Advanced Class Guide Potential Errors


Product Discussion

601 to 650 of 1,126 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Nicos wrote:
I understand what greywulfe is saying, some problem are minor so they can be handwaved away easily (like the proficiencies with the bolt ace), but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem in the first place.

My issue is that it needs handwaved in the first place. It may seem minor for the bolt ace but when you're trying to get a DM that doesn't normally allow gunslingers to allow it, you don't need ANY issues to rock the boat.

graywulfe wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I understand what greywulfe is saying, some problem are minor so they can be handwaved away easily (like the proficiencies with the bolt ace), but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem in the first place.
Never said there was not a problem.

It all depends how you play what kind of issues you have with those problems. If you home game, a bit of handwaving and you could use most of it. I play with a variety of DM's online, and it's a constant issue of back and forth to get that handwave. I've had DM's say that they didn't want a boltace because it was still a firearms class that wouldn't fit the game.

Liberty's Edge

Flame Effigy wrote:


Well, I mean. If you "simply don't use that part of the class" because you literally can't use it, that part of the class literally is, you know, unusable. Because it can't be used.
And since it's the starting part of the archetype, it starts off on a pretty sour note.
graystone wrote:

So just don't use part of the class?... Have you looked at what unusable means?...

So, yeah. My standard of usable is that all the elements are actually playable without having to add my own rules and alter the rule elements contained within those options. If that isn't true it's unusable. It's build my own rules or a 'some assembly required' book.

Yes I have looked at what unusable means... have you? Now lets leave behind the passive-aggressive b+*~@*!+ and actually discuss this like adults.

Okay so lets try this again.

Is there some part of the archetype that does not work. Can it do what it was intended to do? Yes. Even the extra parts that don't really belong (Gunsmithing, proficiency in Firearms,etc.) still function. They do not interfere with the archetypes function. It still does what it was intended to do. It just has some bells and whistles that you, and I, don't think belong.

When I first read the archetype I did not even notice the discrepancy. Hell I only found out about it when reading this thread.

Hell for all we know they intended to leave the proficiency in place, unlikely but possible. And it still does not stop the archetype from functioning.

So one last time can you make a Bolt-Ace Gunslinger who uses X-bows instead of firearms, in many of the same ways that a Gunslinger uses firearms. If so the archetype is usable.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Everyone talk about the editing (which is understandable), but for me that is not even in the top 3 major problems with the book.

Until they fix the editing and I know what the book is actually meant to say, I can't really judge the rest of the book. Your 3 major problems might not be an issue after the correct editing/errata is added.

I doubt it. my three major complaints are

1) Too much recycling
2) Archetypes that steal too much from main classes (daring cavalier I'm looking at you), those two seems like unimaginative design, probably because lack of time to make the book.
3) Balance problems (Divine protection really?)

I doubt a simply editing would fix them, but I do concur that polishing that kind of mistakes would make the book much much better.

1&2. They advertised heavily that there would be archetypes and feats that would draw bits of the new classes into the old classes. In those areas you got exactly what you were told you were getting. Exactly what you paid for. This complaint to me is like complaining that the Alarm Clock you just bought also has a radio, that was blatantly advertised on the box. I fail to see how this complaint makes sense.

3. I don't see the balance problem there.


Nicos wrote:


Everyone talk about the editing (which is understandable), but for me that is not even in the top 3 major problems with the book.

When the editing makes the feats, classes, archetypes, spells, options etc unplayable it is a HUGE problem.

More so for pfs games, though I dont play those. A book I need to modify for playing in its own system is by definition flawed.

Edit: Im looking forward to the erratas, and while I value much of what people here mention (design, intent, story, etc) mechanics is a big part of this game for me. I am hoping they learnt the lesson from ACG and Unchained/Psionics will deliver quality everywhere.

I usually buy the books straight away. This time, I will wait for reviews. ACG and Melee toolbox has made sure of this, so Yeah they do have to prove to me that the next books will be the quality Ive come to expect from this great company.


What is the problem with the melee toolbox?


Nicos wrote:
What is the problem with the melee toolbox?

I'm curious too. I don't recall any major problems.


The biggest complaint I've heard was that it had too little crunch and a lot of material focused on explaining combat to new players.


On melee toolbox some feats require heavy errata/clarification (see kraken chokehold discussion). Otherwise, and this is opinion, it misses the mark (by including Combat Expertise/intelligence too often, but this is also discussed on other threads.)

Melee toolbox isnt a hardcover, so I dont expect the same quality control, but again, would be nice to not need a pile of erratas per book published.


Errant Mercenary wrote:

On melee toolbox some feats require heavy errata/clarification (see kraken chokehold discussion). Otherwise, and this is opinion, it misses the mark (by including Combat Expertise/intelligence too often, but this is also discussed on other threads.)

