One of the problems, which can lead to confusion, is the continued use of inaccurate terms like "dev post." There are many people whose job title includes the word "Developer," but those are not the people who make FAQ rulings on the Pathfinder RPG rules, not even as part of a discussion or group decision. In fact, they aren't even on the same team. It's the design team who does that, so the titles of those people would be Designer and Lead Designer.
One of the problems, which can lead to confusion, is the continued use of inaccurate terms like "dev post." There are many people whose job title includes the word "Developer," but those are not the people who make FAQ rulings on the Pathfinder RPG rules, not even as part of a discussion or group decision. In fact, they aren't even on the same team. It's the design team who does that, so the titles of those people would be Designer and Lead Designer.
I can see that too. Where the main issue came in was when you have a "Developer" come on and say 'this is my opinion' or 'this is what I'd do' and people would run off and take it as an official view and say as such in the next debate on that rule.
Myself, I'm quite happy to have just ONE place to find FAQ's and leave forum posts to just opinions and advice. It gives a "Developer" the ability to add into a debate without the worry that people thinks it's official and I would think it would allow them to be more open making a comment. Worrying about it being official would mean "Developer" posts would come at the speed of FAQ's.
|
Even then, these are humans.
They are never going to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time.
They are pretty dang good, but this attitude that you need to see them as infallible, or you're a terrible person, is just wrong for everyone.
Paizo doesn't advocate this insane view, and no true fan of Paizo should either.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Do you REALLY think every DEV does things 100% the same as every other DEV?
No I don't think they are hive mind or 100% right all the time, but I know more times than I can count of instances where forums posters said "these two posts contradict" when actually they don't if you understand what both posts are saying.
Do you REALLY think every DEV does things 100% the same as every other DEV?No I don't think they are hive mind or 100% right all the time, but I know more times than I can count of instances where forums posters said "these two posts contradict" when actually they don't if you understand what both posts are saying.
So lets take the example Calth pointed out. The "what counts as an effect related to race" where the FAQ itself states that there was a discrepancy between earlier FAQ's. So it's a case of the dev's just not sitting down and taking the time to understand "what both posts are saying"? That seems to be the inference your next to last post made.
Or you can or course take your stance a few steps back and concede that there have and will continue to be instances where dev's don't agree and in the past those times where brought up on different side of a debate. I enjoy hearing from the DEV's and want them to pop into thread as often as possible to give opinions, advice or just to chat. What I don't want is people taking those chats and trying to leverage them into a rule to win a debate. That's why I think the current ruling works well. Official ruling go in an official place. Everything else is unofficial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? In 3.5, they delegated the Weapon Focus feat to be either Weapon Focus (Ranged Spells) or Weapon Focus (Touch Spells). Pathfinder started with backwards compatibility. The only official rules change has been to add Weapon Focus (ray) to that list. To say nothing has changed is disingenuous and puts far to much into an off the cuff and now confirmed unofficial Dev post.
If by "it" you mean "the PFRPG ruleset", then I disagree.Nothing about the rules changed.
This make me think now, since ... well, while not all ranged spells are rays, aren't all rays ranged spells? Focus on ray would be like focus on Bowie knives instead of just daggers.
Are the ranged and touch spells still valid weapon foci?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
you ... take your stance a few steps back and concede that there have and will continue to be instances where dev's don't agree
While I may be willing to say there may have been instances of disagreement.
I still strongly assert that the number of times people have thought something wasn't in agreement far the number of fingers and toes I have. Mostly because I see disagreement about what the rules say between different parties so many times. Both in the rules in the book and the statements of devs.
Official ruling go in an official place. Everything else is unofficial.
I'm totally not a fan of this stance. It works very well to potentially allow a "protection shield" against a particular interpretation of a rule. If a dev comes along and says "You totally are reading that rule incorrectly" these type of stances are effective (if permitted) in permitting someone from acknowledging their interpretation of the rules is not the one true way.
I still strongly assert that the number of times people have thought something wasn't in agreement far the number of fingers and toes I have. Mostly because I see disagreement about what the rules say between different parties so many times. Both in the rules in the book and the statements of devs.
Once was/is enough reason to make thread posts unofficial.
I'm totally not a fan of this stance. It works very well to potentially allow a "protection shield" against a particular interpretation of a rule. If a dev comes along and says "You totally are reading that rule incorrectly" these type of stances are effective (if permitted) in permitting someone from acknowledging their interpretation of the rules is not the one true way.
Now is it "you're totally reading that rule incorrectly" or "The way I'd run it, you're totally reading that rule incorrectly"? Because if it's the first, that's an FAQ. If it's the second, that's an opinion. Once again, I'll bring up the "what counts as an effect related to race" issue. One of the DEV's could have said "you're reading it wrong" and ended up beng wrong as there was clearly multiple thought on how it should work by the staff. A perfect reason to let the official comment to FAQs and the advice and opinions to the threads. One persons certainty may not survive a team debate on the subject.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Now is it "you're totally reading that rule incorrectly" or "The way I'd run it, you're totally reading that rule incorrectly"?
No, it is more like "just because you read those words to mean that doesn't mean that is the only way to read those words or even the most appropriate or reasonable way to read those words."
Basically, there may be multiple ways to read that block of text and just because there isn't a FAQ or an Errata doesn't mean you are right.
Now is it "you're totally reading that rule incorrectly" or "The way I'd run it, you're totally reading that rule incorrectly"?No, it is more like "just because you read those words to mean that doesn't mean that is the only way to read those words or even the most appropriate or reasonable way to read those words."
Basically, there may be multiple ways to read that block of text and just because there isn't a FAQ or an Errata doesn't mean you are right.
What you JUST said has nothing really to do with what I was. A Dev that comes in and says 'you're reading it wrong' doesn't make it wrong either, so I don't get your point. The ONLY time something that can be read differently gets resolved is by a FAQ or errata. Anything else is a debate that I'm happy to get the Dev's opinions on, but said opinion isn't a ruling.
IMO This is a GOOD thing. Off the cuff comments and posts should be taken as such. Rules should come with contemplation and a consensus of those who implement the rules. Advise and opinions in one place and rules in another. Best of both worlds to me.