They have not said that they meant to write something other than what they wrote I'll never understand why people do things like this. Like seriously, why? You replied to an honest question with unwarranted glib mockery. Did that make you feel clever or something? This is how communities wind up with a reputation for being insular and toxic. Knock it off.
Game rules aka stuff that isn’t flavor isn’t copyrightable. Text taken verbatim would indeed be a copyright violation, because that text is an expression of an idea. Meanwhile, ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, only patented, and most game mechanics generally don't meet the criteria for patent. Names can also be trademarked as part of brand identity, which I believe is the basis for claim to specific monsters. At least that is my understanding, but I am not a lawyer. I'd think if we don't see anything in the next 2 years, we're good. If only it were that simple. ;-)
Hmmm... How about a pawn box of multiple copies of the various low level baddies, the ones most likely to form armies? Like a couple of dozen kobolds or goblins, etc.I hope there will be smaller sets of pawns with just the new creatures introduced in the Monster Core series as I already have the pawn sets from the 3 Bestiaries. Even a single extra *sheet* of pawns, if carefully designed, would solve SO many problems. Focus on low-levels (where the most play occurs) and a mix of pawns that could serve as good proxies (say, zombies for corporeal undead). Something like: 4 zombies
I get that there will always be a "just one more sheet', but this particular sheet would be a HUGE boon to utility -- especially with the pawn line becoming much smaller in scope. A single, evergreen box could met 99% of the need. I'm really hoping the third time is the charm for this (otherwise truly excellent) product.
100%. And really, "doesn't have the resources to fix the problem" just pushes the problem up one level in the organization. And sure, over the course of days, or even weeks, disruptions can and do happen (though even they can be planned for). But persistent problems that stretch into months? One way or another, that is a failure of management, plain and simple.
Gotcha. While there is no doubt prices are increasing, not sure I share your concern/skepticism. I tend to see this more as the market resetting itself...manufacturers are adjusting prices to to establish better margins to support their businesses over the long term (covering cost increases, wages, etc). Of course, there will be some who overstep as well as those who don't take advantage of the opportunity. I think Paizo is trying to thread a pretty small needle...time will tell how well they manage. I may not have issue with their approach, but I'm a customer of one ;) To be clear, I have no qualms with the updated adventure path, adventure, or rule books prices. Those products remain a good value. $7 a mini, on the other hand, seems prohibitively expensive, especially given the wealth of alternatives out there. But of course that's just like, my opinion, man. ;-)
I think this is something they are doing for all hardcovers moving forward as an incentive for gaming stores. So you're saying they're doing it to draw people in? (I'm sorry.)
I guess I can't off load my extras to you then. :P LOL. Sadly, no, my income is a pale shadow of its former self. Also, what are "extras"?
Not to ask a silly question, but why wouldn't you look at other vendors who offer these discounted prices? It's not a silly question at all. Though I used to own thousands of pre-painted minis, I've not personally really been in the market for years; definitely not at all since I retired in 2022. Pawns are more my financial speed nowadays. So...why do I even care? Well, my interest is more about the health of Pathfinder (and by extension, Paizo). I've noticed a pattern of price increases of late that seem very obviously excessive. Not just much higher than the (historically high) rate of inflation, but high enough, frankly, to price the products in question completely out of the market (Pathfinder society scenarios being $9 being the most egregious, but $7 for a single blind mini is a close second). In short, I'm not sure who is minding the store nowadays, but I'm afraid whomever they are, they're making some decisions which appear rather likely to end badly all around.
(Pretty sure the pricing is decided by WizKids as they are the ones making tehse products) And I'm pretty sure it's a little of both. I really doubt Wizkids makes huge price changes without at least consulting Paizo; that would be an extremely one-sided contract, especially given that it is the Pathfinder brand on the box. Time will tell if Pathfinder Battles exists in a recognize form come 2025, but barring a significant price re-calibration, my bet is no.
Agreed; I'm all for monster stat blocks being as explicit as is feasible.
This, to me, is the most interesting of the remaster books, as I believe it will contain the most substantive mechanical changes, and also because I think it will really serve to move Pathfinder away from D&D in a way that the prior remaster books really couldn't. Looking forward to it.
$7 per mini in blind packaging is absolute insanity. Even $6, if confirmed, seems like a non-starter for most of the market. I will be genuinely shocked if Pathfinder Battles exists in a year. Paizo is making some...interesting pricing decisions of late. Edit: And yes, I'm keenly aware of inflation. ;-)
Ugh. No offense, but this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to create verisimilitude in a fantasy world. "Because magic" doesn't mean mundane things should/can work differently than they do in the real world. Quite the opposite, actually -- the familiarity of the mundane lends credence to the fantastic.So you are saying that in the real and mundane world you know what a magic scroll looks and works like? Because you are familiar with them and have used one to cast actual magic? Don't be obtuse. I'm saying the plausibility of someone fumbling in the dark is completely unrelated to existence of magic. Did you read the post to which I was replying?
Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.I have seen people fumble to locate objects on their body (wallets and keys) and buttons on clothes in the dark. Ugh. No offense, but this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to create verisimilitude in a fantasy world. "Because magic" doesn't mean mundane things should/can work differently than they do in the real world. Quite the opposite, actually -- the familiarity of the mundane lends credence to the fantastic. That said, a flat check to target oneself seems silly to me. I certainly wouldn't require one.
Don't worry; there is no impending disaster. This website is just really bad, and has been for more than a decade. (Also, it is perennially going to be fixed "soon.") You just kinda have to learn to live with the jank. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That is a good summary of their probable thought process. It makes intuitive sense. Unfortunately, it also misses the point. For a highly elastic good, the volume is almost solely dependent upon the price. Set the price too high and volume -- and therefore revenue -- craters. Counter intuitively, higher prices leads to lower revenue. Worse, if you fail to understand this relationship, you are tempted to increase the price again in an attempt to course correct. Of course doing so only winds up driving down volume further, and so on. Now take a look at PFS scenarios. As a result of repeated price hikes, they have gone from $4 to $9 at a pace that greatly exceeds inflation (in a period of historically high inflation!). Yet in the midst of such a rapid price escalation, Paizo has still had to cut back the production schedule for PFS scenarios. To be clear, this is not concern trolling. I genuinely want PFS to succeed. What makes the situation particularly frustrating is that if you know a bit about economics it's really not that hard to spot the pattern here...or to guess what probably comes next. :/
I get that. The thing is, I'm not saying they should share more information than they do -- merely that it would be nice if there were a single place to see everything that they do decide to share. As it stands, you have to look at the release schedule page, individual product listings as they are posted (and if there is an easy way to see these, I've not figured it out), the blog, and sometimes Twitch streams.
It is kinda crazy that there isn't a single place to see all announced products. I mean there is this, but it doesn't show the further out releases.
"marginal cost of production" is a pretty useless metric to use for digital pricing. It is actually particularly relevant, and this is why: nearly all of the costs are fixed, which means that each marginal sale is almost all profit, which in turn means the way to maximize profit is to sell the largest number of units possible (i.e. increase quantity supplied). For a very elastic good like a RPG adventure, the way to do that is to move rightward along the demand curve by lowering price (and therefore spreading the high fixed costs over the largest quantity possible). Of course this could be taken to a ridiculous extreme ("Make the price $.01!"), but that is always the case. I would argue that, at $9, a PFS scenario is clearly a poor value compared to Paizo's other adventure products, meaning that if those other products are priced correctly -- and I believe they are -- the PFS scenario is priced above the the point at which it would generate maximum profits.
I'm late to the party, and while I do not find the prices increases to be unreasonable in almost all cases, $9 is completely non-tenable for a PFS scenario. There is nothing "sustainable" about it; if anything, it is exactly the opposite; you're going to accidentally kill the line. To be clear, this is not just someone being cheap; this is someone who minored in economics in college telling you that this move was a bad idea, and exactly why. Namely, price elasticity of demand. Not only do scenarios compare very poorly value-wise at $9 to all of your other adventure offerings, but somewhat counter-intuitively, raising prices can often drive down volume, decreasing revenue -- and ultimately, profit. This is especially true in the case of highly discretionary purchases, such as an RPG adventure. Furthermore, a PDF has a very low marginal cost of production, meaning any revenue you realize from the an increase in sales volume associated with a lower price is almost pure profit. There were already issues with the financial viability of PFS scenarios which were not corrected by previous price increases, as evidenced by the reduced scenario production schedule. Why double-down on a strategy that has already clearly failed? Of course, all of this also completely ignores the promotional value of PFS, which as a former VL I know to be significant...if admittedly difficult to quantify. Sorry to vent, but this is exactly the wrong way to right the financial ship with respect to PFS scenarios. I hope you course correct before you draw all the wrong conclusions and end up killing the scenario line altogether.
Any updates on this? Monster Core is two months out. It would be nice to have some idea of when we might expect the corresponding pawns.
Sorry if i am being silly. What is the difference between Player Core and Player core 2? Despite the title, Player Core 2 doesn't contain the core rules required for play. Rather, it contains additional classes, races, feats, etc. useful to people who already have Player Core. In short, if you're looking to get into the game, you need Player Core.
Re Forums - while there may be some changes in particulars, Forums are something we plan to keep and are working up details on. The community is a vibrant part of Paizo and we want to continue to support it here. That is good to "hear." While we're on the topic of the forums, PLEASE consider adding an (oft-requested) ignore function. I understand why Paizo has refused to do this in the past, but the time has come. There are people on the forums with whom I simply no longer wish to engage, ever (and for what it's worth, I except the converse is also true). If nothing else, adding an ignore function should go a long way toward reducing the amount of moderation the forums require.
Personally, I wish striking runes didn't exist at all. It would be much better to just have the extra damage come from the wielding character's level. It would even make more sense for the "realism" people: A better fighter hits for more damage. But that would go way past the "small" qualifier, so... Failing that, I would endorse your suggestion but for the fact that it would be too confusing when dealing with older material (especially if one isn't sure if it is pre or post remaster).
Price has been updated from $4.99 to $1.99, as quests are shorter and have less content than a full-length scenario.Where can I find the $2 version of the quest? Wanted to run some old ones before maybe taking my group into season 5. I don't think $2 quests are a thing any more (which is unfortunate, as $5 is way too steep for a quest imo).