Melee toolbox isnt a hardcover, so I dont expect the same quality control, but again, would be nice to not need a pile of erratas per book published.

I didn't go over Kraken well as I'm not a fan of grapple. I could have done with less Combat Expertise/intelligence prerequisites, but that's more of an issue of me not liking those options vs something not working correctly as in the ACG.


graystone wrote:
I didn't go over Kraken well as I'm not a fan of grapple. I could have done with less Combat Expertise/intelligence prerequisites, but that's more of an issue of me not liking those options vs something not working correctly as in the ACG.

Completely agree, as I mentioned that part was purely opinion. Now the rest...Im very much hopeful and optimistic though, them deciding to only release the acg erratas when all are ready is, i think, a good sign.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

There is a real need for clarification on how the Arcanist archetype, Blade Adept, handles their sword bond being converted into a sentient sword. One half of the benefit of a bonded item is the owners ability to add enhancements to a bonded weapon. The other half is the extra spell per day.

Sword Bond should state that it either doesn't allow weapon enhancements to be added to the sword, or Sentient Sword should clarify what happens to enhancements PRIOR to the bonded sword becoming a BlackBlade.

How should a bonded weapon via Sword Bond be handled when it becomes a BlackBlade?
- Does it overwrite any enhancements that may have been added to the bonded weapon before it becomes a BladeBlade?

- Are the black blade enhancements a template that Stacks on top of a bonded weapon and any enchantments added prior to being converted to a black blade?

- Do the enchantments on the bonded weapon remain until the Black Blade enchantments supersede them? When that happens, would the BlackBlade retain the special abilities of the sword that equate to an enhancement cost even after the BlackBlade gains a greater number of enhancement?

Shadow Lodge

graystone wrote:
I didn't go over Kraken well as I'm not a fan of grapple. I could have done with less Combat Expertise/intelligence prerequisites, but that's more of an issue of me not liking those options vs something not working correctly as in the ACG.

The big controversy is based around the writers again not understanding the as written part. So as written, it allows you to, on a successful Grapple, essentially chock someone to death in 2 rounds, wit no real recourse. Unlike with drowning, there is no 2 rounds per con. You use Kraken Style and the target becomes grappled. Next round, you have a bonuses to hold the grapple, and can begin to choke them. 1 Round later they go straight to 0HP. 1 Round later, they die.

No save involved. Really there is not much anyone can do except for the target, they just have one attempt to break free or die.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
Never said there was not a problem.

Bolt Ace is a bad example, as the listed issues can really be ignored easily, and if it's an issue with "guns" being banned, well, the Bolt Ace probably wouldn't help anyway.

But, let's looks at the Warpriest. A class it's pretty obvious that no one gave a crap about in the first place.

1.) For whatever reason, Paizo decided to drop the pseudo-Full BaB. A move not many are pleased with in itself, but then they attach the Sacred Fist, who essentially gets full BaB anyway with it's Flurry ability, and is basically in all ways just hands down better than the base class. Yah, either the ENTIRE Warpriest needs to be rewritten, (and very literally to make it usable), or the Sacred Fit needs to be nerfed to the point that will make it an Archetype no one will every want to play. The base class is that poor and the archetype it that great.

2.) Or the fact that the class is so stupidly dependent on using the same sort of Action for basically everything, and is just terrible with Action Economy.

3.) Or that it's whole Bonus Feat thing is a freaking mess on wheel. Can they, or can they not take Power Attack with their 1st Bonus Feat? If so, do they suffer they penalty to use it as if they where a full BaB class, despite very much not being one?

4.) Is Sacred Weapon based only one your level? So what happens when a Warpriest goes Large? DO they deal the same or less damage?

5.) So, Warpriests are a Prep Caster, but can, like a Cleric, drop a spell to Spont. cast a Cure/Inflict spell instead. Fervor says that they can use a point of Fervor to "cast any one spell he has prepared." When used in this way, it doesn't provoke, use somatic components, or need a free hand. So can a (Positive Energy) Warpriest use Fervor to swift action spontaneously cast their needed Cure _____ Wounds spell? If so, doesn't that kind of screw the Negative Energy Warpriest a bit? And why even bother with that crappy "other" healing/harming ability? It's, in all cases, worse than just using a Cure/Inflict spell.

6.) The Warpriest does seem to have been forgotten when it comes to, you know, Magic Items, Feats, (except see below), and other cool options that will make it fit in to the level of all those classes that came before it.

7.) And finally, lets looks at basically the one bones that hey where thrown in the book; the Weapon of the Chosen tree. Where to even start. Really.

8.) One of the big thing about the ACG was that each of the parent classes was supposed to get an Archetype that allows them to barrow some of the tools from their Hybrid class. But we get literally the exact opposite of that for the single Cleric Archetype in the book. WTF?!?!? And it has an entire class feature missing? Ok, ok. Maybe they at least gave it to the other half of the Warpriest and the Fighter gets something. . . Oh. . .

