Not being able to cast with a casting archetype makes it unplayable.
No one is going to take this with this limitation. Even DMs won't want to do deal with it trying to figure out if the witch needs to have its familiar to refocus, use familiar abilities, or regain spell slots to cast since preparing spells is how a prepared caster recovers spells.
It makes it unplayable. Not sure why some on here are arguing otherwise. No one takes this archetype if the familiar is killed and they suddenly lose the ability to prepare spells and cast.
If you're worried about it, just don't take the spellcasting benefit feats. You can still cast the cantrip and Refocus with another class's ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hd a build I was excited about, monk that took almost all witch multiclass feats. Gonna shelve that now
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're worried about it, just don't take the spellcasting benefit feats. You can still cast the cantrip and Refocus with another class's ability.
I'm confused. Are you in all seriousness presenting this as your argument that the ruling is working as intended?
Also if, as the rules for daily preparations somewhat imply, the re-preparing of spells is required each day then that would include the one lonely cantrip that you get. So if you don't have your familiar you can't prepare any cantrip in that cantrip slot and have nothing to cast.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The like MAYBE once a campaign that a familiar is endangered isn't enough to make witch archetype bad, lmao. Oh nooo I may theoretically at some point be locked out of 3 low level spell slots for a week and not be able to refocus in the way witches do (ignoring all the other ways you can refocus).
Considering this is just a reinforcement of the RAW, nothing has changed, so why is this archetype suddenly the worst thing in the game?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, my previous question still remains unanswered. What balance point is having the familiar not return the next morning needed for? What is the purpose of that that justifies the ruling?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see damage to familiars getting hand waved a lot, but even a Familiar in a familiar satchel should get blown up by an AoE.
However, an area effect that deals enough damage to break the case also damages the creature inside. The satchel is made of leather (Hardness 4, HP 16, BT 8).
At 2nd level, a familiar has 10HPs. Add onto that hardness 4 for 14. There's plenty of stuff that can kill a familiar at that level.
What saves things in PFS is that you don't have to put the pawn for the familiar on the board if you aren't going to use it in combat. But if you're going to have it out doing stuff, there's a good chance it's going to get caught in an AoE at some point.
A regular Witch can use Phase Familiar to help a little bit, but the archetype doesn't get that.
If you want to spend your 1 familiar ability on Tattoo Transformation, then you can keep it safe, for the most part.
Higher level options might also help.
Familiar Tattoo, provided that your GM rules that it works like Tattoo Transformation, would give you the same thing for 60gp and using one of your invested items.
Sleeves of Storage at 4th for 100gp can keep it safe, but you also can't benefit from any Master Abilities while the familiar is in them.
I'm not sure if there are other options. But the point being that even a moderate 3d6 AoE could easily kill a familiar at the level that you take the dedication, since it uses your saves, and a Witch is probably going to have a +5 or +6 to Reflex, leaving a decent chance of crit failing. There are plenty of PFS scenarios/quests where you could conceivably run into a 6d6 AOE at 2nd level (playing up, generally). So it's good in that situation that you can effectively just take your familiar off the board beforehand.
It all kind of adds up to the dedications familiar being more of a liability than a bonus, unless you're continuing to invest in it somehow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
not be able to refocus in the way witches do (ignoring all the other ways you can refocus).
What ways? If you pick up witch dedication at level 2 on a class that doesn't have focus spells on its own, there's no other way to refocus.
You could get another way to refocus no sooner than level 8 by picking another archetype and you'd have to blow all your class feats to do so. And it still shoehorns you into taking pretty much exactly Blessed One since I think that's the only archeytpe that comes with a focus spell as part of their Dedication. All other archetypes take yet another feat to even get the ability to refocus.
I just blew half of my class feats to make sure I'm not locked out of my primary archetype completely for at least a week by a stray fireball.
Imagine a character with the fighter archetype losing the ability to use Attack of Opportunity until they spend one week of downtime every time they fail a reflex save. Sounds fun?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When complaining about the witch archetype are we just gonna ignore the beastmaster archetype and the animal companion feats for ranger and druid?
There are things in the game that require a lot of investment that can go down for a full week outside of this example. I can totally understand not liking the rules for witch dedication as written, and if a player was concerned about it I'd likely homebrew having it come back in one day just cause why not, but let's not pretend that the rules ever said something different than what was mentioned (not errata'd) in the video in question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was just the familiar and the familiar abilities that were lost for the duration, I would be fine with that.