I saw this screenshot on Reddit.
I'd like it if the way stealth reacts with initiative were cleaned up. Right now it feels very odd that one party can be "in combat" without having actually seen an enemy, and then have to use the "seek" action to find one. Maybe it's just me misunderstanding how that is supposed to work, but it feels clunky to me. I also would like it if they'd do away with the weirdness around trying to move a short distance, then jump, then keep moving. Right now RAW is three actions: Stride, Jump, Stride, even if the total distance moved is only (for instance) 20 feet.
Yay for pocket editions. Now can you please give me back the vision I had twenty years ago? :P
Having done both at one time or another, the TV route is definitely better (and nowadays, quite cost effective, even for larger screens). A few suggestions if you go the TV route: * You'll likely need to pick up an HDMI cable with a 90 degree angle at one end (or an 90 degree adapter). * If you have a choice, you want a TV with a relatively flat back. That way you can use cheap rubber feet (for airflow) and just set it down on your table. * Don't worry about paying extra for resolution -- and old 1080P TV should be fine at the sizes you need. I've even used a 32" 720P TV once, and it was a little pixelated if you got up close, but worked fine. * Most importantly, don't spend a ton. TVs aren't designed to be left on their back, and it can be unhealthy for the screen over the long term. Best case scenario you grab one from someone who is upgrading for free/cheap.
I did say "to the extent it is copyrightable." I'm very curious where the line is for any type of bird-bear hybrids, but establishing that the idea predates Gygax is an important part of that. I swear sometimes the legal system is so crazy. Oftentimes one cannot really know how something is going to shake out until it is tested in court (and possibly not even then). I think I remember reading a story that the origin of many of D&D monsters was a bag of cheap, imported plastic toys purchased from the equivalent of the dollar store.
If creating a cake is art, then creating a mini is art. Art is automatically protected at creation. "Beak-Bear," to the extent it is copyrightable, belongs to the mini guy. I do not believe that is correct. The art that is protected by copyright in your scenario is (only) that specific sculpture. "Beak-bear" is uncopyrightable, because it is an idea. So one could not take a cast of the sculpture and start cranking out copies, but one would be entirely free to create one's own sculpture of a conceptually identical creature. Generally speaking, copyright protects expression, while trademarks protect creations. Think of it this way: copyright stops me from selling copies of The Sorcerer's Stone, while it is trademark protections which prevent me from writing a book about the wizard Harry Potter. Note: I am not a lawyer, but I did survive business law as an undergrad (i.e. back in the before times).
Sorry, missed a step, I normally right mouse click on the map image and copy image and save it in Paint, then use that image in Posterazor. To get the sizing right, just count how many squares in the grid, and times by 2.5 cms (or 1 inch, depending on what measurement system you have set). Coincidentally, I was just doing this very thing getting ready to GM at a local con. One thing I would add to sanwah68's instructions: The process can be a little tricky if you don't have a printer capable of edge-to-edge printing (which I, sadly, do not). In which case you have to add a little bit of overlap to account for the non-printable area of the paper (which will vary according to your specific printer model). Happily, PosteRazor supports this. I find it is helpful to do a "dry run" print of a single page in low-quality grey scale (or "draft" mode if your printer offers it) just to make sure I've gotten the sizing and margins right.
Removed baiting, harassing, and off topic posts and their quotes. Thank you for the note (and for removing the posts; some of them weren't my finest moment *sigh*).
My impression of the whole spell lists thing: 2E was Paizo's first crack at dividing two big piles of spells into four lists; there were bound to be hiccups. I do generally agree the arcane list is a bit lackluster, and I hope they address it in the remaster. Personally -- and admittedly this is kinda beside the point -- I'm not sure I see the thematic case for the occult list at all. Folding it back into the other lists -- principally arcane -- seems like it would solve a lot of problems. Then the Witch could just become a wizard archetype. Of course this would be far beyond the scope of a remaster, so...
Oh, no doubt. It has "clueless MBA" written all over it. And yeah, it's a short term hit, but in the long term it's best to sever relations when a partner repeatedly demonstrates that they cannot be trusted.
It seems to me that WotC did what WotC is wont to do: They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by boosting their competition. Again. Overall I prefer 5E as a rules system to Pathfinder 2E; I simply cannot in good conscience financially support a company that behaves as WotC repeatedly has. Paizo ain't perfect, but they're leagues better than WotC, and they seem to genuinely try to learn from their mistakes.
I just want to go on record as saying that "Rusthenge" is one of the most evocative titles I've ever seen...I feel like it could give someone tetanus. :P
Thank you for circling back around; the explanation was appreciated. I'm sorry I allowed what I perceived as unwarranted snark to get my hackles up; I should have just let it go.
Edit: Disagree all you like, but the sarcasm was both unnecessary and unproductive. There is a nasty pattern on this website of late of mocking anyone who so much as suggests that Paizo might be anything short of infallible. Sure, it's amusing...but it's not healthy. Not for the website, and certainly not for the games those responsible claim to love.
|
