3rd Printing PDF of Core Rulebook is Here. Errata incoming?

[rainzax]

Megistone wrote:

There's still a problem with that skill: a target that is immune to death effects would rather critical fail the fortitude roll (resulting in no effect) than pass it (resulting in it fleeing). It doesn't make much sense.

Oh. Whoopsie!

Velisruna wrote:

I really wish savage at least got to get expert barding with this though. They would still be 2-3 AC behind Nimble which is getting below caster AC. As is they are still at least 4 AC below nimble which the errata seems to imply they aren't anymore? How they are now, being stuck at trained AC with only +6 from barding + Dex (38 AC at level 20 vs 44 for a martial PC) means nearly any attack that would hit a PC will crit and everything but what would be a crit miss will hit a Savage companion.

It's possible that Treasure Vault will have some goodies for Savage companions.

Also, I am curious to see the AC AC math here by level...

[Kyrone]

rainzax wrote:

Megistone wrote:

There's still a problem with that skill: a target that is immune to death effects would rather critical fail the fortitude roll (resulting in no effect) than pass it (resulting in it fleeing). It doesn't make much sense.

Oh. Whoopsie!

Velisruna wrote:

I really wish savage at least got to get expert barding with this though. They would still be 2-3 AC behind Nimble which is getting below caster AC. As is they are still at least 4 AC below nimble which the errata seems to imply they aren't anymore? How they are now, being stuck at trained AC with only +6 from barding + Dex (38 AC at level 20 vs 44 for a martial PC) means nearly any attack that would hit a PC will crit and everything but what would be a crit miss will hit a Savage companion.

It's possible that Treasure Vault will have some goodies for Savage companions.

Also, I am curious to see the AC AC math here by level...

Here

[batimpact]

Megistone wrote:

There's still a problem with that skill: a target that is immune to death effects would rather critical fail the fortitude roll (resulting in no effect) than pass it (resulting in it fleeing). It doesn't make much sense.

That is weird. Less weird than how it previously worked imo but still.

I wonder if they could have put a clause that applied the frightened and fleeing should the target not die or is immune to death effects.

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Removed posts for baiting/harassment/off topic. Please keep the conversation civil and to the topic at hand.

[Squiggit]

Megistone wrote:

There's still a problem with that skill: a target that is immune to death effects would rather critical fail the fortitude roll (resulting in no effect) than pass it (resulting in it fleeing). It doesn't make much sense.

It's less of a problem, but the CS effect of the fort save also feels odd, insofar as that it means that in certain scenarios critically succeeding on scare to death can make your action worse than if you had simply succeeded normally.

Just from a design perspective, I don't think it's a great idea to create a scenario where a good roll can potentially be detrimental as a natural feature of the ability.

[Megistone]

The critical success effect should be: "The target becomes frightened 2 and is fleeing for 1 round. In addition, it must attempt at a Fortitude save against your Intimidation DC. On a critical failure, it dies. This critical failure effect has the death trait."

[siegfriedliner]

One of the interesting takeaways from the errata is that now a bard can safely ignore intimidate with versatile performance and not feel really bad when scare to death comes online at 15 because scare to death is now alright (demoted from the best skill feat in the game to an ok one) but its not 4 ranks of intimidate investment good.

Also i am curious if people have been finding animal companions too Hardy? That's not my experience so a major nerf to ac ac seems an odd choice.

Animal Companions never really scaled well into high levels and now they scale worse tha
ever. But I suppose that's what retraining is for dumping stuff that becomes less useful as you level.

None of the other errata made much of a difference for me.

I always thought the melee only flanking is what they originally intended but I am not sure its achieved anything positive, giving ranged pcs less motive to get stuck in to combat is not an outcome I would want.

[Guntermench]

Only Nimble got nerfed, and it still has both better AC and to hit than Savage, and I personally don't think they should have had higher AC than players at any point.

[Gortle]

gesalt wrote:

Gortle wrote:

The Knockdown change is hard to read in the FAQ. It is a change to the Improved Knowdown Feat not the Knockdown Feat. It now reads:

You can dash your foe to the ground with a single blow. When
you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by
a Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your
Strike hits, instead of rolling a check for your Trip attempt,
you automatically apply the critical success effect of a Trip. If
you used a two-handed melee weapon for the Strike, you can
use the weapon’s damage die size instead of the regular die
size for the damage from a critical Trip.