The problem is that it loses everything else with the class archetype.
Yes, Beastmaster and Familiar Master would also lose their entire archetype powers too. But those are much more focused archetypes - not an entire multiclass archetype.
Same with the Wizard and the Familiar Thesis. If the familiar dies, the Wizard loses out on all of the familiar abilities until the familiar can be replaced. But the Wizard doesn't lose all of the spells and the ability to refocus.
By the way, the top comment on that video also mentions which questions will be answered in the upcoming videos.
Can I put a Glyph of Warding on a box that will trigger when the box is opened but not when the box is moved? Can I use Glyph of Warding on a bunch of flasks to later (days later) use as thrown grenades?
Stacking degrees of success: What happens if two different effects modify the degree of success for a roll?
Do you need a formula to transfer a rune?
Does a spellcasting dedication alone allow a character to use scrolls and wands, or is a Basic Spellcasting feat required?
Magic Missile and Dangerous Sorcery. Is the bonus damage once per spell casting (and divided between targets) or once per target hit?
When a creature falls during combat, when is the fall processed? When does it begin? Does it happen immediately, processing all of the fall distance that can occur during a round right then and at the beginning of every subsequent round? Or is the distance evenly divided among every creature's turn that round?
For abilities that interact with the next or previous action like meta magic or the magus' arcane cascade: Do those carry over to the next turn assuming I'm not taking any free actions or reactions between turns? Does this work differently for monster abilities like grab or push?
What happens if a creature Stands up from being prone and a monk critically hits it with a Stand Still reaction triggered by this Stand?
Can you manually leave a stance? If so, does it cost an action? How is it possible to remain in Arcane Cascade stance when the requirements are violated immediately after entering it?
Can a character intentionally fail saving throws?
If I throw a warhammer (does not have the thrown trait), how is that resolved? Is it treated like an improvised weapon? The text about improvised weapons specifically applies to things that weren't built to be weapons, like vases and chairs. A warhammer is a weapon... so do the improvised weapon rules apply here?
The video covering Glyph of Warding is already up.
I'm rather curious on some of the other issues as well, but I don't think any of them have the potential to be quite as controversial as the witch thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was just the familiar and the familiar abilities that were lost for the duration, I would be fine with that.
Because that is what the character loses when a 'normal' familiar dies.
As I think about this for a bit, I think it is possible to run the Witch archetype as Logan suggests. But only if you do it exactly as suggested and don't even reference the Witch Familiar rules at all.
Where are a MCD Witch's spells stored? Don't know, but it isn't remembered by the familiar - a normal familiar doesn't do that.
How does a MCD Witch refocus? Don't know, but it isn't by communing with the familiar - a normal familiar doesn't do that.
How do you restore a MCD Witch's familiar if it dies? By spending a week of downtime - because that is how a normal familiar works.
Does the MCD Witch's familiar need to be present during daily preparations in order to prepare spells? no - a normal familiar doesn't do that.
How does a MCD Witch learn new spells? Don't know, but it isn't by feeding a scroll to the familiar - a normal familiar doesn't do that.
So there are some gaping holes here that have to be filled in by GM adjudication - but it all seems to work reasonably well mechanically after all of the handwaving is done.
What doesn't work is trying to make the MCD Witch familiar be both a Witch familiar and a normal familiar at the same time. A Witch familiar because it stores spells and is needed for refocus activity, but a normal familiar because it has to be revived by a week of downtime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any of them have the potential to be quite as controversial as the witch thing.
Oh, I don't know. If the answer to:
How is it possible to remain in Arcane Cascade stance when the requirements are violated immediately after entering it?
is, "You can't. Trolololololol."
I would imagine that it would cause quite a bit of controversy.
|
|
If it was just the familiar and the familiar abilities that were lost for the duration, I would be fine with that.Because that is what the character loses when a 'normal' familiar dies.
As I think about this for a bit, I think it is possible to run the Witch archetype as Logan suggests. But only if you do it exactly as suggested and don't even reference the Witch Familiar rules at all.
Where are a MCD Witch's spells stored? Don't know, but it isn't remembered by the familiar - a normal familiar doesn't do that.
How does a MCD Witch refocus? Don't know, but it isn't by communing with the familiar - a normal familiar doesn't do that.
