|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battlecry! didn't get specifically revealed until February of last year. War of Immortals was announced in April the year before. The thing that the announcement is coming later this time is because for the Battlecry! classes, we knew the name of the book from the Playtest, while we don't know that from this one.
Yes, people are wrong about how early GenCon books are generally announced. And both “generally” and “announced” are also not particularly reliable descriptors. They’ve done teases in Twitch, Paizocin keynote announcements, and increasingly stealth product page postings or retail reseller leaks attributed to when/how they sell forthcoming books to wholesalers/Amazon/B&N pre-“announcement.” Last time I looked at this first word of GenCon books as a promised product runs January through late March.
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible we could get any insight into why the impossible play test classes haven't been released yet, or announced? Is paizo slowing down the release schedule for new classes, has starfinder taken up employees time, etc? I've seen a lot of theories and heresay but no official answer, though I might have missed it somewhere. It was a bummer when 2026 gencon products weren't announced last gencon, when they have been since I've been into this hobby.
Continuation on our Impossible Playtest was always planned for 2026, so we appreciate your patience on this! Nothing has been announced since all we can say right now is what we have been saying for a while, which is that something Impossible is coming 2026!
Alright. Well thanks for the reply
I have heard back from the team! They let me know that there won’t be a set of fall FAQs this year. The designers have had packed schedules, and no rules issues have been big enough to need emergency errata. There will be a set of FAQ updates next year to reflect some errata that go with upcoming book reprints. Those will incorporate suggestions from the errata threads here on the forums, which they'll continue to use as one of the resources they look at when preparing future errata and clarifications. Thank you very much for creating them and raising issues you’ve found in your games! They're an immense help to the team!
No updates as well on the Impossible Playtest, but keep an eye out in 2026!
Thanks for the update, Maya. :)
I get it. This has been a crazy year for Paizo, and this errata wasn't the highest priority. Hopefully things will be a bit calmer for all of you next year.
An announced book with contents and a date. A playtest is not a commit to publish anything at all or at a given time.
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the update, Maya. :)
I get it. This has been a crazy year for Paizo, and this errata wasn't the highest priority. Hopefully things will be a bit calmer for all of you next year.
We have a lot of things planned, including a playtest straight off!! So, we hope you all have a good year with us too ^_^
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a lot of things planned, including a playtest straight off!! So, we hope you all have a good year with us too ^_^Thanks for the update, Maya. :)
I get it. This has been a crazy year for Paizo, and this errata wasn't the highest priority. Hopefully things will be a bit calmer for all of you next year.
:0
Starship time, perhaps? Time to engage thrus- uh I mean, waiting| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a lot of things planned, including a playtest straight off!! So, we hope you all have a good year with us too ^_^Thanks for the update, Maya. :)
I get it. This has been a crazy year for Paizo, and this errata wasn't the highest priority. Hopefully things will be a bit calmer for all of you next year.
Aaaah!! Yes! That's so exciting, awesome! Thank youuu
Oooh, that's great to hear! I was expecting to have months to wait before the next playtest. Very excited to hear it won't be much longer.
Speculation: Last December was the Impossible Playtest, so I'm betting it's new Pathfinder classes to playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oooh, that's great to hear! I was expecting to have months to wait before the next playtest. Very excited to hear it won't be much longer.
Speculation: Last December was the Impossible Playtest, so I'm betting it's new Pathfinder classes to playtest.
The Possible Playtest
There will be a set of FAQ updates next year to reflect some errata that go with upcoming book reprints.
Can you tell us which reprints are planned?
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
Oooh, that's great to hear! I was expecting to have months to wait before the next playtest. Very excited to hear it won't be much longer.
Speculation: Last December was the Impossible Playtest, so I'm betting it's new Pathfinder classes to playtest.
Interesting speculation! You will see!
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Possible PlaytestOooh, that's great to hear! I was expecting to have months to wait before the next playtest. Very excited to hear it won't be much longer.
Speculation: Last December was the Impossible Playtest, so I'm betting it's new Pathfinder classes to playtest.
Dun dun DUUUUUNNNN!!!! ^_^ Or perhaps, The IMPROBABLE Playtest!
