Pathfinder Official Damage Die Size Increase Chart Thingy

[Psyren]

Yes I was agreeing with you guys for once.

I know, both halves were really directed at Boci, it's just that your quote had the "banner" idea at the top of the FAQ section and I wanted to address that specifically.

[Anlashok]

I think most of the complaints have less to do with the concept of it and more to do with there being a degree of implied pretentiousness in FAQerrata.

[Psyren]

I think most of the complaints have less to do with the concept of it and more to do with there being a degree of implied pretentiousness in FAQerrata.

However you choose to perceive it, the fact still remains that full-blown errata is a very involved process; it relies on compiling an addenda document with all the changes (complete with maintaining/reuploading that document, plus relying on players to download it just to see what the changes are, and version control issues whenever changes are made,) and ultimately changing actual text in future print runs of the book. This is impractical as a primary means of conveying intent - the "plain speech" required can break the tone of a book's writing style, it can muck with the print layout of the entire book (e.g. by pushing something onto a new page), a given interaction may involve a combination of multiple books such that it's unclear which one(s) would actually get the new text, and it's very hard to refine further or reverse once committed. Therefore it stands to reason that if that were their only way of clarifying, adding to - or yes, even changing the rules, that we would simply get no clarifications at all (or at least, far fewer) and the game would be worse off for it.

From my side, I always thought the very notion of errata being the only "official" way to patch a game was inherently ludicrous for just that reason. It would be like if Blizzard was barred from applying hotfixes to any of their games, and had to wait for major patch releases to fix even the tiniest of bugs or unintended interactions. WotC padlocked themselves into that particular cell with their "Primary Source" rule forgetting to mention FAQ responses, but thankfully Paizo has yet to do so.

[Anlashok]

However you choose to perceive it, the fact still remains that full-blown errata is a very involved process.

Preparing errata for print is. Having a "rules changes" document that's set up like the FAQ wouldn't be any harder to make than the FAQ, by definition.

It might actually be beneficial too, as it would allow someone to look at things that have altered without having to sift through the huge number of actual question-and-answers in the FAQ.

As it stands it can be unclear when something is being clarified and when something is being changed and there's a fundamental degree of shadiness involved in referring to a design change as a rules clarification rather than, well, a change.

[Psyren]

That would have the effect of making the things labeled as "rules change" be "more official" than the answers they're providing, rendering those answers dubious or even meaningless and undermining the system. That is exactly the outcome they're trying to avoid, or else they'd never have set up a FAQ to begin with.

And frankly, perceptions of "shadiness" or "pretentiousness" don't matter - the goal of solving the rules issue that prompted the entry is what matters. The means by which they do so are irrelevant; all you have to know is where the answers are coming from (i.e. the design team.)

[Anlashok]

That would have the effect of making the things labeled as "rules change" be "more official" than the answers they're providing, rendering those answers dubious or even meaningless and undermining the system. That is exactly the outcome they're trying to avoid, or else they'd never have set up a FAQ to begin with.

I'm not sure I follow. How could calling a rules change a rules change possibly be more dubious than trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend people just didn't know what they were talking about?

It doesn't make anything less official, but it does clarify when Paizo is actually changing things.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure I follow. How could calling a rules change a rules change possibly be more dubious than trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend people just didn't know what they were talking about?

It doesn't make anything less official, but it does clarify when Paizo is actually changing things.

Because some of the FAQs really are just answering questions. For example, the Toothy + Razortusk FAQ didn't change anything - you only get one bite per head, this response was just emphasizing that. And it being a FAQ allowed them to open with a very informal/direct writing style, i.e. "this was an example of us letting a half-orc get the same thing in two different ways, rather than intending to give the same half-orc two things."

I think, for the true changes, statements like "this will be reflected in future errata" to signify a change, or "use the following rules" to point out that it's a new/updated rule (like they did here) - statements like that are literally all they need, if they need anything at all. Furthermore, I see no problem with the concept of official FAQ creating or even changing rules.