How do you restore a MCD Witch's familiar if it dies? By spending a week of downtime - because that is how a normal familiar works.
Does the MCD Witch's familiar need to be present during daily preparations in order to prepare spells? no - a normal familiar doesn't do that.
How does a MCD Witch learn new spells? Don't know, but it isn't by feeding a scroll to the familiar - a normal familiar doesn't do that.
So there are some gaping holes here that have to be filled in by GM adjudication - but it all seems to work reasonably well mechanically after all of the handwaving is done.
What doesn't work is trying to make the MCD Witch familiar be both a Witch familiar and a normal familiar at the same time. A Witch familiar because it stores spells and is needed for refocus activity, but a normal familiar because it has to be revived by a week of downtime.
But then you’re ignoring things that are in the archetype.
You can prepare one cantrip each day from your familiar.
Each time you gain a spell slot of a new level from the witch archetype, add two common spells of that level to your familiar.
The refocusing point might work. I’d have to do some more checking when I’m not so tired to make sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then you’re ignoring things that are in the archetype.
You can prepare one cantrip each day from your familiar.Each time you gain a spell slot of a new level from the witch archetype, add two common spells of that level to your familiar.
Oh, I'm well aware of that. But my conclusion to that is that Logan's idea that you can treat the MCD Witch's familiar as though it is a 100% normal CRB-only familiar must be blatantly wrong since it violates the printed rules.
At that point, what I notice is that the only place in the Witch Dedication feat that mentions 'normal' in reference to the familiar is in the sentence that overrides the number of abilities that the familiar gets. So that is the only part of the familiar that is referencing the CRB familiar. The rest of the Witch dedication that talks about the familiar and its features is referencing the Witch familiar. That makes those two sentences in the Dedication feat and the Basic Witch Spellcasting feat make sense again.
But it also means that the familiar revives at the next daily preparations too. Because that is how a Witch familiar works.
The refocusing point might work. I’d have to do some more checking when I’m not so tired to make sure.
There are the general rules about focus spells that say that if you get a focus spell and somehow didn't get a focus point to go with it, that you get a focus point automatically. It doesn't specify any means of refocusing.
Bard MCD actually can end up in that situation too. Taking Bard Dedication and the archetype feat to get Hymn of Healing does exactly that. Hymn of Healing gives you a focus spell, but no focus point. The Bard dedication also doesn't give you a focus point or any means of refocusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When complaining about the witch archetype are we just gonna ignore the beastmaster archetype and the animal companion feats for ranger and druid?
There are things in the game that require a lot of investment that can go down for a full week outside of this example. I can totally understand not liking the rules for witch dedication as written, and if a player was concerned about it I'd likely homebrew having it come back in one day just cause why not, but let's not pretend that the rules ever said something different than what was mentioned (not errata'd) in the video in question.
I don't like those either. Time varies wildly table to table. Some players are gonna be without features for multiple sessions when following a week time scale. That's rough IMO and not worth investment compared to features that don't turn off.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this thread is a great example of why they address these things on YouTube instead of the forums.
I don't like those either. Time varies wildly table to table. Some players are gonna be without features for multiple sessions when following a week time scale. That's rough IMO and not worth investment compared to features that don't turn off.When complaining about the witch archetype are we just gonna ignore the beastmaster archetype and the animal companion feats for ranger and druid?
There are things in the game that require a lot of investment that can go down for a full week outside of this example. I can totally understand not liking the rules for witch dedication as written, and if a player was concerned about it I'd likely homebrew having it come back in one day just cause why not, but let's not pretend that the rules ever said something different than what was mentioned (not errata'd) in the video in question.
I agree, and depending on the situation I'm very likely to homebrew a shorter duration and/or give impromptu downtime to get a familiar or animal companion back, but that's not really the point. My point is that all this too bad to be true kinda talk ignores the fact that there's other things with the same "issue" in the rules. In my mind there was never a question as to what RAW was on this issue, so this clarification / rule reminder changes nothing imo. It's just saying what's already there in different words.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this thread is a great example of why they address these things on YouTube instead of the forums.
I'm sorry but that's a bad logical process.
If the concern is negativity and criticism or getting off topic, it's why they should publish it as a document page.
In the past they simply had a page (not forum page) dedicated to FAQ and errata. Now, it's hard to even get to those pages and they don't exist for PF2.