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will be a set of FAQ updates next year to reflect some errata that go with upcoming book reprints.Can you tell us which reprints are planned?
I cannot! But, I can say we'll make announcements both here and on our social media! And we'll be updating our new store website, so keep an eye out there too!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks. Hopefully we get a FAQ on the Palatine Detective error since that will be sufficient to get Demiplane to change their implementation. Literally "yes, it's a 10th level feat, obviously" is all it will take.
Thanks. Hopefully we get a FAQ on the Palatine Detective error since that will be sufficient to get Demiplane to change their implementation. Literally "yes, it's a 10th level feat, obviously" is all it will take.
Are you referring to Greater Esoteric Spellcasting? It clearly only makes sense if it's a 10th level feat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do I feel about this as a whole? Well this is a problem. We can't lie to ourselves and think it isn't a problem even if it is a minor one. It would take them literally a couple of minutes to quickly answer the problems in Oracle's Spell Repertoire. That's my problem with waiting for an answer, it is a very simple to give the answer. Literally it's either "Yes, that's the correct number of spells in their Repertoire" or "No, actually the spells known is the correct number.". Perhaps I am simply over thinking how simple answering this is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do I feel about this as a whole? Well this is a problem. We can't lie to ourselves and think it isn't a problem even if it is a minor one. It would take them literally a couple of minutes to quickly answer the problems in Oracle's Spell Repertoire. That's my problem with waiting for an answer, it is a very simple to give the answer. Literally it's either "Yes, that's the correct number of spells in their Repertoire" or "No, actually the spells known is the correct number.". Perhaps I am simply over thinking how simple answering this is.
Well, it would only take a few minutes to answer that particular question. But if they start doing that, everyone would come with their rules questions, both major and minor, and expect an answer since it only take "a few minutes". Paizo can't possibly do that and everyone who doesn't get an answer is bound be be disgruntled.
And yes, you could argue that the oracle question is kinda important and should be answered since it affects a big part of a core class. But then again, every rules issue is important to somebody somewhere. I wouldn't want to be the one deciding what warrants an answer and what doesn't. Didn't work out all that well with the old FAQ system, did it?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do I feel about this as a whole? Well this is a problem. We can't lie to ourselves and think it isn't a problem even if it is a minor one. It would take them literally a couple of minutes to quickly answer the problems in Oracle's Spell Repertoire. That's my problem with waiting for an answer, it is a very simple to give the answer. Literally it's either "Yes, that's the correct number of spells in their Repertoire" or "No, actually the spells known is the correct number.". Perhaps I am simply over thinking how simple answering this is.Well, it would only take a few minutes to answer that particular question. But if they start doing that, everyone would come with their rules questions, both major and minor, and expect an answer since it only take "a few minutes". Paizo can't possibly do that and everyone who doesn't get an answer is bound be be disgruntled.
Everyone is already doing that, and everyone is already disgruntled because nothing is getting answered. You think the people who can't get instances of damage and resistence/weakness will be more annoyed than they already are if something else does get answered?
Like, the gigantic errata threads are a pretty clear indication that this problem already exists. Actually answering some questions won't change that.
And yes, you could argue that the oracle question is kinda important and should be answered since it affects a big part of a core class. But then again, every rules issue is important to somebody somewhere. I wouldn't want to be the one deciding what warrants an answer and what doesn't. Didn't work out all that well with the old FAQ system, did it?
I mean, a line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of what can and can't be answered in a reasonable timeframe. Some stuff will never get answered, and that's how it is, because it's a complex game.
But we're talking about the most basic part of how a class in a core book works, a year and a half after release and a year after the first errata created the problem. This one is actively causing confusion in the community with Pathbuilder changing its default implementation on it a few months ago because of said confusion.
There's no world in which that's an acceptable state of affairs unless they're just not going to have errata at all and the business model is "toss books of varying quality over the fence and let the community sort it out". Especially since this is literally a one-sentence answer and doesn't require any kind of complex explanation.
