101
Gaming Advice / Re: [PF] Winter Witch broken?
« on: April 18, 2016, 06:26:52 AM »
They should, of course, and perhaps they eventually will. What I am emphasizing isn't the excusing of the error. An error is an error, and some editor screwed up.
However, this sort of error is more comparable to a grammar mistake than a broken class. It is different from the math not adding up, or the designer creating something without realizing its wider implications. The designer made a 9/10 spellcasting progression prestige class, and forgot to add two words to the description of one class feature.
That difference is, namely, that it is obvious what the Winter Witch actually does, i.e. what the author had in mind when he wrote it. Sometimes the RAI is unclear; this is not one of those cases. It is not a house rule to use a class the way it was always used and was designed to be used. Paizo needs to be alerted of the mistake, but that alone is not enough to make a class broken.
I can see now that my previous post makes it sound like they're intentionally ignoring the error. I'll say it in a better way: the reason this errata did not put the additional two words in is that they did not even notice, and the reason they didn't notice is that nobody is using the Winter Witch that way and the text as is (though it has an error) already conveys the author's intent. Had it been a more serious error, they would have corrected it. Most people, reading Winter Witch's entry, would pass right over it.
However, this sort of error is more comparable to a grammar mistake than a broken class. It is different from the math not adding up, or the designer creating something without realizing its wider implications. The designer made a 9/10 spellcasting progression prestige class, and forgot to add two words to the description of one class feature.
That difference is, namely, that it is obvious what the Winter Witch actually does, i.e. what the author had in mind when he wrote it. Sometimes the RAI is unclear; this is not one of those cases. It is not a house rule to use a class the way it was always used and was designed to be used. Paizo needs to be alerted of the mistake, but that alone is not enough to make a class broken.
I can see now that my previous post makes it sound like they're intentionally ignoring the error. I'll say it in a better way: the reason this errata did not put the additional two words in is that they did not even notice, and the reason they didn't notice is that nobody is using the Winter Witch that way and the text as is (though it has an error) already conveys the author's intent. Had it been a more serious error, they would have corrected it. Most people, reading Winter Witch's entry, would pass right over it.