And regardless of anything else, people will come to the forum and complain about the FAQ and errata. It's a certainty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, my previous question still remains unanswered. What balance point is having the familiar not return the next morning needed for? What is the purpose of that that justifies the ruling?
I get the feeling it's less about balance and more the respawning familiar being the only unique mechanic a witch has. Much like how you can't get a wizard thesis or cleric font.
That or preventing other casters from getting a disposable sacrifice I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of derailing the thread, what was the answer to this question?Can I put a Glyph of Warding on a box that will trigger when the box is opened but not when the box is moved? Can I use Glyph of Warding on a bunch of flasks to later (days later) use as thrown grenades?
No, you can't use Glyph of Warding as a bomb. The intent of the toucher is considered. If the container touches another creature it doesn't count - the creature has to voluntarily touch the container in order for the ward to go off.
Well, this thread is a great example of why they address these things on YouTube instead of the forums.
If it was presented in an official channel such as on the FAQ/Errata page, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I would just have to deal with the changed rules and the consequences of it. I might go over to the homebrew forum and present my alternative rules, but I wouldn't be here on the rules forum.
Well, other than to state that the rules are then contradictory since a MCD Witch familiar being a fully 'normal' familiar means that it can't learn and store the Witch's spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, my previous question still remains unanswered. What balance point is having the familiar not return the next morning needed for? What is the purpose of that that justifies the ruling?I get the feeling it's less about balance and more the respawning familiar being the only unique mechanic a witch has. Much like how you can't get a wizard thesis or cleric font.
Hex Cantrip is the unique feature of Witch primary class. For however much you value that.
That or preventing other casters from getting a disposable sacrifice I guess.
There are two ways that Final Sacrifice is better than Fireball.
At the same spell level, it does an extra 2d6 damage. No matter what level it is cast at. At level 3, Final Sacrifice does an extra 2d6 damage. At level 9, Final Sacrifice does an extra 2d6 damage.
You can also cast Final Sacrifice at one spell level lower and get the same damage as Fireball. So you can cast Final Sacrifice at spell level 2, when the earliest you can cast Fireball is level 3.
For a once per day ability that also means that I can't refocus or benefit from any of the familiar or familiar master abilities - I haven't even bothered to learn the Final Sacrifice spell. And that is as a full class Witch that would get my familiar back the next morning.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talking about pure logic here, not fairness or balance stuff.
OK. Pure logic.
1) The rule text only mentions 'normal' familiar when it is changing the number of abilities that the familiar gets.
2) A 'normal' familiar cannot store Witch spells.
3) The Witch Multiclass dedication and Basic Witch Spellcasting feat state that the familiar is what stores the multiclass Witch's spells.
My pure logic conclusion - the Witch Multiclass familiar must be at least partly a Witch familiar in order to store spells. So at some point you have to decide which parts of the familiar are a Witch familiar and which parts are a normal familiar. Since the only rule text in the archetype that says that it references the normal familiar is the ability count, that is where I put the decision point - the ability count is based on the normal familiar and everything else, such as storing spells and regenerating during daily preparations, is based on the Witch familiar.
How is my pure logic?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of thoughts on Final Sacrifice.
If an entire feature of an archetype needs to be limited due to the existence of a single spell, I would rather see the single spell get errata.
Final Sacrifice works on summoned creatures, so its not like someone couldn’t figure out a way to use it every day if they want to. What you’re really saving by blowing up your familiar is a first level spell slot and the actions necessary to sustain, for example, an unseen servant.
On the survivability of a familiar, yes, you could spend your familiar’s lone ability point in order for the character to be able to take its damage. At which point, what benefit is the familiar granting? Also, familiars are hard to kill only if you ignore massive damage rules. 20 points of damage from an AoE at 2nd level will skip the dying rules altogether.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the familiar dying, knowing how the witch spellcasting works... I see no room for misunderstanding.
Hmm... Maybe a table would help then?
A Witch Archetype familiar follows the rules for:
* Number of abilities: normal familiar - stated in the dedication feat.
* Able to store spells: Witch familiar - stated in the dedication feat and Basic Witch Spellcasting feat.
* Used for Witch refocus activity: Not specified
* Recovery process after the familiar dies: Not specified
So do you see the room for misunderstanding?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unofficial rulings are a waste of time, especially when they make options worse than other similar options that are also available.