I find the original wording perfectly OK. But whatever.

You can dash your foe to the ground with a single blow. When
you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by a
Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your Strike
hits, you also apply the critical success effect of a Trip. If you
used a two-handed melee weapon for the Strike, you can use
the weapon’s damage die size instead of the regular die size
for the damage from a critical Trip.

Actually, this might be a nerf. By the original wording, you bypass a trip attempt entirely and apply the trip result to the initial attack. This had the bonus effect of not incrementing MAP for the trip. Now though, there is a distinct trip which instead has a fixed outcome. There's still no actual roll, but now it might increment MAP because there is a discrete second attack happening.

The way I read it Knockdown is clear (two lots of MAP are generated there). But both versions of Improved Knockdown may or may not affect MAP for the Trip. But I went with one lot of MAP in the past.

[Ascalaphus]

Gortle wrote:

gesalt wrote:

Gortle wrote:

The Knockdown change is hard to read in the FAQ. It is a change to the Improved Knowdown Feat not the Knockdown Feat. It now reads:

You can dash your foe to the ground with a single blow. When
you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by
a Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your
Strike hits, instead of rolling a check for your Trip attempt,
you automatically apply the critical success effect of a Trip. If
you used a two-handed melee weapon for the Strike, you can
use the weapon’s damage die size instead of the regular die
size for the damage from a critical Trip.

I find the original wording perfectly OK. But whatever.

You can dash your foe to the ground with a single blow. When
you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by a
Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your Strike
hits, you also apply the critical success effect of a Trip. If you
used a two-handed melee weapon for the Strike, you can use
the weapon’s damage die size instead of the regular die size
for the damage from a critical Trip.

Actually, this might be a nerf. By the original wording, you bypass a trip attempt entirely and apply the trip result to the initial attack. This had the bonus effect of not incrementing MAP for the trip. Now though, there is a distinct trip which instead has a fixed outcome. There's still no actual roll, but now it might increment MAP because there is a discrete second attack happening.

The way I read it Knockdown is clear (two lots of MAP are generated there). But both versions of Improved Knockdown may or may not affect MAP for the Trip. But I went with one lot of MAP in the past.

Yeah in the past it was clear that Improved Knockdown was only one MAP. Now, I'm not sure anymore.

[breithauptclan]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah in the past it was clear that Improved Knockdown was only one MAP. Now, I'm not sure anymore.

Which brings it on par with Furious Grab.

[batimpact]

You know what, belated shout outs to the Undeath's Blessing change. I always felt like I wasn't reading that spell correctly no matter how many times I go back to it. No target aware of the spell's effect would ever choose to avoid it and any that did would prefer failing the save than succeed. It makes a ton more sense now.

[Gisher]

As far as I can see, the changes to the Wizard Multiclass Archetype only change two things right now.

1.) It definitively ends the claims that it is possible to qualify for Universalist feats through the archetype.

2.) It allows characters to take Advanced School Spell through the archetype (at level 16).

Did I miss anything else?

[graystone]

Gisher wrote:

1.) It definitively ends the claims that it is possible to qualify for Universalist feats through the archetype.

I don't see that it's any clearer or more defined as far as this goes: you are allowed universalist when you pick for your Arcane School feature for the wizard class, so the argument is still there for doing the same for the multiclass.

Gisher wrote:

2.) It allows characters to take Advanced School Spell through the archetype (at level 16).

It wasn't clear if you could or couldn't do so before: ARCANE SCHOOL SPELL said "Select one arcane school of magic." in one sentence and "You gain the school’s initial school spell." in another so you can construe that as a separate benefit as opposed to just informing which spell you get. The new wording does clear this up so it's a good thing.

[Gisher]

graystone wrote:

Gisher wrote:

1.) It definitively ends the claims that it is possible to qualify for Universalist feats through the archetype.

I don't see that it's any clearer or more defined as far as this goes: you are allowed universalist when you pick for your Arcane School feature for the wizard class, so the argument is still there for doing the same for the multiclass.