Add in, (and I'm perfectly cool and calm), that it has really been nearly 8 months since this book was released, with a promise from the head publisher that it would be fixed both soon rather than later and that it would be before a 2nd printing), it is starting to get a bit irritating, to say the least. Other products have also been, less than appealing, in my opinion as well, from the Ranged and Melee Tactics Toolbox, to the Strategy Guide, (which was expected to a point), to the Giant Slayers Handbook.

Personally, I have no interest in the Occult Adventures. Just not really something I care about. But I do find it that much worse that Paizo has decided to keep on working on it rather than focus on fixing the ACG. Maybe it's because I really don't myself, or honestly even know of anyone that's really that interested in the Occult Adventures making me a bit bias here, but it's really starting to feel like it's going to be after the next Gencon that we finally get to use the book we bought going on or more than a year ago.

It's exponentially worse for those that primarily play PFS/organized play, because the basic expectation is that everyone play by the same rules and everything is, theoretically, pretty well balanced. The ACG is truly a blood mess. Arguments about how easy it is to house-rule this or that just don't apply, and the miniscule amount of errata we have gotten just don't even make a dint, if you are lucky enough to even be able to find them.

Now, with all that in mind, if that hasn't shaken your confidence in Paizo's products, cool. I'm, and I mean this honestly, I'm happy for you. Obviously, though, it has others, and there is absolutely no benefit to anyone at all in trying to tell them that their opinion is wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, I remember when this thread used to be about errata.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:

But, let's looks at the Warpriest. A class it's pretty obvious that no one gave a crap about in the first place.

1.) For whatever reason, Paizo decided to drop the pseudo-Full BaB. A move not many are pleased with in itself, but then they attach the Sacred Fist, who essentially gets full BaB anyway with it's Flurry ability, and is basically in all ways just hands down better than the base class. Yah, either the ENTIRE Warpriest needs to be rewritten, (and very literally to make it usable), or the Sacred Fit needs to be nerfed to the point that will make it an Archetype no one will every want to play. The base class is that poor and the archetype it that great.

The base warpriest is still an awesome and fairly strong choice. And just because an archetype is "superior" doesn't make the class unusable. People wouldn't play it if it was inferior, but it's not broken.

DM Beckett wrote:
2.) Or the fact that the class is so stupidly dependent on using the same sort of Action for basically everything, and is just terrible with Action Economy.

Right, if swift action gating is your problem then I don't see much of a problem. You could always swift buff, cast a spell normally, and move. and then full attack and still swift buff as needed. I feel like having choices in your actions is a good thing.

DM Beckett wrote:
3.) Or that it's whole Bonus Feat thing is a freaking mess on wheel. Can they, or can they not take Power Attack with their 1st Bonus Feat? If so, do they suffer they penalty to use it as if they where a full BaB class, despite very much not being one?

They already gave the preview errata that says that they only count their level as bab for pre-reqs, not the entire feat. So no variable power attacks.

DM Beckett wrote:
4.) Is Sacred Weapon based only one your level? So what happens when a Warpriest goes Large? DO they deal the same or less damage?

Dude, they have a table saying the different damages for small and large warpriests.

DM Beckett wrote:
5.) So, Warpriests are a Prep Caster, but can, like a Cleric, drop a spell to Spont. cast a Cure/Inflict spell instead. Fervor says that they can use a point of Fervor to "cast any one spell he has prepared." When used in this way, it doesn't provoke, use somatic components, or need a free hand. So can a (Positive Energy) Warpriest use Fervor to swift action spontaneously cast their needed Cure _____ Wounds spell? If so, doesn't that kind of screw the Negative Energy Warpriest a bit? And why even bother with that crappy "other" healing/harming ability? It's, in all cases, worse than just using a Cure/Inflict spell.

Their fervor casting is only for self and their fervor scales up with levels to beat out other cure spells. And options, if you don't like it don't use it, but some people like negative area channeling as an option.

DM Beckett wrote:
6.) The Warpriest does seem to have been forgotten when it comes to, you know, Magic Items, Feats, (except see below), and other cool options that will make it fit in to the level of all those classes that came before it.

What do you even mean by this? It has access to fighter feats, that's a pretty nice bonus. and channeling feats. What Magic Items and feats and other cool options would you have wanted for it?

DM Beckett wrote:
7.) And finally, lets looks at basically the one bones that hey where thrown in the book; the Weapon of the Chosen tree. Where to even start. Really.

Again don't know what you're getting at, I know of some poster(s?) that really really like that weapon of the chosen with vital striking.

DM Beckett wrote:
8.) One of the big thing about the ACG was that each of the parent classes was supposed to get an Archetype that allows them to barrow some of the tools from their Hybrid class. But we get literally the exact opposite of that for the single Cleric Archetype in the book. WTF?!?!? And it has an entire class feature missing? Ok, ok. Maybe they at least gave it to the other half of the Warpriest and the Fighter gets something. . . Oh. . .

