# Kelebrar's page

35 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.

Megistone wrote:
Kelebrar wrote:
Megistone wrote:
I'd rather add an entry in the initiative table (like: "Tom's Frightened condition ticks down" at initiative count 12, while Tom has delayed to count 3 or maybe into the next 'round', acting at count 19) than put a nonsensical limit to the players' actions.

It is not a nonsensical limit to the players' actions. It simply is a different abstraction of the round structure. And many games implement a similar abstraction.

You can prefer one or the other, but why call it nonsensical?

There is no in-game explanation for that, that's why I call it nonsensical. The 'end of a round' as the moment where the initiative count resest is a concept that is completely out-of-game.

You have A, B and C acting in this order.
A could delay to act after B and before C, B could do the same and act after C and before A, but C absolutely can't: it either acts now, or they miss a whole round. Why can't it just wait for a little bit, and must do it in 6 seconds increments only, while the others can instead?

C can't delay because is last in initiative order. This is a disadvantage to be low in initiative order. If A "Delay" after C, then C can "Delay" in subsequent rounds.

Whit this abstraction, a round is just a self-contained amount of time (6 seconds in this case) in which you partition the continuous flux of action, and the iniziative just determine in which order the actions happen in this 6 seconds. If you have high initiative, you have the possibility to wait for the right moment to strike, if you have low initiative, you have lesser control on when you act (but you can't use this advantage repeatedly, because using it you will lower your initiative, giving eventually this advantage back to your foe). You resolve this 6 seconds completely, before proceed to the next 6 seconds.

Many excellent RPGs use a similar concept.

Ubertron_X wrote:

While we are at this, is there a rule or recommendation how to return to the initiative track when two or more parties are delaying?

For example if we have the following initiative track:

1) Cleric
2) Monster
3) Fighter

The cleric does not want to go first because he wants to see how things play out and may want to drop a defensive spell or heal later this round. So the cleric delays.

The monster does not want to act either because it has a couple of close range, multi-action attacks and hopes that the fighter will stride to close the distance. So the monster delays.

The fighter strides, strikes and raises his shield. His turn ends.

Now both parties have the opportunity to decide if they want to come back and act, but who announces and/or acts when, especially in case of conflict, i.e. both want to be the first or last to act after the fighter has completed his turn?

If the cleric acts first he could e.g. drop a high level Darkness on the fighter, making monster retaliation difficult. If the monster acts first it may attack without impediments.

I will probably let the combatants choose if re-enter initiative in original initiative order: first ask to the Cleric if he want to re-enter. If so, the Monster can't re-enter yet (thematically the Cleric has still the advantage of the higher initiative result, and reacts faster that the monster). If the Cleric don't re-enter, the Monster can decide if re-enter.

Megistone wrote:
I'd rather add an entry in the initiative table (like: "Tom's Frightened condition ticks down" at initiative count 12, while Tom has delayed to count 3 or maybe into the next 'round', acting at count 19) than put a nonsensical limit to the players' actions.

It is not a nonsensical limit to the players' actions. It simply is a different abstraction of the round structure. And many games implement a similar abstraction.

You can prefer one or the other, but why call it nonsensical?

Ubertron_X wrote:
Kelebrar wrote:
Exactly. And Step 2 happens when you re-enter initiative order, and so you complete the rest of your turn.

However even if you are correct this sentence is very much killing this suggested course of action: "Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative consequences that would happen on your turn or to extend beneficial effects that would end on your turn."

So if you delay within a round the negative effects would be applied once in this round, and once in the next round, when you start your next turn.

If however you delay from this round into the next round (and before you forfeit your actions), the GM is advised to apply the negative effects once in the first round and once again in the next round, no matter how often you act or how your turns are split, simply by the "no shenanigans" rule section.

I agree with you that if I let the players "Delay" into the next round, I will apply the negative effects even when they act (if they act in the next round). I will not re-trigger them if they re-enter initiative order in the same round. In this way you preserve the correct duration of the effect.

Simply I think that not let "Delay" into the next round is a more simple and elegant solution to obtain this.

Unicore wrote:
Quote:
The GM might determine that other effects end when you Delay as well. Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative consequences that would happen on your turn or to extend beneficial effects that would end on your turn.

This seems pretty clear. The GM makes sure that the players cannot "game" the delay function to get around bad effects or extend positive ones.

You don't need to do a deep dive on any of the language above this sentence about what it means when you delay, because fundamentally it is supposed to be up to the GM AND the GM should not allow duration shenanigans.

If you can't "Delay" into the next round, no duration shenanigans will happen, and every effect lasts exactly the right amount of time.

Gary Bush wrote:
Kelebrar wrote:

Could you please show me where the rules say so?

And what does it means then "The rest of your turn doesn’t happen yet." (page 470)?
He is pointing you to page 470 of CRB where that sentence is located.

Actually I'm pointing to this sentence :)

Ubertron_X wrote:
Kelebrar wrote:
And what does it means then "The rest of your turn doesn’t happen yet."(page 470)?

The rest of your turn doesn't happen yet means that a couple of things out of step 1 and 3 of a regular turn order do happen when you delay, all other steps and substeps that are not mentioned in the delay rule do not happen (page 469).