At some point, handling things the way they are just sends the message that they don't care all that much about product quality. That's certainly the message I've taken from it and it's impacted my spending (the debacle that was mythic didn't help either but this particular situation is just a mess that doesn't seem to be getting better).
As for the old FAQ... it wasn't perfect at all, but it was way better than the current state of affairs, which amounts to "maybe the PFS folks will issue a ruling, otherwise figure it out yourselves." (And PFS is no help here because the iconic Oracle pregen itself has a whole bunch of errors and doesn't make any sense in terms of repertoire, so even Paizo doesn't seem to know how this class is supposed to work.)
Once people like Mark left, they became utterly allergic to answering rules questions. It's become a serious problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I joined the forums when communication was not a strong suit. I have to agree with Tridus though. Why are they so allergic to answering some basic questions and fixing some clear flaws. What Maya is doing is incredible, she is very helpful but this is not on her, it's on the rest of the staff to follow up on.
Another issue is no explaining why some features get answers. Like the Rogue's feature. We all thought it was a mistake, a simple error that would be fixed in the first Errata but nope it turned out Rogues do crit succeed on all 3 saving throws at level 17 and that WAS intended. However in an Email/Private Message where the guy had to repost it just to prove it wasn't a mistake...Where is the transparency?
We all love Paizo, why we keep buying books, playing their TTRPG systems. Telling others to come play it more. We keep comign back to this system because we love it over other TTRPG content like 5th Edition DnD...So why can we not get the transparency from the devs on questions and concerns? I
Is this too hard to ask for...?
If answering simple questions is a slippery slop then I would like to say we shouldn't get Errata then and save us al the headache of asking for it in the several forum posts dedicated to the idea of Errata. (Spring 2025, Fall 2025 & Spring 2026). Yet we're so passionate we keep adding more to this hypothetical workload...Are we the knows being played as fools, in reality?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely understand why paizo has this unsaid policy of not answering rules questions. I've heard many times, from posters and devs, that when they used to engage more with rules questions from players, that it created more problems than it solved. But I think what's going on now is an over correction. The total radio silence, never answering rules questions on streams or in discord during paizocon/gencon, on forums, etc. feels wrong, and sometimes (this might not be fair to say but it's the vibe I get) feels like devs get angry at people who want rules clarified.
There's got to be a middle ground, errata isn't really working. Hell, the how it's played videos are probably more helpful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For every "it only takes a few minutes to answer" there is a "you're going to house-rule it if you don't like the answer" proving that the answer isn't as needed as people are claiming.
We don't need to know how many spells a spellcaster knows because someone might house rule it?
I mean, if the answer is "we won't bother correcting errors because people might house rule it anyway", why have rules at all? Every rule can be house ruled, after all.
The whole point of having a system is so there's a common understanding of how the rules work and a standard implementation for folks to use. Tables that don't like a given thing are free to house rule it, which is great. But it's not an excuse for the core rules contradicting themselves to the point that two different tables will come up with two different answers to something this simple (and important if you're playing an Oracle).
Errors in books are going to happen. It's a fact of life. The whole point of changing the errata process in the first place was so they could fix stuff like this without having it connected to a book reprint. The entire stated point was to help get errata out in a more timely, predictable manner.
So... yeah. That failed in 2025.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the whole point of the errata was so we don't have ad-hoc rules clarifications which, for the record, I support, Sage Advice in dnd proved to me you cannot have one guy just answering random questions when he feels like it. (Apparently you can't twinspell disintegrate because it can target objects).
That being said if they're not going to give regular errata I am fine with this one exception because of it's simplicity and because of how fundemental an error it is. We have live with mythic being jank because that's not going to be solved in one go, but oracle having so much amibuguity over a fundemental part of the class is a really big problem.
I am "Fine" with almost every other minor error because most of the time it is easy to intuit what is actually supposed to be, but this isn't that.
IMO if the president gets set that paizo might answer a rules question when it is a) fundemental to the option affected and b) solvable with a yes/no then I don't think that's going to be detrimental, especially if paizo make it clear this is for exceptional circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For every "it only takes a few minutes to answer" there is a "you're going to house-rule it if you don't like the answer" proving that the answer isn't as needed as people are claiming.We don't need to know how many spells a spellcaster knows because someone might house rule it?