No, they said that lots of the new abilities would be given to older classes, not that all the parents would get their child's abilities.

DM Beckett wrote:

Add in, (and I'm perfectly cool and calm), that it has really been nearly 8 months since this book was released, with a promise from the head publisher that it would be fixed both soon rather than later and that it would be before a 2nd printing), it is starting to get a bit irritating, to say the least. Other products have also been, less than appealing, in my opinion as well, from the Ranged and Melee Tactics Toolbox, to the Strategy Guide, (which was expected to a point), to the Giant Slayers Handbook

Personally, I have no interest in the Occult Adventures. Just not really something I care about. But I do find it that much worse that Paizo has decided to keep on working on it rather than focus on fixing the ACG. Maybe it's because I really don't myself, or honestly even know of anyone that's really that interested in the Occult Adventures making me a bit bias here, but it's really starting to feel like it's going to be after the next Gencon that we finally get to use the book we bought going on or more than a year ago.

They are spending their time to make sure it is really good. Paizo probably had about six months to a year planned out in the future, with printing deals and shipping deals and customs issues, and didn't plan on needing to redo the ACG, so they're putting it in as they can. I agree that I'd LOVE to have it sooner than later, and to have an estimate of when we might expect it, so I feel you on this issue.

DM Beckett wrote:

It's exponentially worse for those that primarily play PFS/organized play, because the basic expectation is that everyone play by the same rules and everything is, theoretically, pretty well balanced. The ACG is truly a blood mess. Arguments about how easy it is to house-rule this or that just don't apply, and the miniscule amount of errata we have gotten just don't even make a dint, if you are lucky enough to even be able to find them.

Now, with all that in mind, if that hasn't shaken your confidence in Paizo's products, cool. I'm, and I mean this honestly, I'm happy for you. Obviously, though, it has others, and there is absolutely no benefit to anyone at all in trying to tell them that their opinion is wrong.

If you want faster answers get lots of FAQs on a thread and we'll get the preview. But I do feel you, I have lots of the same concerns regarding PFS and the likes. But I just feel that Paizo is working on it, and publishing quality books, even if they are ones you're not interested in, is good for them. And only so many people can work on the ACG at once, leaving others free to keep pushing out new stuff.

Liberty's Edge

Chess Pwn wrote:
Lots of stuff that I agree with

Thank you. You responded in almost every way I would have.

Shadow Lodge

DM Beckett wrote:
2.) Or the fact that the class is so stupidly dependent on using the same sort of Action for basically everything, and is just terrible with Action Economy.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Right, if swift action gating is your problem then I don't see much of a problem. You could always swift buff, cast a spell normally, and move. and then full attack and still swift buff as needed. I feel like having choices in your actions is a good thing.

It's more that it gets a few things, but most of the time they can't be used together, and because some options are just straight up inferior to others, it leaves the player feeling "why do I even have these" rather than "look at all the cool things I can<'t> do".

DM Beckett wrote:
3.) Or that it's whole Bonus Feat thing is a freaking mess on wheel. Can they, or can they not take Power Attack with their 1st Bonus Feat? If so, do they suffer they penalty to use it as if they where a full BaB class, despite very much not being one?
Chess Pwn wrote:
They already gave the preview errata that says that they only count their level as bab for pre-reqs, not the entire feat. So no variable power attacks.

Then I must have missed this, which really doesn't help prove the point that the ACG is great or usable, though. :(

DM Beckett wrote:
4.) Is Sacred Weapon based only one your level? So what happens when a Warpriest goes Large? DO they deal the same or less damage?
Chess Pwn wrote:
[Dude, they have a table saying the different damages for small and large warpriests.

Made a slight mistake on that one. I was actually meaning the Warpriest is using a larger weapon rather than the Warpriest becoming larger. I could have been more clear.

All in all, I think you and I, and all the other people out there have a rather different view on what is usable and acceptable.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to clarify a few points regarding licensing, then let the thread return to its original topic.
1.) Archives of Nethys operates under the Community Use Policy, which allows use of material identified as Product Identify (proper names are an example of this).
2.) d20pfsrd.com has to operate the Pathfinder Compatibility License, which is much more restrictive in allowed material. Proper names cannot be used.
With that being said, let's get this back on topic and not about licensing nitpicking. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm just going to say, that while I obviously wish that editing had caught more errors, I don't feel that preordering it was a mistake, and some of it is certainly usable, even if other parts require some degree of fixing up to utilize properly. There were still a lot of neat new things presented that I quite enjoyed, particularly some of the new archetypes, spells, pieces of equipment, and magical items. Of course, other things did not particularly interest me, but that is honestly inevitable since there are many people with interests that do not converge with mine.

