bugleyman's page

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.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

Game rules aka stuff that isn’t flavor isn’t copyrightable.

I'm not trying to win anything here. I just want to make sure any of my investment in PF2e ORC material is in the free and clear in terms of being free from a successful future WotC legal challenge.

Sorry, I don't get it. Aren't game mechanics copyrightable? Wouldn't text taken verbatim (unmodified) be a copyright violation?

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. ;-)

bugleyman wrote:

itschase wrote:

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.

I'd be surprised if such a product were financially viable. However, just one pawn box has never been enough, especially for low level baddies. So I'm hoping that this + my 2E bestiary pawn box will be about perfect.

But for your sake, I hope I'm wrong and they do release a set of just the stuff that is new to Monster Core. ;-)

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.

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
4 skeletons
2 wolves
2 mediums spiders
4 giant rats
2 ghosts
4 hobgoblins
4 orcs
2 oozes
4 heavily armored humanoids
...etc.

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.

Ed Reppert wrote:

So yesterday, as reported, I couldn't download this. Today...

The website says the zip file is 63.95 MB. Downloaded, got a 177 byte zip file. Tried the "problems? click here" link, got a 177 byte zip file. Unzipped it, got a zero byte file named "PZO2106E (ORC) - Flip-Mat". :-(

Sometimes, the old files stays in some cache somewhere. It happened to me once. Have you tried using a different browser/device to download it? That one time I "fixed" it by downloading it from a different device once, and it refreshed the cache on the original device somehow. (Computers', and even more so the internet's, internal workings are like the Dark tapestry.... you shall never gaze too long into it...)

Web browsers were never intended to be a robust application platform...we've just stretched them beyond their original purpose so far as to be almost unrecognizable. I know just enough about web programming to know that it isn't always obvious when a cache needs to be flushed. :-(

Maybe try private browsing mode? Or better yet, try with a completely different browser.

After a quick look, it seems there were indeed monster (and corresponding pawn) changes; more than seem strictly necessary, in fact.

One immediate bit of weirdness: The reef claw pawn is large, though the monster remains listed as small in the monster reference. I wonder if the pawn is wrong, or the remaster is substantially changing the reef claw.

Edit: Looking more closely at the pawns, it seems like the first two sheets are unchanged, but the last two sheets show a surprising amount of variation. Some monsters have been removed, others added, and several monsters which haven't been swapped still got new art.

I'm sure there are many interesting tidbits to be had here about the conceptual changes to some monsters. (I'm looking at you, ghoul stalker.)

I was just able to download the ORC version intact.

If anyone else is still having trouble, even after clicking the re-personalization link reference above, wait a minute or so and then click the download link again (even though nothing has visibly changed on teh page).

I do see in my Digital Content both the OGL and the ORC versions of the Beginner Box. However, the OGL version is only generating a broken 191 byte .ZIP file to download. And the new ORC version won't even generate a link to download anything.

I figure it's 'cause the changeover isn't finished yet (and that's why Katina or anyone else from Paizo hasn't commented on the file being up yet). But I also figure I'd comment the problem, in case someone needs to fix something to push the update through.

I see them both, and 191 and 177 bytes. Hopefully they'll get sorted today.

The Beginner Box is a fantastic product and a great value, even after a $5 price bump.

Very curious to see the remaster changes. I feel like they could be a little as a few spells renamed, or they might go as far as swapping out some of the pawns (drow, owlbear).

There is no way I could let my team have that kind of response time nor would I expect it from a company I bought goods from.

...
Having long response times like this would indicate that someone, somewhere, doesn't care or doesn't have the resources to fix the problem.

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.)

Whenever I actually finish organizing them, I'll just give you any you want. (Pending Cyz's approval, of course.)

Thank you; that is truly VERY kinda of you to offer, but you should sell them. Especially if you can get anywhere NEAR $7 a piece for them! If I remember your miniature collection correctly, that alone might be enough for you to retire yourself... :-P

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.

bugleyman wrote:

$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. ;-)

(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.

I am looking forward to the Unholy trait being in addition to Demon, Devil ...

No more nested traits FTW.

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. ;-)

Bluemagetim wrote:

Finding the right scroll among several scrolls in your pack might be hard to do if the scroll doesnt have tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing it and your in darkness.

If it is the only scroll in your bag it would probably be easily distinguished.

But is this something to get into and have checks on?

And does this apply to all other item types too?

Nothing says that bottled potions have any tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing them either.

If you have three daggers at your belt that are made of different metals and have different runes on them, can you tell which one is which in the dark?

Interesting.

If we really want to get that specific, I'd say the daggers are your belt are a clear exception. They are presumably sheathed and don't move around. The other items might be "loose" in a bag and tend to get jumbled up.

In practice I think I'd very likely just rule in favor of the player, unless, say, the contents of their bag had been dumped out and they had to sift through them to find what they were looking for.

"When in doubt, rule in favor of the player" has generally served me well as a GM. :-)

bugleyman wrote:

This was implied when someone asserted that people fumble for things in the dark in the real world, and someone else (you?) replied with a comment about people being unable to walk on water in the real world. My point was simply that THOSE TWO THINGS AREN'T REMOTELY THE SAME.

