even store them on shelves, but a) at the game table it is always quickest to look up rules digitally; b) if building a character, I use pathbuilder, and I suspect that isn't a minority position; c) after a year of pandemic the vast majority of players play digitally at least some of the time; d) if there is a critical mass of casuals who regularly play pf2 but who don't or very rarely consult archives of nethys or pathbuilder, those people don't care about errata anyway so they literally aren't affected by it anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I mean two or three a year wouldn't be asking for a lot...Except that it is, because the two or three that get picked might not be the two or three that some part of the userbase thinks are the most important, so the should-be-a-good-thing of answering any question ever can get turned on it's head with responses of "I can't believe they wasted time answering [blank] instead of addressing more important issues like [blank]." And the only way to avoid that is to go all or nothing, with nothing being easier and, as weird as this is but true, less toxic for the designers.
Well they shot themselves in the foot last time. Breaking a build that everyone thought worked fine and were happy with, all while trying to fix a phantom problem that hardly anyone had noticed and certainly wasn't a concern.
More errata like that we can do without.
Some sort of voting mechanism is needed to determine problem areas.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just like you already feel they did something "hardly anyone" actually cared about, there's no way for the voting system to guarantee the vote goes the way you want it to.
You could just as easily be claiming the vote was trolled by a vocal minority with pet issues as you are claiming, in effect, that Paizo didn't have information telling them that (whatever it is you are referring to) was widely regarded as a problem.
I'm used to being in aminority and having my views ignored. Of course they wouldn't deal with all the problems, or my pet issues.
Yes I know it is hard for a company to see its own blind spots.
But just because they don't have that information, doesn't mean they can't get it, or shouldn't try. Do a quick survey at a convention if you think online polls are biased. 50 random PF2 players would be enough to get useful results.
...I mean two or three a year wouldn't be asking for a lot...Except that it is, because the two or three that get picked might not be the two or three that some part of the userbase thinks are the most important, so the should-be-a-good-thing of answering any question ever can get turned on it's head with responses of "I can't believe they wasted time answering [blank] instead of addressing more important issues like [blank]." And the only way to avoid that is to go all or nothing, with nothing being easier and, as weird as this is but true, less toxic for the designers.
Well they shot themselves in the foot last time. Breaking a build that everyone thought worked fine and were happy with, all while trying to fix a phantom problem that hardly anyone had noticed and certainly wasn't a concern.
More errata like that we can do without.
Some sort of voting mechanism is needed to determine problem areas.
What errata? Battle Medicine?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What errata? Battle Medicine?
Attack Rolls
I do not think I have ever been part of a community before where people will so passionately and vehemently argue that communication and customer support is not merely unnecessary, but a bad thing that the customer base does not deserve.
The amount of self loathing and flagellation is impressive.
Personally I am not convinced Paizo despises their playerbase as much as thenobledrake and others seem to think they do.
I mean, I agree, but this community is pretty toxic. Other game systems seem to have little to no problem with developers commenting about the rules and issuing rulings. I was playing 4e and 5e during the first edition of pathfinder so I didn't see it, but from everyone's account the community behaved extraordinarily and rather uniquely poorly. The amount of toxicity I've seen on these forums is also a bit wild.
On the other hand, Mark's discord and the general pf2 discord seem like really nice places. It might just be a forums thing.
I have a group of 20 people I play with, all digitally at current though some of them have also been to house back in pre-pandemic times.
First of all, I can't imagine playing with 20 people, so hats off to you for pulling that off. But I think a group that large is rather unusual and probably not representative. In any event though it is neither here nor there -- if even one person in the group (generally the GM) is clued in to the digital rules, the dissemination of information isn't a problem, and the people who don't care, well, don't care.
This is all beside the point. And in any event, I don't care in the slightest about pfs so I'd be perfectly happy with a community-led effort that, when appropriate, highlighted dissenting views and bullet-pointed key arguments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But just because they don't have that information, doesn't mean they can't get it, or shouldn't try. Do a quick survey at a convention if you think online polls are biased. 50 random PF2 players would be enough to get useful results.So do you have credible evidence that Paizo is making no effort to figure out what issues, if any, need fixed... or is this an assumption you are making based on the errata issued so far not being the errata you and some other folks on this forum wanted?
No I have no special information on Paizo I just deal with the results.
Yes I think the results speak for themselves. The community on the forums is pretty active and represents a wider group of players.
There are a number of rules issues that we just have no clue on
a) battle forms - define unarmed attack bonus, special statistics, not able to Escape
b) additional damage - what is it?
are probably the most widespread and affect the most builds. Though I'm sure the group could suggest more.