I respect other people's right to be dissatisfied with their product and also to regret preordering or purchasing it if they did so. I don't know if the reverse will be true, but, regardless, I just wanted to say that I still liked the Advanced Class Guide, and am perfectly willing to wait for complete and thoroughly checked errata, and sympathetic to the heavy schedule Paizo generally operates under. It is okay if other people disagree with me and think Paizo's actions are inexcusable by their own personal standards. I still don't regret it, and look forward to whenever the errata is finally completed.


To get back to somewhere near the original idea of the thread, I have a question about the exemplar archetype. From the description:

A versatile soldier who inspires her companions with her
fighting prowess, an exemplar is at home on the front
lines of battles anywhere.

Shouldn't that mean they should have better weapon and armor proficiencies? They only have light armor, simple weapons plus the close weapon group (along with handaxe and short sword). I wouldn't call that someone who is at home on the front lines.


So I'm curious if I can get a response to this. How much longer are we looking at for the ACG errata? are we talking
A) about a month or less away (I'd love this but don't expect it)
B) like 2-3 months away
C) up to 6 months away
D) over 6 months away
It's been 8 months since release and many months since the errata left Mark's hands and we haven't had a status update of whats happening for awhile. This isn't meant to be a "hurry" question, I'm on board with the take the time needed to get it done right, and I know there's a lot going on that I'm not aware of.

And if you don't feel comfortable answering the above question, or if you feel like answering two questions, can you answer this one?
I'm asking if I can become a bit more aware of what's happening now to it and what's left that needs to be done. This avoids giving any type of date estimation and just helps us know how it's coming along.


Chess Pwn wrote:

So I'm curious if I can get a response to this. How much longer are we looking at for the ACG errata? are we talking

A) about a month or less away (I'd love this but don't expect it)
B) like 2-3 months away
C) up to 6 months away
D) over 6 months away
It's been 8 months since release and many months since the errata left Mark's hands and we haven't had a status update of whats happening for awhile. This isn't meant to be a "hurry" question, I'm on board with the take the time needed to get it done right, and I know there's a lot going on that I'm not aware of.

And if you don't feel comfortable answering the above question, or if you feel like answering two questions, can you answer this one?
I'm asking if I can become a bit more aware of what's happening now to it and what's left that needs to be done. This avoids giving any type of date estimation and just helps us know how it's coming along.

I am pretty sure that it will follow Paizo's standard errata release schedule: When they run out of print copies of the books, they'll release the errata along with the second printing.

If you want errata quickly, I suggest buying all the copies of the book :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All those who wanted the book have already buyed it. The others are probably using the pdf or the srd. It's not gonna run out of print anytime soon. I suggest you all give up on getting erratas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

So I'm curious if I can get a response to this. How much longer are we looking at for the ACG errata? are we talking

A) about a month or less away (I'd love this but don't expect it)
B) like 2-3 months away
C) up to 6 months away
D) over 6 months away
It's been 8 months since release and many months since the errata left Mark's hands and we haven't had a status update of whats happening for awhile. This isn't meant to be a "hurry" question, I'm on board with the take the time needed to get it done right, and I know there's a lot going on that I'm not aware of.

And if you don't feel comfortable answering the above question, or if you feel like answering two questions, can you answer this one?
I'm asking if I can become a bit more aware of what's happening now to it and what's left that needs to be done. This avoids giving any type of date estimation and just helps us know how it's coming along.

I am pretty sure that it will follow Paizo's standard errata release schedule: When they run out of print copies of the books, they'll release the errata along with the second printing.

If you want errata quickly, I suggest buying all the copies of the book :)

I feel I heard that they were going to release the errata when it was done, regardless of if they were out of print yet or not.

The Exchange

Mekkis wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

So I'm curious if I can get a response to this. How much longer are we looking at for the ACG errata? are we talking

A) about a month or less away (I'd love this but don't expect it)
B) like 2-3 months away
C) up to 6 months away
D) over 6 months away
It's been 8 months since release and many months since the errata left Mark's hands and we haven't had a status update of whats happening for awhile. This isn't meant to be a "hurry" question, I'm on board with the take the time needed to get it done right, and I know there's a lot going on that I'm not aware of.

And if you don't feel comfortable answering the above question, or if you feel like answering two questions, can you answer this one?
I'm asking if I can become a bit more aware of what's happening now to it and what's left that needs to be done. This avoids giving any type of date estimation and just helps us know how it's coming along.

I am pretty sure that it will follow Paizo's standard errata release schedule: When they run out of print copies of the books, they'll release the errata along with the second printing.

If you want errata quickly, I suggest buying all the copies of the book :)

I'm not so sure on this. There does appear to be some recognition that the book is heavily flawed. Knowing also as they do the reputation that it has I think they know waiting for it to sell out would be a mistake.