Step 1
* Reduce duration for effects that you have created => happens when you delay
* Recovery checks => happens when you delay

* Can use "start of turn" free actions or reactions => does not happen
* Regain actions => does not happen

* "Do anything else at start of turn" => depends, if it is a negative effect it happens when you delay, else not

Step 2 => does not happen at all

Step 3
* End all effects that last until end of turn => happens when you delay
* Persistent damage => happens when you delay

* Can use "end of turn" free actions or reactions => does not happen
* "Do anything else at end of turn" => depends, if it is a negative effect it happens when you delay, else not

The only thing I am not 100% sure is conditions like frightened, which are negative conditions but would be reduced at the end of your turn. Probably falls under "Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative consequences that would happen on your turn...", else you would indeed be able to get rid of frightened 2 in 1 round just by delaying.

Exactly. And Step 2 happens when you re-enter initiative order, and so you complete the rest of your turn.

GM OfAnything wrote:
Kelebrar wrote:
In my opinion you don't take the negative effects twice in the same round: you are not playing two turns, you just "split" your turn in two distinct parts ("The rest of your turn doesn’t happen yet.", under "Delay" action, page 470). First you take the negative effects and select the "Delay" action, then, when you re-enter initiative, you complete your turn.
This is where you are wrong. When you Delay, you are taken out of initiative. When you return to initiative, you have a complete turn including a beginning and end.

Could you please show me where the rules say so?

And what does it means then "The rest of your turn doesn’t happen yet." (page 470)?

MaxAstro wrote:
Yes, delaying can cause you to get hit by persistent damage twice in one round. I think that is on purpose. Sitting around and hesitating while you are on fire isn't smart.

Typically in a cyclic round system when you and another character are, for example, first and second in the iniziative order, you can swap the order with your mate. This is actually using the "Delay" action. So do you imply that you will take twice the negative effects this round because you swapped position with the other player character?

If it is so, I can rewrite the previous example just changing when you re-enter: if you delay and then re-enter into the same round, you are ending a 5 rounds negative effect in 3 rounds (about 18 seconds) instead of 5 (about 30 seconds):

Round 1: you "Delay" and you trigger the negative effect (4 rounds of negative effect remain). You re-enter later in this round, and re-trigger the effect. (3 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 2: you "Delay" and you trigger the negative effect (2 rounds of negative effect remain). You re-enter later in this round, and re-trigger the effect. (1 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 3: the negative effect triggers and ends.

Ubertron_X wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Yes, delaying can cause you to get hit by persistent damage twice in one round. I think that is on purpose. Sitting around and hesitating while you are on fire isn't smart.

.

If a player starts to delay in round 1 he will immediately get hit by persistent damage because the delay rules say so:

CRB wrote:
When you Delay, any persistent damage or other negative effects that normally occur at the start or end of your turn occur immediately when you use the Delay action.

If the player is taking his turn (doesn't matter if still in round 1 or already in round 2) and the persistant damage is still in effect (remember the DC15 flat after the first occurance) he will again get hit by persistant damage because the persistant damage rules say so:

.
CRB wrote:
Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time.
As far as I can see (but I may be wrong) there is nothing in the rules that prohibits potentially taking the damage twice in one round.

The "Delay" action is not the action you take when you re-enter initiative, but the free action you select to delay. It is when you select the "Delay" action that you trigger the negative effect.

In my opinion you don't take the negative effects twice in the same round: you are not playing two turns, you just "split" your turn in two distinct parts ("The rest of your turn doesn’t happen yet.", under "Delay" action, page 470). First you take the negative effects and select the "Delay" action, then, when you re-enter initiative, you complete your turn.

Typically in a cyclic round system when you and another character are, for example, first and second in the iniziative order, you can swap the order with your mate. This is actually using the "Delay" action. So do you imply that you will take twice the negative effects this round because you swapped position with the other player character?

Just to make it clear: I certainly know the round concept used in many d20 games, I played 3e, 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. "Delay" into the next round make perfect sense, and have precise tactical effects on combat.

I just noted the different wording used in Pathfinder 2e and as they explicitly says that you can't "Delay" to delay the negative effects. But Delay multiple times into the next round let you do exactly this: delay the negative effects. My interpretation is that they are confining "Delay" in the same combat round to assure that the effects trigger once every combat round.

GM OfAnything wrote:

The rulebook also says that if a rule can be read two ways, choose the reading that makes sense. The only reading that makes sense is that you can delay an entire round into the next.

And the only way to assure that an effect trigger exactly once every round, is that you can't "Delay" into the next round.

Example:

Just as example, assume that you have a negative effect on you with duration of 30 seconds (5 rounds). There are 8 partecipant in combat. You are last in initiative order.
Round 1: you "Delay". You don't do any other action or activity in this round, you just trigger the effects. (4 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 2: you re-enter initiative as 7th and complete your turn. You don't retrigger the negative effects.
Round 3: you "Delay". You don't do any other action or activity in this round, you just trigger the effects. (3 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 4: you re-enter initiative as 6th and complete your turn. You don't retrigger the negative effects.
Round 5: you "Delay". You don't do any other action or activity in this round, you just trigger the effects. (2 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 6: you re-enter initiative as 5th and complete your turn. You don't retrigger the negative effects.
Round 7: you "Delay". You don't do any other action or activity in this round, you just trigger the effects. (1 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 8: you re-enter initiative as 4th and complete your turn. You don't retrigger the negative effects.
Round 9: the negative effect triggers and ends.