Ignoring this house rule entirely until it hits the official FAQ page.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After all, as said before, it's the first time I happen to see this as a real issue ( apart from an old thread pp oriented where some people believed Paizo meant to give a familiar with a number of abilities equal to 1+ x depends the level. Or something silly like this. Nothing I could give any credit to).
Many people play PFS where they have to apply RAW even if it looks obvious that there's an issue. As such, they get 1+X abilities with Witch Familiars (2+X by default, but one less because of the Dedication). As a side note, as long as this is not released in an errata, it's still the RAW.
So there are people who care about this ruling.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a good idea (unfortunate, but good) to always assume the worst case scenario for uncertain cases. Things like legendary quick repair are going to be a lot more than the listed one action to repair something in your hands. The DCs for abilities dragon disciple gives you are only going to be trained and never increase. Inventors lose all their runes when switching their innovation from weapon to something else. Always assume the worst and you won't be disappointed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many people play PFS where they have to apply RAW even if it looks obvious that there's an issue.
That is a misconception about PFS. While PFS GMs do have to follow what the rules say, the CRB says not to interpret rules to be obviously broken. RAI is law. PFS is not some RAWful stupid bogeyman.
As such, they get 1+X abilities with Witch Familiars (2+X by default, but one less because of the Dedication).
Yes, the rulebook says that witch dedication grants a familiar with one ability. That keeps the feat in line with other feats of similar level/ power.
Well, my previous question still remains unanswered. What balance point is having the familiar not return the next morning needed for? What is the purpose of that that justifies the ruling?I get the feeling it's less about balance and more the respawning familiar being the only unique mechanic a witch has. Much like how you can't get a wizard thesis or cleric font.Hex Cantrip is the unique feature of Witch primary class. For however much you value that.
That or preventing other casters from getting a disposable sacrifice I guess.There are two ways that Final Sacrifice is better than Fireball.
At the same spell level, it does an extra 2d6 damage. No matter what level it is cast at. At level 3, Final Sacrifice does an extra 2d6 damage. At level 9, Final Sacrifice does an extra 2d6 damage.
You can also cast Final Sacrifice at one spell level lower and get the same damage as Fireball. So you can cast Final Sacrifice at spell level 2, when the earliest you can cast Fireball is level 3.
For a once per day ability that also means that I can't refocus or benefit from any of the familiar or familiar master abilities - I haven't even bothered to learn the Final Sacrifice spell. And that is as a full class Witch that would get my familiar back the next morning.
A focus cantrip isn't really that unique as a mechanic. And whether or not a witch can use it well, a spell blend wizard who grabs witch for a couple extra slots and a renewing sacrifice might not mind so much.
And I can definitely see paizo hating the idea that a caster might gain unpunished access to a blast that breaks the damage curve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suddently, the witch one doesn't seem that bad anymore even to me
I have a hard time thinking anybody would have thought "spend the next month casting glyph of warding on stuff so that I can use it offensively" is a fair and reasonable use of the spell. Logan's answer is more or less how I would have ruled if this game up in play, FWIW.
Suddently, the witch one doesn't seem that bad anymore even to meI have a hard time thinking anybody would have thought "spend the next month casting glyph of warding on stuff so that I can use it offensively" is a fair and reasonable use of the spell. Logan's answer is more or less how I would have ruled if this game up in play, FWIW.
Personally I rule it that the warding of a container doesn't negate the area of the spell. Taking the container out of the area that the spell is cast in will cancel the spell.
That also prevents bomb shenanigans.
|
|
That removes some utility from the spell, like warding an important journal that you carry with you, but would rather see destroyed in an explosion than fall into the wrong hands. For example.
The spell is limited to only having as many wards active as your casting ability modifier, so that prevents stocking up a month's worth. But you could still create a good bit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the rulebook says that witch dedication grants a familiar with one ability.
That's nowhere in the rules.
The rules say: "you gain a familiar with two common cantrips of your choice from your chosen patron's tradition, but aside from the tradition, you don't gain any other effects the patron would usually grant. Your familiar has one less familiar ability than normal."
A Familiar with 2 cantrips is a Witch Familiar (normal familiars don't have cantrips). Rules for Familiars: "Your patron has sent you a familiar, a mystical creature that teaches you and facilitates your spells. This familiar follows the rules here, though as it's a direct conduit between you and your patron, it's more powerful than other familiars. Your familiar gains an extra familiar ability, and gains another extra ability at 6th, 12th, and 18th levels."