Paizo spending work-hours on something only 5% of the folks playing the game even care about when they could spend those work-hours on something that might matter to a significantly larger portion of the folks playing the game is just not a good prioritization of work-hours.
I mean, I don't think either of us -- or at least, certainly not me -- is in a position to make business judgments about what Paizo staff should be spending their time on. That said, do more than 5% of the player base play PFS? Did more than 5% of the player base buy, say, LO Legends? Do more than 5% of the player base attend cons? I suspect the numbers are far less than 5% for stuff that they actively spend a ton of work-time-effort on.
I'd also guess that not all players/customers are equally important. I suspect that a random member of that 5% -- I'll just stipulate to that number for the sake of argument -- who cares about rulings and insights from the designers about their intent and design goals is far, far, far more likely to own every book and have multiple Paizo subscriptions than a random member of the other 95%.
Attack RollsWhat errata? Battle Medicine?
What about attack rolls?
or because they've just... not actually run into the issue because I'm pretty sure the question is moot when not dealing with multi-classing or other specific builds that aren't actually the go-to for an already niche part of the game).
Any level 13 or higher druid is going to run into this question too via specialization, though that's admittedly probably a niche group too.
What about attack rolls?Attack RollsWhat errata? Battle Medicine?
That rolls with an attack action/activity aren't attack rolls.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I think the results speak for themselves. The community on the forums is pretty active and represents a wider group of players.
Yeah, I’m not sure I’d call the forums representative of Pathfinder players. We are a rather vocal and invested minority.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree that we have "no clue"
Completely agreed.
For the vast majority of groups it really isn't an issue. Eventually somebody notices that there is a rules ambiguity, it is discussed and resolved. If the resolution is one that the player can't live with (generally fairly unlikely but it CAN happen) they rebuild their character somehow or other.
And in this case discussions on the net CAN help. A lot. I know that when I'm GMing and a rules issue comes up as soon as I have time I search the web and look at what others have said on the subject. Often (not always, but often) that discussion will decide the issue for me. At the very least, it often gives me a good handle on the issues I need to consider.
There is only really an issue in 2 cases
1) A GM who is determined to run everything RAW and not make any changes/interpretations for their game. They're rare but they DO exist
2) PFS or a similar setup where GMs change on a fairly regular basis.
For both of these the only practical thing that a player can do is
1) try and know ahead of time any ambiguities their build may run afoul of (not always at all easy, unfortunately. It is very easy to be surprised when something you didn't think ambiguous turns out to be ambiguous).
2) Build to the most common accepted subset of the rules. If you're not playing a barbarian multiclassed into a druid it doesn't MATTER if rage damage applies.
3) When you DO use a rules ambiguity be ready to run the character with either interpretation. Be aware that no matter how clear the issue seems to you there IS ambiguity. And give in to the "bad" interpretation with as little sulking as humanly possible :-)
I mean, I don't think either of us -- or at least, certainly not me -- is in a position to make business judgments about what Paizo staff should be spending their time on.Well, that's what asking for more errata is, so maybe don't do that then?
I mean, I have a preference and I don't think I need an MBA to express it. They can note it and then decide what makes sense to do.
Honestly, I really appreciate the engagement with the community that many of the devs already do. It's really great to get insights on what they were thinking about when designing certain things. I certainly don't think those efforts are a waste of time, or if they are, I appreciate them nevertheless.
I still believe certain issues could be resolved with a slightly more prioritized errata schedule. I understand why you think they shouldn't prioritize errata and related efforts. I honestly don't know if you are right; I'm simply speaking for myself as a fan and customer about what I think has value and what I would like.
That rolls with an attack action/activity aren't attack rolls.What about attack rolls?Attack RollsWhat errata? Battle Medicine?
But they still get the MAP penalty or no?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the vast majority of groups it really isn't an issue. Eventually somebody notices that there is a rules ambiguity, it is discussed and resolved. If the resolution is one that the player can't live with (generally fairly unlikely but it CAN happen) they rebuild their character somehow or other.
When its the major thing for your character it gets frustating.
For example you buy handwraps with flaming rune or a striking runes. IMHO Marks ruling implies the flaming rune works, but the striking rune doesn't. Others GMs may well see that in reverse or none of it working at all.
For sure you can work out a compromise, and good GMs will find a way through.
However there is a group of gamers who suffer from moral outrage about power gamers, and that is not always a conversation with an easy resolution. Then there are gaming groups that try to play as close to RAW as possible simply because the group has different opinions on how a game works. So they always go as RAW as they possible can. That is not an unusual group in my experience.
There should be a simple clear rule about extra damage and what it is. But there is not and this affects all Battle Forms, that is almost every Druid doing their main thing. Plus a whole stack of Ancestry feats and a few Clerical spells. This is not a rare or even unusual case.