I mean, if the answer is "we won't bother correcting errors because people might house rule it anyway", why have rules at all? Every rule can be house ruled, after all.
The whole point of having a system is so there's a common understanding of how the rules work and a standard implementation for folks to use. Tables that don't like a given thing are free to house rule it, which is great. But it's not an excuse for the core rules contradicting themselves to the point that two different tables will come up with two different answers to something this simple (and important if you're playing an Oracle).
Errors in books are going to happen. It's a fact of life. The whole point of changing the errata process in the first place was so they could fix stuff like this without having it connected to a book reprint. The entire stated point was to help get errata out in a more timely, predictable manner.
So... yeah. That failed in 2025.
We also have more people then ever playing in spaces, VTTs, where they can't house rule things. So a lot of the core functions need to be clear for people to play, or your just being forced into some one persons interpretation of the rule, and that person isn't even your GM.
I understand that getting the whole team together for something that has no direct impact on sales can seem very low priority. However at some point you might start driving people away if they don't like how a perceived vague rule is implemented into the only place they can play. Even just the perceived negligence toward it being a problem might start eroding trust with some customers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We also have more people then ever playing in spaces, VTTs, where they can't house rule things. So a lot of the core functions need to be clear for people to play, or your just being forced into some one persons interpretation of the rule, and that person isn't even your GM.
I understand that getting the whole team together for something that has no direct impact on sales can seem very low priority. However at some point you might start driving people away if they don't like how a perceived vague rule is implemented into the only place they can play. Even just the perceived negligence toward it being a problem might start eroding trust with some customers.
It absolutely does have an impact on sales. This kind of problem creates a negative impression of the quality of the system. That impacts sales, especially in the long run.
The days where you can just release stuff and then never have to think about it again are gone. VTTs and such are a big part of the reason why, as you mention.
I agree that “is this number 3 or 4” is a much lower priority for errata than something like “there is no range on this ranged weapon” or “it doesn’t feel possible to determine what order of operations to use when resolving this rule.”
That isn’t really about house rules as much as it is about the change one way or another not having that big of an effect on the game. Now, I do get why it might feel easy to resolve something like that, but if there is disagreement in the developer room and that is why two different answers got into the book to begin with, it might take a longer conversation to resolve than was allocated to errata discussion in a single meeting and they might actively want to wait and see how players react and interpret it before making a ruling they later decide to reverse.
In that instance, any statement about what happened or why they are waiting is as likely to cause more trouble than just waiting to put out errata until they are certain they know what they want the answer to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that “is this number 3 or 4” is a much lower priority for errata than something like “there is no range on this ranged weapon” or “it doesn’t feel possible to determine what order of operations to use when resolving this rule.”
Fair to say I don't agree about the severity of this problem. Considering that the spell slots originally had the same problem and they fixed that one in the first errata (which was the same issue), they seemed to think that was important enough to do quickly. They just only half-finished the job.
But if that was how errata priority was determined, instances of damage should have been resolved 5 years ago I'd think?
Hell: Arcane Cascade literally didn't work and that took 3 years to fix due to the old errata policy. The new errata policy was supposed to avoid that kind of thing, and yet here we are.
That isn’t really about house rules as much as it is about the change one way or another not having that big of an effect on the game. Now, I do get why it might feel easy to resolve something like that, but if there is disagreement in the developer room and that is why two different answers got into the book to begin with, it might take a longer conversation to resolve than was allocated to errata discussion in a single meeting and they might actively want to wait and see how players react and interpret it before making a ruling they later decide to reverse.
My speculation on how this happened was that remaster Oracle was rushed due to the PC2 release date and its massive rework, which explains a lot of its problems. Someone looked at it near the deadline, saw a lot of issues, and decided to add another spell slot to help it out... and forgot to update the text. That would explain how the first problem happened, and more rushing is how the errata only fixed half of it.
If the issue is actually that the developers themselves don't agree on how many spells it should have, then things are worse than I thought. Though this doesn't explain the errata not correcting the repertoire in either direction, so I feel like the lack of time explanation is more likely.