Grand Lodge

I believe that Mark specifically stated that they were going to release the errata for this book as soon a possible. I could be wrong but I also recall someone saying that the book was selling really well and it was just a matter of time until it went into a second printing anyways. I'm in the middle of something and I can't search the references right now so take it last bit with a grain of salt.

SM


StarMartyr365 wrote:

I believe that Mark specifically stated that they were going to release the errata for this book as soon a possible. I could be wrong but I also recall someone saying that the book was selling really well and it was just a matter of time until it went into a second printing anyways. I'm in the middle of something and I can't search the references right now so take it last bit with a grain of salt.

SM

Pretty positive that ACG was selling really well until all of the editing problems arose and Erik Mona came by to say they were definitively working on errata. Quite frankly, all of the talk about them releasing the errata before the new print is out is hogwash; Paizo is not going to abandon their sales strategy. They're going to wait until the first printing of ACG is done, regardless of the fact that no doubt sales were stymied by the editing problems and from the expectation of the masses that other people will buy the books and they themselves will simply wait it out.


The effects of walking a foot off the ground through Air Step on tracking (-10 penalty on trying to track them) are less than the Lure of the Heavens hex/revelation do (You can't be tracked, period) for walking 6 inches off the ground and Horseshoes of a Zephyr do (also can't be tracked) with 4.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashram wrote:
StarMartyr365 wrote:

I believe that Mark specifically stated that they were going to release the errata for this book as soon a possible. I could be wrong but I also recall someone saying that the book was selling really well and it was just a matter of time until it went into a second printing anyways. I'm in the middle of something and I can't search the references right now so take it last bit with a grain of salt.

SM

Pretty positive that ACG was selling really well until all of the editing problems arose and Erik Mona came by to say they were definitively working on errata. Quite frankly, all of the talk about them releasing the errata before the new print is out is hogwash; Paizo is not going to abandon their sales strategy. They're going to wait until the first printing of ACG is done, regardless of the fact that no doubt sales were stymied by the editing problems and from the expectation of the masses that other people will buy the books and they themselves will simply wait it out.

That would be a mistake. We have to hope they realise that. By taking that approach here they risk further alienating their fan base and customers and that would be a huge mistake for them.

They surely are aware of the fact that the ACG is not a typical book, either in how it was produced, released or proofed. So it should not be treated as a typical errata. I and most of us here cn see that, we need to hope that paizo can see that also.

Better to loose money now reprinting then to destroy the faith of your consumers by allowing the existing disaster to continue. Lets look at it this way, do they really want the current version to be the first example someone sees of their company? I know I wouldn't.

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Howzabout making an exception to the rule and releasing ACG errata despite not having to reprint the book yet? While I adore much of the content, it could certainly do with an update, not the least to make sure one can read a thread about ACG without having to wade through "I felt sexually assaulted by this book" comments from our resident, erm, "passionate gamers"?

We'll have an ACG errata sooner rather than later. The book has almost sold through its first print run, so we won't even need to do it "early."

However, in the meantime I am having the entire book re-proofed to catch as many errors as we can. I know there is an unacceptably high number of errors that involve rules elements, but the book has more typos and other sloppiness in simple running text than I'm comfortable with, and I want to make sure we fix before we reprint. Some of that stuff will reveal more errata material, I suspect.

So, soon.

Now that Erik has announced that and lifted the gag order on the errata's existence, I will say that I have done a fairly extensive comb-through of my own notes and this thread and generated some really substantive and useful errata that will, I think, fix most if not all of the big head-scratchers in this book. It's still significantly less than the errata for a Bestiary, but a lot of them are higher profile errata than in a Bestiary and affect your character more, so it's more noticeable. That said, Deadmanwalking, if you want to continue your excellent in-depth errata quest that tapered off partway through, now is the time. I have looked at everything you brought up so far. Also everyone other than Deadmanwalking.


New FAQ out today, but the motherload is still not there.

Wondering why the slow drip... I thought they were not going to release anything before they released the big one.

Still it's good to see some things out there.


Where would one find this and other similar FAQs?

Silver Crusade Contributor

Theorythmus wrote:
Where would one find this and other similar FAQs?

Right here! :)


Secret Wizard wrote:

New FAQ out today, but the motherload is still not there.

Wondering why the slow drip... I thought they were not going to release anything before they released the big one.

Still it's good to see some things out there.

It's because it deals with the Pathfinder Unchained and PFS, so the FAQ came out once the announcement of Pathfinder Unchained for PFS was published.


Strife2002 wrote:

Pg. 190 - Planeslayer's call - spell

All enchantment spells have the mind-affecting descriptor and so this spell needs it, too.

EDIT: Also, minor typo in second sentence of description, change "Chose one alignment subtype" to "Choose one alignment subtype".