The way I read it, Universalist isn't a school, it's the result of not choosing a school.

CRB, p. 205 wrote:

If you don’t choose a school, you’re a universalist,...

That's why Universalist isn't listed in the Arcane Schools section. (CRB, p. 207-208)

And the new wording for the Wizard Multiclass Dedication forces you to select a school.

CRB, p. 231 wrote:

Select one arcane school of magic;...

I don't see how you can take the dedication and still not have a school.

[graystone]

Gisher wrote:

The way I read it, Universalist isn't a school, it's the result of not choosing a school.

*shrug* it's one of the options under Arcane School and has it's own school spell: it just seems like semantics that it's the non-school school.

Gisher wrote:

That's why Universalist isn't listed in the Arcane Schools section. (CRB, p. 207-208)

And nethys lumps it in with the other options. It's one of your options when you pick your school after all.

Gisher wrote:

And the new wording for the Wizard Multiclass Dedication forces you to select a school.

So does the wizard class and a valid answer to that is universalist.

[YuriP]

Gisher wrote:

I don't see how you can take the dedication and still not have a school.

I don't agree that the new errata forces to take a school. The word they used is can:

https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq wrote:

Page 231: The wizard multiclass archetype didn't let you pick a school with the dedication, meaning you have to take Arcane School Spell to get some wizard feats, unlike for instance sorcerer, bard, and druid, who choose a bloodline, muse, or order but gain no abilities. Change wizard dedication so you can choose an arcane school but gain no abilities from it. Then in Arcane School Spell, you don't choose a school, and you gain the school spell from the school you already chose.

I don't remember what post but once I saw a designer saying when they use "can" instead of "have" or similar imperative word this means that it's optional.

So merging this with second paragraph of Arcane School:

Core Rulebook pg. 205 2.0 - Arcane School - 2º paragraph wrote:

If you don’t choose a school, you’re a universalist, a wizard who believes that the path to true knowledge of magic requires a multidisciplinary understanding of all eight schools working together. Though a universalist lacks the focus of a specialist wizard, they have greater flexibility.

I think that's now you are able to select from both school or universalist in the dedication.

[Themetricsystem]

Yep, the errata did nothing to clear up the ambiguity at all, the suspect wording that made it vague did not change in the least.

[Red Metal]

YuriP wrote:

Gisher wrote:

I don't see how you can take the dedication and still not have a school.

I don't agree that the new errata forces to take a school. The word they used is can:

https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq wrote:

Page 231: The wizard multiclass archetype didn't let you pick a school with the dedication, meaning you have to take Arcane School Spell to get some wizard feats, unlike for instance sorcerer, bard, and druid, who choose a bloodline, muse, or order but gain no abilities. Change wizard dedication so you can choose an arcane school but gain no abilities from it. Then in Arcane School Spell, you don't choose a school, and you gain the school spell from the school you already chose.

I don't remember what post but once I saw a designer saying when they use "can" instead of "have" or similar imperative word this means that it's optional.

So merging this with second paragraph of Arcane School:

Core Rulebook pg. 205 2.0 - Arcane School - 2º paragraph wrote:

If you don’t choose a school, you’re a universalist, a wizard who believes that the path to true knowledge of magic requires a multidisciplinary understanding of all eight schools working together. Though a universalist lacks the focus of a specialist wizard, they have greater flexibility.

I think that's now you are able to select from both school or universalist in the dedication.

Just for the record, here's what the third printing actually says in Wizard Dedication

Quote:

You cast spells like a wizard, gaining a spellbook with four common arcane cantrips of your choice. You gain the Cast a Spell activity. You can prepare two cantrips each day from your spellbook. You’re trained in arcane spell attack rolls and spell DCs. Your key spellcasting ability for wizard archetype spells is Int, and they are arcane wizard spells. You become trained in Arcana; if you were already trained in Arcana, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. Select one arcane school of magic; you don’t gain any abilities from your choice of school.

It doesn't say you "can" pick an arcane school, it tells you to pick one.