The question about what is an unarmed attack bonus comes up as soon as a Druid decides to scout in a lesser form, but gets caugt in combat. Much less common but not a rare case. And not just for the gamer who is trying to optimise a martial wildshaper build. Power gamers are people too.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the vast majority of groups it really isn't an issue. Eventually somebody notices that there is a rules ambiguity, it is discussed and resolved. If the resolution is one that the player can't live with (generally fairly unlikely but it CAN happen) they rebuild their character somehow or other.When its the major thing for your character it gets frustating.
You're quite right. I definitely overstated it when I said it isn't an issue.
Like you, I REALLY wish that Paizo would address this. If for no other reason that I want to play a wild shaping martial in PFS :-)
But I still think that, in the great scheme of things, its a moderately minor issue. The "generally accepted subset" is pretty large. And, for most characters, the difference between one ruling and another isn't THAT large. Its large enough to be annoying but not large enough to make a character non viable. To take your example, by the time you can afford a flaming hand wrap its not a major difference in damage (unless you happen upon an enemy with weakness to flame :-().
But they still get the MAP penalty or no?That rolls with an attack action/activity aren't attack rolls.What about attack rolls?Attack RollsWhat errata? Battle Medicine?
Yes, they get & give MAP (as that seems to be linked to the Attack trait rather than being an "attack roll").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they still get the MAP penalty or no?That rolls with an attack action/activity aren't attack rolls.What about attack rolls?Attack RollsWhat errata? Battle Medicine?
Yes, they get & give MAP (as that seems to be linked to the Attack trait rather than being an "attack roll").
They increase the penalty, but that penalty if only on attack rolls.
Multiple Attack Penalty
Source Core Rulebook pg. 446 errata 2.0
"Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others."
"The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll."
Attack Rolls
Source Core Rulebook pg. 446 errata 2.0
"When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll." Skill actions aren't attack rolls.
But they still get the MAP penalty or no?That rolls with an attack action/activity aren't attack rolls.What about attack rolls?Attack RollsWhat errata? Battle Medicine?
Yes, they get & give MAP (as that seems to be linked to the Attack trait rather than being an "attack roll").
They increase the penalty, but that penalty if only on attack rolls.
Multiple Attack Penalty
Source Core Rulebook pg. 446 errata 2.0
"Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.""The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll."
Attack Rolls
Source Core Rulebook pg. 446 errata 2.0
"When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll." Skill actions aren't attack rolls.
A needed but disappointing piece of errata. Then again, True Strike is already on the list of go-to spells when available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you give a mouse a cookie...
I’ve called shenanigans on this claim and I’m doing it again
there are plenty of game companies and designers which do exactly what you say this one cannot:- provide answers in a timely manner
the term “answers“ here including clarifying ambiguous and unclear wording so what the design intent when the rule was written is clear and the like type of actions
the sophistic reasons for ‘why they cannot and we should not expect them to’ seem virtually unique to this entity
this reluctance to clarify all but certainly is
But they still get the MAP penalty or no?That rolls with an attack action/activity aren't attack rolls.What about attack rolls?Attack RollsWhat errata? Battle Medicine?
Yes, they get & give MAP (as that seems to be linked to the Attack trait rather than being an "attack roll").
They increase the penalty, but that penalty if only on attack rolls.
Multiple Attack Penalty
Source Core Rulebook pg. 446 errata 2.0
"Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.""The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll."
Attack Rolls
Source Core Rulebook pg. 446 errata 2.0
"When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll." Skill actions aren't attack rolls.
Are you saying MAP doesn't affect trip and grapple and escape now?
Are you saying MAP doesn't affect trip and grapple and escape now?
MAP's only affects attack rolls and skill actions aren't those anymore so yep. Feel free to roll then on your 3rd action as they aren't attack rolls. Seems odd to do this to stop dex skill actions with weapons but to each their own.
Though skill checks are not “attacks”, they still posses the attack trait. What that means in the end is that athletics checks use your skill score, don’t get benefited by things like True Strike, but still suffer from MAPs. Attack with your weapon with a basic strike, then follow with a trip attempt. The first attack is rolled normal, the trip is rolled via the athletics skill at a -5. Reverse the order and the trip would be at the standard modifier, but the strike would be -5.
With the exception of the fighter, regular skills can get to higher proficiency before weapon skills. I believe that is part of the reasoning to why it works as described above.
From errata, skill checks can still affect map
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
To clarify the different rules elements involved:
An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.
An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game (along with saving throws, skill checks, and Perception checks). They are used for Strikes and spell attacks, and traditionally target Armor Class.
Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.