The way I read Planeslayer's Call, since the target is your allies, it doesn't actually target enemies. It gives your allies some buffs. Should this not be harmless? And who gets to apply SR, since the target is your allies?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedClassGuide/spells/planeslayersCa ll.html#

This has nothing to do with Strife2002's post, I just commented on the only post about this spell I could find.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The sad little FAQ has reminded me of this thread and the still absent errata, which is preventing me from attempting a shield brawler in PFS. And I'm wondering at the balance of a few powers in my home game.

Erik's comment of errata "soon" is now pushing six months old:

Erik Mona wrote:

We'll have an ACG errata sooner rather than later. The book has almost sold through its first print run, so we won't even need to do it "early."

However, in the meantime I am having the entire book re-proofed to catch as many errors as we can. I know there is an unacceptably high number of errors that involve rules elements, but the book has more typos and other sloppiness in simple running text than I'm comfortable with, and I want to make sure we fix before we reprint. Some of that stuff will reveal more errata material, I suspect.

So, soon.


Jester David wrote:

The sad little FAQ has reminded me of this thread and the still absent errata, which is preventing me from attempting a shield brawler in PFS. And I'm wondering at the balance of a few powers in my home game.

Erik's comment of errata "soon" is now pushing six months old:

Erik Mona wrote:

We'll have an ACG errata sooner rather than later. The book has almost sold through its first print run, so we won't even need to do it "early."

However, in the meantime I am having the entire book re-proofed to catch as many errors as we can. I know there is an unacceptably high number of errors that involve rules elements, but the book has more typos and other sloppiness in simple running text than I'm comfortable with, and I want to make sure we fix before we reprint. Some of that stuff will reveal more errata material, I suspect.

So, soon.

Patience, friend. You must understand that when Paizo released the 'Flurry of Blows' blog that slapped nearly all Monks in the face, it took them nearly a year to print a retraction, and that was for a single blog.

Blessed with the quickness, Paizo is not.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:
Strife2002 wrote:

Pg. 190 - Planeslayer's call - spell

All enchantment spells have the mind-affecting descriptor and so this spell needs it, too.

EDIT: Also, minor typo in second sentence of description, change "Chose one alignment subtype" to "Choose one alignment subtype".

The way I read Planeslayer's Call, since the target is your allies, it doesn't actually target enemies. It gives your allies some buffs. Should this not be harmless? And who gets to apply SR, since the target is your allies?

link

This has nothing to do with Strife2002's post, I just commented on the only post about this spell I could find.

While it affects your allies, the "Spell Resistance yes" in the entry means that allies with SR - drow, svirfneblin, certain dwarves - do not gain the benefits of the planeslayer's call spell unless you successfully bypass their SR or they take a standard action to lower it.

Does this make sense?


Kalindlara wrote:
Starfox wrote:


The way I read Planeslayer's Call, since the target is your allies, it doesn't actually target enemies. It gives your allies some buffs. Should this not be harmless? And who gets to apply SR, since the target is your allies?

While it affects your allies, the "Spell Resistance yes" in the entry means that allies with SR - drow, svirfneblin, certain dwarves - do not gain the benefits of the planeslayer's call spell unless you successfully bypass their SR or they take a standard action to lower it.

Does this make sense?

It makes very much sense. SR is a two-edged sword. It still needs to be "harmless" to avoid the confusing impression that enemies can somewhow use their SR to be immune to the effect, which it seems they can't.

Silver Crusade Contributor

I only addressed that part specifically. Everything else - harmless, mind-affecting, etc. - still stands. :)

Liberty's Edge

Tels wrote:

Patience, friend. You must understand that when Paizo released the 'Flurry of Blows' blog that slapped nearly all Monks in the face, it took them nearly a year to print a retraction, and that was for a single blog.

Blessed with the quickness, Paizo is not.

When they updated the revised playtest brawler and added the close weapon group my first thought was "shield bashing brawler!" But I had a low level character already, so I opted to hold off until the book was released.

And then there was a shield focused brawler archetype. Perfect!
Except... it didn't really work.

So, really, I've been thinking about playing this character for going on a year and a half. When it came time to make a new low level alt, I had to pass on the brawler and hope for errata. And now that alt is one chronicle from level 4 and I'm looking at having to make another alt.

And I'm not rightly sure how much more PFS I'll be able to play before my life gets too full and I'm a perpetual GM in my home game.

Grand Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Interesting. The slayer document I sent over to editing had a list of slayer talents and advanced slayer talents (listed in the Slayer Talents and Advanced Talents sections for the class), and "feat" was one of the choices.

I think when I was working on this post, I fiddled with the wording and the end result is unclear. Let's try that again:

Interesting. The slayer document I sent over to editing had a list of rogue talents and advanced rogue talents (listed as additional options for the Slayer Talents and Advanced Talents sections for the class), and "feat" was one of the choices.