[YuriP]

Red Metal wrote:

Just for the record, here's what the third printing actually says in Wizard Dedication

Quote:

You cast spells like a wizard, gaining a spellbook with four common arcane cantrips of your choice. You gain the Cast a Spell activity. You can prepare two cantrips each day from your spellbook. You’re trained in arcane spell attack rolls and spell DCs. Your key spellcasting ability for wizard archetype spells is Int, and they are arcane wizard spells. You become trained in Arcana; if you were already trained in Arcana, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. Select one arcane school of magic; you don’t gain any abilities from your choice of school.

OK so we now have a problem. The errata said the that you can select a school while the 3º print says to you select a school (imperatively).

Now we need an errata of errata! kkkk

Now I'm curious if in the end the designers want or not turn the school an option to the dedication.

[graystone]

YuriP wrote:

Red Metal wrote:

Just for the record, here's what the third printing actually says in Wizard Dedication

Quote:

You cast spells like a wizard, gaining a spellbook with four common arcane cantrips of your choice. You gain the Cast a Spell activity. You can prepare two cantrips each day from your spellbook. You’re trained in arcane spell attack rolls and spell DCs. Your key spellcasting ability for wizard archetype spells is Int, and they are arcane wizard spells. You become trained in Arcana; if you were already trained in Arcana, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. Select one arcane school of magic; you don’t gain any abilities from your choice of school.

OK so we now have a problem. The errata said the that you can select a school while the 3º print says to you select a school (imperatively).

Now we need an errata of errata! kkkk

Now I'm curious if in the end the designers want or not turn the school an option to the dedication.

I can't see any issues that'd come from being able to pick universal as your school for multiclassing. As such, I don't see why they'd want to exclude the option: why would every multiclass wizard want/need to specialize [especially when it only impacts school focus spells].

[YuriP]

I agree yet we know that will appear a wild bunch of players arguing that "you cannot be universalist with dedication because the book says that you 'have' to select a school".

[Castilliano]

YuriP wrote:

I agree yet we know that will appear a wild bunch of players arguing that "you cannot be universalist with dedication because the book says that you 'have' to select a school".

They may not be arguing, they may just be assuming because Universalist isn't a school, so it can't be picked. And the Wizard MCD rules for picking a school do not default back to the Wizard's Arcane School ability where you can choose not to choose and thus get Universalist.

It's pretty straightforward RAW, yet yes, so minor that it shouldn't waste any table time and RAI could easily go either way. I wouldn't build this for PFS (even though I know the majority of local GMs), but I'd expect home games to allow it.

[graystone]

Castilliano wrote:

They may not be arguing, they may just be assuming because Universalist isn't a school, so it can't be picked. And the Wizard MCD rules for picking a school do not default back to the Wizard's Arcane School ability where you can choose not to choose and thus get Universalist.

It's pretty straightforward RAW, yet yes, so minor that it shouldn't waste any table time and RAI could easily go either way. I wouldn't build this for PFS (even though I know the majority of local GMs), but I'd expect home games to allow it.

All you have to do is look at archives of nethys, the official pf2 online resource, to see that all you have to do is go to Arcane Schools to see universalist as a school without looking at the class feature. As far as I know, there aren't levels of official so it's as valid a source as the book is. As such, it's not the "straightforward RAW" you make it out to be. Even if it turns out it wasn't intended, that nethys page is enough to have doubt in it for anyone that uses that for their game.

[Guntermench]

AoN isn't perfect, they set things up in a way that's easy to navigate and that's it. The books are RAW.

[breithauptclan]

I would say that with the current wording after errata that it is fairly clear that RAW you must pick a school with the Wizard Archetype and Universalist is not available.

But it is also fairly clear that, RAI, that is not intended. The errata notes mention it being optional to choose a school, and the Wizard base class rules for Arcane School allow Universalist. I don't see any good balance reason for prohibiting Universalist archetype Wizards.

[graystone]

Guntermench wrote:

The books are RAW.

As presented, so is nethys: it's a replacement for the PRD and in my experience it gets used far more than any physical book/pdf. For me, it's more important that nethys gets it right not the actual books as it rare to look at them after nethys put the info up.

[Guntermench]

graystone wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

The books are RAW.

As presented, so is nethys: it's a replacement for the PRD and in my experience it gets used far more than any physical book/pdf. For me, it's more important that nethys gets it right not the actual books as it rare to look at them after nethys put the info up.