In that instance, any statement about what happened or why they are waiting is as likely to cause more trouble than just waiting to put out errata until they are certain they know what they want the answer to be.
It's been a year and a half. How long does it take to figure this out?
Like, someone is in charge. If two people disagree, they can go ask the person in charge to make a decision. Release that and move on.
But its not like its just this one. We got really anemic spring errata and no fall errata at all. This example happens to be my bugbear because it's dragged on for far too long for something that is easy to fix and it's a basic function of a class in a core book. But it's far from the only thing that needs attention and isn't getting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you think the Paizo developers think about errata far more than they do. Even if individual developers do have ideas about exactly how to fix an issue, they have to get everyone else in the room on board with their fix and make sure that the revised work around is going to fit in the text space allocated to it. Then they get together to talk about these issues in a specific meeting dedicated to errata and have a list they try to work through in a set amount of time.
I have no doubt the instances of damage has come up and gotten discussed in these meetings. Probably no satisfactory result had been produced and it has gotten pushed back through multiple meetings at this point. I have a feeling anything without a strong consensus and easy fix has been pushed back at least once, so that the whole list can get looked over at each meeting. My guess is that the developers split up the uncertain/contested ones and come back to the next meeting with a proposal that gets looked at in the next round. If there is disagreement or it isn’t right, it probably goes back through the process again.
I don’t think these meetings are happening more than 2 times a year, maybe 4 total. I think any issue that takes more than 15 minutes to talk through probably gets passed over to make sure the meeting isn’t 8 hours long.
I think the only things that constitute emergencies that have to get reworked faster are places where the game breaks and players can’t figure out how to move forward at all without a fix. Not even instance of damage does this as most tables will just run it one of two ways or use a VTT that makes that choice for them and they don’t even notice it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a glaring indictment on the company which cannot manage their own rules team to come to a simple consensus.
They can write books which work more than they fail, but they cannot settle simple questions?
And the number of spells a simple question to answer should absolutely be the highest priority. It is the easiest question with one of the biggest impacts.
VTTs are easy to homebrew, I don't know where that idea came from , but PFS is impossible to homebrew. This makes PFS games worse because we can't just say its okay we will homebrew this. You have to play what is written in the book. The books says two different things. This creates table variance which isn't going to be okay with Oracle players.
Also excusing missed errata with "the GMs will handle it" is the attitude that a lot of us fled away from in the dnd5e community. To not have an easily understood default is a negative against the game that makes it harder for me to sell this game to my dnd friends if it isn't true that it is a game you can find a reliable ruling in.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tridus,you might be putting far more weight to errata then it deserves. There's still people who buy the books and play as is, errata isn't even a thing for them. Many playing on VTTs likely just know the rules from that or their group and don't look into changes. So the financial impact of errata is likely very small, especially for long term as that's harder to track.
Thenobledrake, talking about obtuse and then saying setting up rules as written not being a Paizo issue is wild. People use VTTs for the automation, otherwise there's easier programs to use for maps or just TotM. As unicore pointed out, there's things that don't even have numbers for you to fix, and other automation that is implemented as best they can. You might not think it's an issue, but I have experienced people being frustrated by things not working because of vague rules.
The cancellation of the fall errata suggests that it's a small issue to them. Similar to how wizard polls well for them everywhere but the forums, errata might just be an issue for diehard gamers. I do hope they can figure out a system to make it easier for them to tackle, the more opportunity for table variation in the RAW mechanics effects someone like me who plays in lots of random groups rather negatively.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can’t speak for the PF2 side, who exercise fearsome social media discipline days, but Jenny J’s responses to questions about stuff like this on a SF discord where she’s active suggest her perspective is “this is just a game you shouldn’t take this seriously” (I paraphrase pretty closely) and pretty plausible but less clear that she may think customers who can’t or won’t just do a table ruling and move on with their lives are a bit dim or obsessive. (Is the latter in dispute by anyone but the supremely obsessive?)