In other words, just like in the playtest, slayers selecting slayer talents were originally supposed to also have a list of rogue talents as options.

Sorry, folks, I have to correct myself again. (I blame my insomnia.)

The paragraphs about selecting rogue talents and advanced talents are in the final version of the book, they're just in a different place than they were in my Word document (in the Word doc, they were listed before the first talents). The only difference I'm seeing is that "feat" was an advanced talent choice in the Word doc but isn't now. So that must be why the vanguard lists "feat" as an advanced talent suggestion even though "feat" isn't on the final list in the book (it was in the earlier list, was removed at some point, but vanguard wasn't updated to account for that change).

By any chance is it possible that the original write-up for the vanguard archetype Vanguard's Bond ability was meant to grant a bonus equal to studied target and not the 1/2 value it received?

The reason I ask is it feels similar to the Ranger freebooter archetype. I was wondering if somewhere in the design processes when switching from the ranger bonuses to slayer bonuses the numbers dropped from +2 favored enemy to +1 studied target and were not meant to be halved again in the vanguard's bond ability.


Can we please get a status update on the ACG Errata. I worry that if we aren't hearing anything about it that it's possible it's getting pushed to the side and delayed even more than if we hear some info on what's going on.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Can we please get a status update on the ACG Errata. I worry that if we aren't hearing anything about it that it's possible it's getting pushed to the side and delayed even more than if we hear some info on what's going on.

I actually spent a good part of today working with the editors on some questions they had. I'd say things are looking up, but you'll have to talk to Erik for anything more specific than that. He has the much broader view.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Can we please get a status update on the ACG Errata. I worry that if we aren't hearing anything about it that it's possible it's getting pushed to the side and delayed even more than if we hear some info on what's going on.
I actually spent a good part of today working with the editors on some questions they had. I'd say things are looking up, but you'll have to talk to Erik for anything more specific than that. He has the much broader view.

As long as I hear it's being actively worked on, I'm cool with that. Thanks Mark!

Designer

graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Can we please get a status update on the ACG Errata. I worry that if we aren't hearing anything about it that it's possible it's getting pushed to the side and delayed even more than if we hear some info on what's going on.
I actually spent a good part of today working with the editors on some questions they had. I'd say things are looking up, but you'll have to talk to Erik for anything more specific than that. He has the much broader view.
As long as I hear it's being actively worked on, I'm cool with that. Thanks Mark!

It wasn't always the case, in part because editing lost an experienced editor and then needed to hire and train a new one (at which point they had to play catch-up on the regular releases), but right now they've got top minds on it over there. I have no idea what that means beyond that.

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

10 people marked this as a favorite.

ACG errata is being worked on now, and has been worked on for quite some time.

I did expect this to happen sooner, but part of the process involved having the entire book re-edited from cover to cover, which is more than just spotting errors pointed out here and addressing them (we're doing that, too).

We've had some staff changes in our editorial department (including hiring more editors to prevent a similar experience for everyone), and that has also slowed down the process somewhat.

I believe that the books we have published since the ACG (Monster Codex, Strategy Guide, Unchained, and the forthcoming Occult Adventures) are much tighter and better edited than the Advanced Class Guide, which was a low-point for our internal editorial process and has resulted in a multitude of behind-the-scene changes aimed and preventing a repeat.

So, I know I've said this before, but the errata will be appearing quite soon. I can smell it cooking from my office.

And its smell is the smell of delicious cookies, which is quite a step up, from where I'm sitting.


Erik Mona wrote:

ACG errata is being worked on now, and has been worked on for quite some time.

I did expect this to happen sooner, but part of the process involved having the entire book re-edited from cover to cover, which is more than just spotting errors pointed out here and addressing them (we're doing that, too).

We've had some staff changes in our editorial department (including hiring more editors to prevent a similar experience for everyone), and that has also slowed down the process somewhat.

I believe that the books we have published since the ACG (Monster Codex, Strategy Guide, Unchained, and the forthcoming Occult Adventures) are much tighter and better edited than the Advanced Class Guide, which was a low-point for our internal editorial process and has resulted in a multitude of behind-the-scene changes aimed and preventing a repeat.

So, I know I've said this before, but the errata will be appearing quite soon. I can smell it cooking from my office.

And its smell is the smell of delicious cookies, which is quite a step up, from where I'm sitting.

Thank you so much for the quick response. Hearing about the delays and setbacks of changing staffing really helps explain that it's not been forgotten and why it's taking longer than expected.


Great to know guys.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's to hoping - my Bolt Ace is sad that he had to pay a feat to use a repeating Crossbow. Because even if they aren't that great, they are awesome. I really wanna find out if I needed to pay that feat so I can make fun of the GM - or if he was right and I need to be nice. For once.

601 to 650 of 1,126 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Advanced Class Guide Potential Errors All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.