Parity Between Parsed Official Content

[Trennik]

Specifically, I'd draw comparisons between the Rise of the Runelords (RotRL) and Ruins of Azlant(RoA) adventure paths. RotRL is what I would consider to be the "basis" or constant and what I'd compare everything else to. It has very few, if any typo's, the GM maps are all pinned, and a lot of the art assets from the books are linked and used at appropriate places within the text. It's the prep I would do myself if I were to take the time to parse the pdf and extract the images. This just isn't the case with RoA. On some of the very first pages there's text typos. None of the GM maps are pinned to any of the story entries, and art assets are rarely used if at all, and many of them are hidden behind obscure labels that reference locations within the pdf but not the actual content the art depicts. RoA is a very different level of "GM Prep" for the module in terms of Fantasy Grounds content as opposed to RotRL and I'm concerned that at the same price point it's a very inferior product.

[Trenloe]

Thanks for the feedback Trennik.

For official Paizo products, if there are errors (which there are in this case based off your feedback above) then please raise these in the official bug tracking thread here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...-Report-Thread

[Trennik]

Thank you, Trenloe.

Upon further inspection, the unpinned maps are just the first ones, but I've noted that as a bug.

As an aside: is creatures not being linked to their bestiary entries a bug?

[Kronides]

Hey guys, this is really an aside on Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition - I have been looking at it today after noticing some issues and found that there is a 40+ page unofficial errata covering mistakes found in the pdf version. I was wondering if these were still present in the FG version (ie content is matched to published material so it is "true" to original) or if they have been fixed where mistakes were obvious?

[Trenloe]

I was wondering if these were still present in the FG version (ie content is matched to published material so it is "true" to original) or if they have been fixed where mistakes were obvious?

The usual approach is that the FG version follows the official product PDF.

The individual FG developer/converter may decide to add/change things for clarity/fixes - and will usually mention such things in the conversion notes (but that isn't guaranteed). For example, in chapter 1 of RotRL, the conversion notes mention "deviations" from the original product:

- Added extra maps not provided with the original adventure for some encounters, such as "The Descecrated Vault" and "The Boar Hunt".
- Removed page number references that referred to the printed version of the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition printed adventure.
- Added SmiteWorks Battle Maps and/or notes regarding encounters where no official map was provided.
- Removed challenge rating from Part 4, Area C6. Tangletooth is an animal companion and shouldn't have a challenge rating on his own, but part of the Gogmurt's (the druid) challenge rating.