I appreciated the honesty of the viewpoint everytime she expresses it and it certainly explains a lack of urgency for errata. They’re vibing new stuff (and playing a lot of video games) to make money, ring up that credit card and don’t sweat it, compadres.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it doesn't sound like she plays SFS then, ironic.
Not everything in the errata threads is a five alarm emergencies. So far nothing has destroyed the game, but there is a difference between a small grammatical change and a core feature of a class.
You literally can't homebrew everything.
I feel like if it would be so easy to fix because the correct answer is obvious, its probably also so easy that the errata isnt urgent. Even if there are multiple competing "obviously right" answers. Errata is nice to have, but if there's an easy conclusion that doesn't seriously disrupt play, the devs probably aren't worried it will ruin someone's game if it doesnt get clarified on the first pass. Winning arguments on the internet is not probably the top priority.
On the opposite token, for those errata that are confusing and likely to cause headaches at the table, even if they are considered higher priority these are the ones that are also going to take longer and greater involvement to find a solution for and may also not get addressed right away, however unfortunately.
I think we have yo face the reality that people who care strongly about errata are in the minority, and its effect on future sales is likely infinitesimal compared to the necessity of publishing new books to keep employees paid and the printers running. As much as Paizo might want to correct errors made, and as much as we clamor for them, its only natural that if a crush of priorities comes, errata is not going to be the thing on the top of the pile. The game is still largely playable, even woth errors. Even on VTTs.
I look forward to future errata passes fixing things i think are unclear, but until then ill continue playing the game in a way I think makes sense based on what I know of the precedent set by other rules.
I wonder if we should look to vtt's as more of a community agreed on rule set. If we aren't going to get proper answers from so many of our questions, maybe we should take foundry or dawnsbury days or what have you, as the 'answer' to most common questions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you think the Paizo developers think about errata far more than they do.
I sincerely doubt that since I think they don't think about errata at all. That is the whole problem in a nutshell: they should think about it and they don't.
They're still living in a "print a book and move on" world, but the gaming world these days doesn't really operate that way anymore. Expectations have changed in terms of ongoing support for content, and "none" doesn't fly the way it used to. These days this kind of way of doing business just damages the quality perception of the whole system.
Tridus,you might be putting far more weight to errata then it deserves. There's still people who buy the books and play as is, errata isn't even a thing for them. Many playing on VTTs likely just know the rules from that or their group and don't look into changes. So the financial impact of errata is likely very small, especially for long term as that's harder to track.
Well, I know how much of my money it's caused them to not get. I'm probably an outlier. But the LGS is stocking less PF2 stuff these days in general as well. How much of that is due to product quality vs how much of it is due to the system simply getting older and people not buying stuff as systems age? No way to tell from where I am. But I do know I'm not the only one who has noticed this stuff piling up and never getting addressed, and my GM is certainly expressing more annoyance than in the past with Paizo in the last two years (he goes WAY back to relatively early PF1 days).
But my days of "there's a new PF2 main rule book coming out so I'm going to get it" are over. I'm a lot picker than I used to be.
I can’t speak for the PF2 side, who exercise fearsome social media discipline days, but Jenny J’s responses to questions about stuff like this on a SF discord where she’s active suggest her perspective is “this is just a game you shouldn’t take this seriously” (I paraphrase pretty closely) and pretty plausible but less clear that she may think customers who can’t or won’t just do a table ruling and move on with their lives are a bit dim or obsessive. (Is the latter in dispute by anyone but the supremely obsessive?)
One of the heads of org play for PF2 has a similar attitude, and was casually dismissive of people who got caught in a situation where their characters got bricked by how remaster Oracle was handled and who didn't have a rebuild option. Lets just say the attitude was noted and one of my friends cancelled their subscription and swore off Paizo entirely because of it.
(They ruled that the new mysteries/curses were errata and thus MUST be used, even if you were using the explicitly allowed option of keeping the old version of the class for an existing character. That created an effectively unplayable character who had things granting Cursebound but that not being a mechanic in the class, forcing a GM to make a table ruling on what is supposed to happen. Anyone who made the character after PC1 launched or rebuilt into Oracle with their free PC1 rebuild didn't have a rebuild to deal with it, despite that being changed in PC2 like 9 months later. For some mysteries it didn't matter a ton but Battle and Life got screwed hard by it and those characters just flat out don't function the same way in the remaster. So a bunch of them got retired because "we'll let you use your existing character if you want" as the remaster FAQ stated didn't apply to Oracle.)