The multiple attack penalty applies on those skill actions as well. As it says later on in the definition of attack roll "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." There is inaccurate language in the Multiple Attack Penalty section implying it applies only to attack rolls that will be receiving errata.
This is all true: the current rules however haven't been errata'd though as page 446 is still the rules: I guess once they do another reprint it'll be the rules [if they actually do so]. Anyone looking up the rule in the book or the online reference is going to see it say attack rolls only for MAP's. It's only when you check the errata specifically for this do you see they intended to change it in the future but for some reason didn't as of yet as we've have a 2nd printing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only when you check the errata specifically for this do you see they intended to change it in the future
I don’t grok this
the errata is officialnot some list of ‘you know, laters, when we be gets in to its, then it’ll bees offic - but newp, it tain’t offic yetses’ type thing
The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.
yes, the errata clarified that “ The multiple attack penalty applies on those skill actions as well.” but the original wording was far from obvious that wasn’t the case (or the intent)
yes, the errata clarified that “ The multiple attack penalty applies on those skill actions as well.” but the original wording was far from obvious that wasn’t the case (or the intent)
Yes we got intent [if you read the errata] but that was errata 1 and when errata 2 and the reprint came along, they didn't fix what they said was "inaccurate language" and that they'd fix in errata. I've already run into games with people using that rules as written on nethys and I can't blame them: it's written plainly that skill checks aren't attack rolls and attack rolls are the only checks that get MAP's. This is especially irksome when nethys goes out of it's way to update to the latest errata but since there wasn't an actual text change, it still reads how it reads.
So, IMO, it reads how it reads. That'd change if they ever ACTUALLY errata [instead of a pseudo-faq pretending to be errata] it to change the wording but there are still some things from PF1 they said they planned to errata that never happened. IMO, it's RAW vs RAI: right now, they conflict. Someone at home reading the books or nethys sure aren't running by RAI.
I see your point but I’m sticking with:
- that posting on the website is official
- not ‘plan to make this official, but is not yet official’
it is right there:
Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata
Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata (Part 2)
Pathfinder Bestiary 2 Errata
do you consider those other two, the ones the Part 2 deal is wedged between to be “ACTUALLY errata” or are they in your “a pseudo-faq pretending to be errata” category?
I see your point but I’m sticking with:
- that posting on the website is official
- not ‘plan to make this official, but is not yet official’
The official book doesn't list it. The official, and up to date, online resource doesn't list it. You want an official off?
"There is inaccurate language in the Multiple Attack Penalty section implying it applies only to attack rolls that will be receiving errata.": IE IN THE FUTURE, we'll fix the wording. Note it's not 'the wording should be "MAP's affects skill actions with the attack trait the same as attack rolls" and will be changed as in the next errata' or something like that. We don't even know what the exact wording is going to be until we see it. "will be receiving errata" literally means that it has NOT YET received errata... What the rest was is more an FAQ, which should be only for ambiguous questions not actual alterations of the rules which are ERRATA. [this is a bit of a pet peeve for me]
Then why does Agile Maneuvers exist? Mixed Maneuver? Why is Knockdown worded the way it is? These only make sense if maneuvers are affected by MAP.
I don't disagree: that doesn't change the rules that are written or that they where written when skill actions with the attack trait WERE understood to be attack rolls.
Also it was in errata 2, the errata sections on the website are because of character count limits IIRC.
It is listed in Errata 1, not 2. It wasn't in the many listed and unlisted edits in the reprint.
I am at a loss
The official book doesn't list it.
I’m calling shenanigans on this
where does it say that this ‘official book’ (whatevs that is) is the be all end all source and anything else, like the FAQ page on Paizo’s website, is secondary to that?as for the pet peeve ... if you’d raved about they should say corrigenda and not errata, I’d be more sympathetic
but no, a list of corrected errors is a list of corrected errors and that should be sufficient, even if you dislike the format of those listed errors, or that they are on a web page whose URL includes “FAQ” and not “errata” (or “corrigenda”)
An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.
that’s quite clear
yes, there is alsoThere is inaccurate language in the Multiple Attack Penalty section implying it applies only to attack rolls that will be receiving errata.
but that is literally the last sentence in that bullet point, and neither contracts, precludes, nor invalidates any aspect above it (like the first quote in this post)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just helps confirm my opinion that one of the biggest mistakes Paizo has ever made was to reprint the Core Rulebook with different language than the errata.
To the best of my knowledge, Paizo has never said which rule is the correct one. I don't think they have ever even acknowledged that they ARE different.
And it is patently absurd to expect people who have bought the latest Core Rulebook (the one published AFTER the errata) to read the earlier errata, the errata that applied to an edition of the rules they may or may not even own.