Fair enough. My apologies. I think we are talking past each other on that point.

Agreed. I apologize as well. I may or may not have a tendency to overreact to things I perceive as snarky. ;-)

My understanding of your response was more that using a scroll was not a magical or fantastical event, but was just a mundane one.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the designer's intention was, and so I'd rule in favor of the player. I'd also be inclined to think that disallowing a blind character from using scrolls wasn't Paizo's intent.

That said, this is a game that has evolved from a lineage of games where reading a scroll was explicitly required, so that can be hard to let go of.

By the way, I liked your key fob analogy; it was clever.

Did I read the post... that I wrote? Granted, it was under an alias, so...

I'm not being obtuse. I'm stating that the process of activating a magic scroll item may not actually need to involve reading. And may be a magical process rather than a mundane one - hence the need for having a spellcasting class feature in order to do it.

Consider: My car key fob has words on it too. But I don't need to see or read the item in order to use it to unlock my car door from 30 feet away. Something that would be considered quite magical to people in 1985.

First of all, if you weren't being obtuse, then a question about "real magic" only leaves snarky. So stop being snarky, it was uncalled for.

Second, I agree with everything else you wrote. If you believe that I disagree with you about scrolls, you're mistaken.

What I was objecting to was the implication that if reading WERE required, one would not need light to do it.

This was implied when someone asserted that people fumble for things in the dark in the real world, and someone else (you?) replied with a comment about people being unable to walk on water in the real world. My point was simply that THOSE TWO THINGS AREN'T REMOTELY THE SAME.

bugleyman wrote:

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?

Trying to guess a designer's intent is always kinda iffy, and harkens back to the worst of the "do you need a hand to provide first aid?" arguments of yore. Perhaps the designer didn't feel the need to specify that of course your character needs to read a scroll to activate it, any more than they felt the need to specified that Golarion has to have gravity to avoid characters floating off into space. It's just understood because that's how things work. On the other hand, perhaps the designer deliberately didn't apply the visual trait because they specifically intended that one needn't read a scroll to activate it. Absent a clear statement of intent, it's basically impossible for us to be sure.

Which leaves us with the GM making a ruling so we can have a functioning game. As for scrolls, I can see a GM ruling either way. Even if one assumes that the scroll must be read, perhaps the runes glow slightly as suggested up thread? The important thing is the GM makes a ruling and is consistent in the future.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

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.

I've also seen people struggle and outright fail to create blasts of fire, walk on the surface of water, and Treat diseases with crystals.

What does any of that have to do with game mechanics?

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.

I'm glad to see Paizo taking another shot at the "basic terrain" idea. I loved the idea of the basic terrain multipack, but the execution wound up too dark to show most pens.

I assume these are locked in this close to release, but in my opinion having a dungeon/stone map would be a better choice than a forest, as the grassy plain map can easily do double duty as forest. Of course, the holy grail of flip mat for me has always been grassy on one side, light stone/dungeon on the other, so I might be biased.

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)_/¯

Will this be released in a pocket edition? ;-)

I apologize if this has been answered before, but I could not find it. I am just finishing a multi year run of 1E's Mummy's Mask and starting prep for my next campaign. I have not played 2E at all yet. Not knowing better I have purchased the Remastered Player and GM Core books with Kingmaker 2E. As it takes my group about 5 years to finish a AP, am I better off keeping the AP 2E or convert it to 2E Remastered? This appears to be a much bigger deal than 3.0 to 3.5 conversion was.

Personally, I think of it as 2.25. Bigger than I first expected, as it does make some changes that clearly weren't forced by the OGL fiasco, but at the same time it falls short of the scope of the 3->3.5 changes.

Some of the not OGL-related things to look out for:
* Cantrip damage was changed
* Grab now requires a check
* Abilities are replaced by modifiers

Here's a good document to review if you haven't already: Remaster preview.

James Thomsen 568 wrote:

Thank you for making this more clear. Being a new player to 2E, I think I will learn the Remastered version as it is what will be going forward. That being said is there or will there be a document listing the name changes?

As an official document from Paizo, I don't believe so. The logistics of how to publish names we can only publish when we use the OGL in a way that allows us to make it an ORC-compatible license to use remastered content is... complicated.

I was just talking with some fellow PFS players about this, and because such a list would be SO useful -- and yet has been produced -- we concluded it must be an legal thing. Like, how can you put terms that are OGL and terms that are ORC in the same document without inviting trouble? Obviously I am not a lawyer, but it kinda seems like you just...can't.

Were I Paizo, I would assess the lower volume that usually sells for a PFS scenario and base my price on this so that I can be pretty sure to cover my fixed costs.

Any further sales would then be pure benefit.

Whereas if I bet on selling more and reduce my price accordingly but then fail in reaching my target, I would be losing money.

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. :/

Just what they've repeatedly said here in the forums and the common sense of 5e exploding, expanding the market in the last decade to a ridiculous number of ttrpgs players compared to pre 2014 levels.