It's "just a game", but it's also a product, and a pretty expensive one at that. People have certain expectations of things they spend money on, and frankly those aren't being met with an attitude of "well yes we put something out that contradicts itself and we know we're selling a rules system, but we just expect you to figure it out and it's actually weird of you to expect us to fix our obvious mistakes."
Lets be frank: if that's the attitude Paizo puts into new products, I can get that from Hasbro instead.
|
(They ruled that the new mysteries/curses were errata and thus MUST be used, even if you were using the explicitly allowed option of keeping the old version of the class for an existing character. That created an effectively unplayable character who had things granting Cursebound but that not being a mechanic in the class, forcing a GM to make a table ruling on what is supposed to happen. Anyone who made the character after PC1 launched or rebuilt into Oracle with their free PC1 rebuild didn't have a rebuild to deal with it, despite that being changed in PC2 like 9 months later. For some mysteries it didn't matter a ton but Battle and Life got screwed hard by it and those characters just flat out don't function the same way in the remaster. So a bunch of them got retired because "we'll let you use your existing character if you want" as the remaster FAQ stated didn't apply to Oracle.)
I mean, the VC did their (unpaid) job, and that isn't on them, it's on your friend. Ragequitting is one way to respond to not getting what you want.
There were (now-expired) free Rebuilds, but there are also always-available Rebuilds purchasable for a reasonable amount of AcP. Any experienced player has earned lots of AcP. And new players get 80 AcP just to start. That is not an entirely unreasonable situation with all the tools available.
Are you referring to Greater Esoteric Spellcasting? It clearly only makes sense if it's a 10th level feat.
Yes, and of course that's true. It's also listed in alphabetical order between 2 other 10th level feats. And all archetype feats cap at 10th.
That doesn't change the fact that Demiplane refuses to change the implementation until they get a FAQ or errata from Paizo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[...] That doesn't change the fact that Demiplane refuses to change the implementation until they get a FAQ or errata from Paizo.
If that's the case, that... actually could be a very good thing.
If Demiplane has a policy that requires Paizo to (publicly) post errata for them to make changes, that genuinely applies pressure to Paizo in the correct spot.
The community tools that make do and invent rules, even PFS rulings, may not abet Paizo's problematic behavior exactly, but Paizo knowing that Foundry is going to make something up to cover gaps certainly doesn't encourage Paizo to swallow their pride / make the lift and actually publish some errata.
______________
That does make me kinda sit and think about PFS rulings from another angle.
It is legit insane that Paizo is so allergic to acknowledging errors, that there is an entire layer of semi-Paizo rules via PFS.
The content permissions stuff put to the side, the current situation is that PFS has a layer of rule patches to fix the blatantly broken stuff. Paizo, instead of actually fixing their game when it's incomplete or broken rules cause problems at Paizo's own events, have decided to allow (force via inaction) that sub-entity to write its own rule fixes. That's nuts.
Paizo has to know this, to know that their own organized play society has numerous band aids patching gaps in their own system, yet Paizo refuses to make it a serious priority to fix those table-stopping issues.
These are the easiest "verified problems in need of fixing" layups one could be presented with. Each time a PFS note at the top of a Nethys page is needed at a convention table, that should be a motivating poke of embarrassment in Paizo's eye.
The fact that so many PFS note patches just sit there, filling in missing durations, adding missing traits, etc, is pretty damn bad.
_____________
In other words:
The one piece of Paizo the company that is prevented from denying reality and pretending "this is fine" is the part of Paizo that directly supports and facilitates gameplay. PFS.
Paizo is so allergic to admitting error and making fixes, this sub-faction of Paizo had to invent a rule layer to make the thing playable. Good on them for the "fk it, we'll do it ourselves" commitment, but hot damn if that does not put a spotlight on how astoundingly inadequate Paizo is at supporting their own game.