This sort of thing came up with a discussion about firearm ammunition (I don't feel like looking through a couple of months of posts to find it) and it was stated in situations where AoN and the books differ, the books take precedence. If AoN says something but it isn't presented the same in the books then it's not RAW and is likely just them organizing things to be easier to navigate.

[graystone]

Guntermench wrote:

graystone wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

The books are RAW.

As presented, so is nethys: it's a replacement for the PRD and in my experience it gets used far more than any physical book/pdf. For me, it's more important that nethys gets it right not the actual books as it rare to look at them after nethys put the info up.

This sort of thing came up with a discussion about firearm ammunition (I don't feel like looking through a couple of months of posts to find it) and it was stated in situations where AoN and the books differ, the books take precedence. If AoN says something but it isn't presented the same in the books then it's not RAW and is likely just them organizing things to be easier to navigate.

I don't think you're getting the point: there are a lot of people that aren't going to be looking at the book. If they look at nethys OR the errata section, you might get a different idea of what you can take and all three are "official". This was a big issue in the old PF1 days where the PRD would have 100% incorrect info in it because it ONLY had the info from new book editions so if info was in multiple books you'd have the official site/books having different versions of things. So even if there IS a tiered correctness to these things, you'd have to know the difference before you started to sort things out and that alone is going to lead to confusion. Once you find an issue by looking at multiple places for the same info, then is the errata more official than the book and that is more official than the web site? Or is it books, errata then web site? or is it...

It'd be a lot easier if they JUST said if universalist was allowed and/or intended.

[Themetricsystem]

At one point I thought they had intended to hire someone explicitly to help with the intent to work on communicating with the teams, authors, and segmentations in the company to do a kind of FAQ/Errata liaison work position that had them dedicated to finding all such flaws from the community and getting them into the hands of the team so as to answer them but if memory serves me correct this happened shortly before the pandemic hit and doing this kind of work would likely be complicated by, you know, the whole ZOOM workplace thing so I think the idea was just... scrapped.

[Squiggit]

Guntermench wrote:

If AoN says something but it isn't presented the same in the books then it's not RAW and is likely just them organizing things to be easier to navigate.

I think this is kind of missing the point.

For certain rules, you can check AoN, an old copy of the CRB + the errata document, or a new copy of the CRB... and get different answers with each version even though all of these are official rules sources.

We can get rigorous about which version may or may not be definitive, but I don't think the average player is going to cross-reference multiple rules sources to double check how a mechanic is supposed to work either, and it's going to be kind of a pain when two groups of people who have been referencing different official rules documents end up with different understandings of how to approach the game when they come together.

That's a problem.

[Temperans]

Aonprd matching the latest printing helps a bit as it should in theory already have the errata applied and be the same as the lasted version of the book. The issue is that the way things get presented in Aonprd are not the same as they are presented in the book.

Not only that, but things get shifted around bevause of all the cross referencing that the book has. Which incentivices aonprd to make those link and introduces potential confusion and missing knowledge of some rules.

3rd party versions aren't any better outside of making 3rd things easy to find.

[PossibleCabbage]

Sometimes the Archives of Nethys are just wrong. Like for the longest time on aon the Barbarian feat "Spirits Wrath" had the flourish trait on AoN but not in a single printing of the CRB.

[YuriP]

You need to understand that we have multiple official sources and they are all error prone. There is no one more right, or more wrong, they can all contain errors in different things and to different degrees.
What can be done is to discuss these differences and possible errors here and hope that as soon as possible that paizo will clarify and correct them and not choose which is the more or less official source.

In the meantime, each table can decide which rule in which font they think is most correct and follow it until it is confirmed or changed later by a new errata, by a designer speech on the subject, by an update on the AoN or even by a future reprint.

[Angel Hunter D]

Themetricsystem wrote:

At one point I thought they had intended to hire someone explicitly to help with the intent to work on communicating with the teams, authors, and segmentations in the company to do a kind of FAQ/Errata liaison work position that had them dedicated to finding all such flaws from the community and getting them into the hands of the team so as to answer them but if memory serves me correct this happened shortly before the pandemic hit and doing this kind of work would likely be complicated by, you know, the whole ZOOM workplace thing so I think the idea was just... scrapped.