Do you have a link to any posts about Paizo's profitability here in the forums? I'm genuinely curious what they've said, because in my experience, they play things like that close to the chest.

As for the size of the market corresponding to profitability, I'm afraid that doesn't really follow.

Paizo is the most profitable they've ever been.

Interesting. Out of curiosity, you have anything to support that claim?

As far as I know, Paizo is a privately held company, and as such doesn't publicly share sales or profitability information.

New Pawns.

For those asking about pawns.

bugleyman wrote:

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.

Companies tend to not publish release dates very far out. Too much can change, and buyers are often 'thankless' about it (remembering the delays, forgetting the on-times, leading to a skewed negative view of the company). So again, don't take my list as authoritative. I would be surprised if some of those dates didn't get pushed right. I would be amazed if none of them did.

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.

@Mika:

FYI this guy isn't showing up under accessories->pawns, but rather directly under accessories. Is that intentional?

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.

I'd be surprised if such a product were financially viable. However, just one pawn box has never been enough, especially for low level baddies. So I'm hoping that this + my 2E bestiary pawn box will be about perfect.

But for your sake, I hope I'm wrong and they do release a set of just the stuff that is new to Monster Core. ;-)

Excellent! I'll definitely pick this up.

Noooooooooo!

The next expected releases are:

Monster Core: March
Tian Xia World Guide: April
Howl of the Wild: May
Player Core 2: July
Tian Xia Character Guide: Aug
War of the Immortals: "October or Winter"

Note I pulled these from different places on Paizo's website, so no promises as to accuracy. I also did not scan for APs.

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.

lotrotk wrote:

Will there be pawns?

I don't know...but put me down as someone else who would buy them if there were.

Erik Mona implied that there will be some product to fill this need, but not when it will be released, or even exactly what it will look like.

I'll buy pawns if they release 'em. I wouldn't be opposed to punch-out tokens that sit flat on the table, either, if that is what it takes to make the product financially viable. Not only would that obviate the need for bases, but size M creatures -- the vast majority -- would require half the card stock. Heck, if you make the tokens double-sided and are careful with how each token lines up with the obverse, you could get it down to one quarter the card stock, in which case we might finally get enough low-level baddies without needing to buy multiple boxes. :-)

"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.

The rationale was laid out in the Paizo Pricing Sustainability Blog.

A couple questions: are you looking to be a regular host of Paizo games in a public place? If so, Venture Officers do get free copies of scenarios and Quests so that they can run a wide variety of adventures for their groups.

Also if you are GMing for a Paizo Supported Convention (including online conventions like the upcoming PaizoCon), Paizo will drop you copies of the adventures that you are running for free.

These are two things that might help stretch those dollars a bit.
Hmm

Thank you for the link; it is appreciated.

I'm actually a former VL, so I'm pretty familiar with convention support.

However, I stand by my argument that $9 is not a viable price for a FPS scenario. There is nothing "sustainable" about it; if anything, it is exactly the opposite. To be clear, this is not just someone being cheap; this is someone who minored in econ in college telling Paizo 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 other (Paizo and non-Paizo) adventure offerings, but they are very likely to generate *less* revenue, not more, than they would at a lower price. Paizo has priced themselves out of the market, which will kill volume -- and therefore revenue. There were already issues with the health of PFS content that were not corrected by previous price increases, as evidenced by the reduced scenario production. Additional price increases are likely to make things worse, not better.

All of which 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 thing to do to right the PFS ship. I hope they course correct before they draw all the wrong conclusions and kill the scenario line altogether.

So...when did the price of scenarios increase to $9? And why? What have I missed?

I hope it wasn't as simple as comparing the cost of production vs. revenue on a per scenario basis, because such an analysis misses the point. Not only would it ignore the promotional value of PFS, but it (more importantly) ignores price elasticity of demand. As with a grounding in economics know, increasing the prices of something can *reduce* the total revenue depending on the shape of the demand curve. I would posit that the demand for PFS scenarios is likely very elastic, meaning a $9 may have an effect exactly opposite to that which was intended. At $9 for a scenario, overall revenue per scenario is likely to *decrease*, making scenarios completely financially nonviable. Furthermore, the price of the scenario is borne almost exclusively by GMs, which is the last group you want to dissuade from participating in PFS.

I sincerely hope I've misunderstood the situation, because if I haven't this looks like a bad misstep on Paizo's part, and one that seems likely to further damage a campaign I rather enjoy participating in on occasion. :-(

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.

I can tell you they aren't removing or renaming striking runes for sure because they appear in Rage of the Elements. In general, I think we'd need an edition change to make something that big. And I say that as someone who use like 60% sure he'd prefer less item bonuses. I think my ideal solution would be striking runes become inherent and item bonuses come from improved weapon quality rather than magic.

But it is just too baked into APs and such for now to get rid of for anything but a variant rule.

100% agree. But I can dream. ;-)

...that's exactly what ABP is there for?

Yes, it is. But that's really not the same thing as being the default way the game works.