So there's only one interpretation of the rules. As such there was a need for this change.
At the risk of derailing the thread, what was the answer to this question?Can I put a Glyph of Warding on a box that will trigger when the box is opened but not when the box is moved? Can I use Glyph of Warding on a bunch of flasks to later (days later) use as thrown grenades?
Oh, and since there is concern of this, I intended/expected this thread to be generic to the entire set of questions on the channel. Not just the first one. As well as the discussion about how much consideration to give to the views of the game developers on unofficial channels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're using the glyph to ward something for people you don't want to get their hands on it, thumbs up do whatever you want.
If you're using the glyph for something else, then I'm going to be suspicious.
As the GM I can make magic take into account "what this is supposed to do" and stop other uses when they're the kinds of things that breaks the game if you keep doing it over and over again.
That doesn't mean you can't use the glyph potentially offensively, but it has to be something like "you give the bad guy a box you have convinced them contains the thing they want, but it does not, it instead contains EXPLOSIONS" which is not a thing that's going to work over and over again.
Probably my bright line would be that the target of the triggered spell has to be the one that did the verb that activated the glyph. If I open the box, then I'm the target (assuming I don't use the password or w/e). If you open the box, then you're the target. If I throw the box at you and it opens when it lands on the floor, then there's no target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and since there is concern of this, I intended/expected this thread to be generic to the entire set of questions on the channel. Not just the first one. As well as the discussion about how much consideration to give to the views of the game developers on unofficial channels.At the risk of derailing the thread, what was the answer to this question?Can I put a Glyph of Warding on a box that will trigger when the box is opened but not when the box is moved? Can I use Glyph of Warding on a bunch of flasks to later (days later) use as thrown grenades?
You chose a rather inflammatory title for this thread if you were hoping for reasoned discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You chose a rather inflammatory title for this thread if you were hoping for reasoned discussion.
It doesn't seem particularly inflammatory to me. It's a fact that it's unofficial, it's on youtube and it gave an answer that's at odds with how quite a few people have been playing it and seems to have issues with implementing it as suggested so one that's sure to spark debate, IE a "bang"... Seems pretty spot on IMO.
You chose a rather inflammatory title for this thread if you were hoping for reasoned discussion.It doesn't seem particularly inflammatory to me. It's a fact that it's unofficial, it's on youtube and it gave an answer that's at odds with how quite a few people have been playing it and seems to have issues with implementing it as suggested so one that's sure to spark debate, IE a "bang"... Seems pretty spot on IMO.
The first post is very fine, but “unofficial errata” is a contradiction in terms that serves only to rile up some posters and exasperate others.
The first post is very fine, but “unofficial errata” is a contradiction in terms that serves only to rile up some posters and exasperate others.You chose a rather inflammatory title for this thread if you were hoping for reasoned discussion.It doesn't seem particularly inflammatory to me. It's a fact that it's unofficial, it's on youtube and it gave an answer that's at odds with how quite a few people have been playing it and seems to have issues with implementing it as suggested so one that's sure to spark debate, IE a "bang"... Seems pretty spot on IMO.
Well, I didn't think the mild oxymoron would be too divisive. I'm sure I could come up with a much more derogatory and inflammatory term if I really tried. And it is rather accurate. It is being presented as though it is basically errata - they made a great show of pointing out that the person answering the questions is a big name, big title developer and that the things presented should probably be taken as the way the game is intended to be run. And yet it is on an unofficial Youtube channel. Hence, 'unofficial errata'.
What would you suggest we use instead? Any particular euphemism you have in mind?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first post is very fine, but “unofficial errata” is a contradiction in terms that serves only to rile up some posters and exasperate others.You chose a rather inflammatory title for this thread if you were hoping for reasoned discussion.It doesn't seem particularly inflammatory to me. It's a fact that it's unofficial, it's on youtube and it gave an answer that's at odds with how quite a few people have been playing it and seems to have issues with implementing it as suggested so one that's sure to spark debate, IE a "bang"... Seems pretty spot on IMO.
While a contradiction it may be, it's also what it is. Paizo has a history of confusing FAQ with errata, and that's how we get FAQratta like this, even though it's "unofficial" it's still the best we have at the time from a dev/staff.