It can be done online, I've got people doing similar work at my job and they make it happen. They're worth their weight in gold.

[Ezekieru]

I am curious about that proposed work position, but given the bumpy ups-and-downs Paizo has had for the past, what, over 2 years now? It's not surprising that something akin to that position hasn't been filled in yet. The frequent resignations, hirings and promotions within the company, alongside the steady formation of the United Paizo Workers union has certainly made things very touch-and-go. Heck, they got some big shoes to still fill with some of the recent resignations just in the past half of a year (between Mark Seifter leaving to join Roll for Combat, and Ron Lundeen leaving to join WotC). Last thing on the hiring department's mind is that position, probably.

Even so, trying to quickly coordinate between the Design team, the Editing department, and the Website's development department is gonna take a while even at the fastest. I just wish that Paizo would just de-couple the errata posting times from the selling of the newest printings. Let the changes go live as soon as the changed .PDF is sent to the printers, don't make us wait months for the new printing's books to arrive to let us know what's been fixed.

Also, PLEASE allow errata for APs and Standalone Adventures to be posted without waiting either. Not every AP is guaranteed a compilation like Abomination Vaults or Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, and being able to nip broken archetype feats and other options in the bud sooner rather than possibly never would be a remarkable improvement. Please.

[The Raven Black]

Ezekieru wrote:

I am curious about that proposed work position, but given the bumpy ups-and-downs Paizo has had for the past, what, over 2 years now? It's not surprising that something akin to that position hasn't been filled in yet. The frequent resignations, hirings and promotions within the company, alongside the steady formation of the United Paizo Workers union has certainly made things very touch-and-go. Heck, they got some big shoes to still fill with some of the recent resignations just in the past half of a year (between Mark Seifter leaving to join Roll for Combat, and Ron Lundeen leaving to join WotC). Last thing on the hiring department's mind is that position, probably.

Even so, trying to quickly coordinate between the Design team, the Editing department, and the Website's development department is gonna take a while even at the fastest. I just wish that Paizo would just de-couple the errata posting times from the selling of the newest printings. Let the changes go live as soon as the changed .PDF is sent to the printers, don't make us wait months for the new printing's books to arrive to let us know what's been fixed.

Also, PLEASE allow errata for APs and Standalone Adventures to be posted without waiting either. Not every AP is guaranteed a compilation like Abomination Vaults or Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, and being able to nip broken archetype feats and other options in the bud sooner rather than possibly never would be a remarkable improvement. Please.

As always, the question will be who pays for this every month ?

Paizo's owners ?

Paizo's employees and freelancers ?

Paizo's customers ?

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

I am curious about that proposed work position, but given the bumpy ups-and-downs Paizo has had for the past, what, over 2 years now? It's not surprising that something akin to that position hasn't been filled in yet. The frequent resignations, hirings and promotions within the company, alongside the steady formation of the United Paizo Workers union has certainly made things very touch-and-go. Heck, they got some big shoes to still fill with some of the recent resignations just in the past half of a year (between Mark Seifter leaving to join Roll for Combat, and Ron Lundeen leaving to join WotC). Last thing on the hiring department's mind is that position, probably.

Even so, trying to quickly coordinate between the Design team, the Editing department, and the Website's development department is gonna take a while even at the fastest. I just wish that Paizo would just de-couple the errata posting times from the selling of the newest printings. Let the changes go live as soon as the changed .PDF is sent to the printers, don't make us wait months for the new printing's books to arrive to let us know what's been fixed.

Also, PLEASE allow errata for APs and Standalone Adventures to be posted without waiting either. Not every AP is guaranteed a compilation like Abomination Vaults or Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, and being able to nip broken archetype feats and other options in the bud sooner rather than possibly never would be a remarkable improvement. Please.

As always, the question will be who pays for this every month ?

Paizo's owners ?

Paizo's employees and freelancers ?

Paizo's customers ?

Its always the customers as any increase in expenditure results in a more expensive final price for goods.

The ones who benefit are also said customers that don't have to dig through 100s of forum posts and watch 100s of hours of videos just to find the errata they want.