The negative effect should have a duration about 30 seconds and end at round 5, its duration was of about 54 seconds instead and ended at round 9. This is not as the durations are intended, I think.

(And note that more the combatants, more times you can use "Delay" to "delay" the negative effects)

GM OfAnything wrote:

Going last is exactly the same as going first in the second round.

You can't delay past where your initiative would be in the next round, but nothing stops you from delaying into the next round.

Quote from the 2e rulebook:

Pathfinder 2e, page 470 wrote:

If you Delay an entire round without returning to the initiative order, the actions from the Delayed turn are lost, your initiative doesn’t change, and your next turn occurs at your original position in the initiative order.

This can be read both ways. "Delay" an entire round (as per definition at page 368) can mean until the end of the round. If your initiative is last (the last turn before the end of the round) you can't delay any further.

In Pathfinder 1e srd you can find this phrase under "Combat Round":

Pathfinder 1e srd wrote:

When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

And, under "Initiative Consequences of Delaying":

Pathfinder 1e srd wrote:

Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again).

If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

If I didn't miss any rule, this is not what Pathfinder 2e says about "Round" and "Delay". Moreover, Pathfinder 2e rules specify the part about negative effects as discussed.

That in my opinion suggests that the "Delay" action in 2e works differently from Pathfinder 1e and that you can't "Delay" into the next round.

Super Zero wrote:

That's exactly the same effect as moving from "first" to "last" (which isn't accurate anyway, since both are part of a cycle; "first" is only first when the battle starts).

You're also actively trying to game the system, and you're still paying the massive cost of completely skipping your turn. You'll still suffer the negative effect the same number of times, too. All you really accomplished was losing a turn.

You can move from first to last just one time, because if you can't "Delay" into the next round, you are now last and you can't "Delay" anymore. So no, this is not the same effect.

The massive cost of skipping your turn has nothing to do with the discussion topic. I'm not arguing about game balance, nor I'm saying that a cyclic initiative system is a bad or good system. I'm just saying what in my opinion the rules say.

Super Zero wrote:

Which is exactly the same as waiting the same number of turns within a round. It doesn't make any difference.

There is a difference. If I am last in turn order and I "Delay", I trigger the negative effects in the moment I delay. I then re-enter initiative as second-to-last into the next round, completing my turn, without trigger any negative effects (I have already triggered them). I re-trigger them one round later as second-to-last, nearly 2 round from the previous trigger. Then I "Delay" one more time... I'm triggering the negative effects nearly once every 2 rounds, and I think this is not the rule intent.

If you can't "Delay" into the next round, you trigger the negative effects exactly once every round (as defined at page 468).

SuperBidi wrote:

There could be a question for negative effects happening at the start of your turn.

But the sentence "Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative
consequences that would happen on your turn or to extend
beneficial effects that would end on your turn." is quite clear. If there's a choice between double negative effect and delayed negative effect, the answer is double effect.

There is not a choice. It seems clear to me that you apply the negative effects in your turn, when you select the "Delay" action, not later in the round when you re-enter initiative order: (Page 470) "When you Delay, any persistent damage or other negative effects that normally occur at the start or end of your turn occur immediately when you use the Delay action. Any beneficial effects that would end at any point during your turn also end."

You conclude your turn later in the round if you re-enter initiative order, but you have already applied the negative effects for this round.

In this way, and if you can't "Delay" into the next turn, you apply the negative effects exactly once every turn, and I think this is the rule intent.
The part you quoted is necessary, otherwise if you "Delay" without applying the negative effects, and then you skip your turn because you don't re-enter initiative order, you will miss the negative effects part for this round.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Kelebrar wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

The rules for Delaying anticipate that and say:

CRB p. 470 wrote:

When you Delay, any persistent damage or other negative

effects that normally occur at the start or end of your turn occur
immediately when you use the Delay action. Any beneficial
effects that would end at any point during your turn also end.
The GM might determine that other effects end when you
Delay as well. Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative
consequences that would happen on your turn or to extend
beneficial effects that would end on your turn.

So you can delay as much as you want, but you're not escaping any bad stuff or prolonging any good stuff.

Sure, but I think that you don't re-trigger them when you re-enter initiative order.

Otherwise, if you re-enter turn order in the same round, you would trigger the negative effect twice in same round.

Yes, delaying when you're on fire is bad. That's working as intended.

Kelebrar wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Ah, that's incorrect. There's also a different definition, as given in the Spells chapter:

CRB p. 304 wrote:

Durations

The duration of a spell is how long the spell effect lasts.
Spells that last for more than an instant have a Duration
entry. A spell might last until the start or end of a turn, for
some number of rounds, for minutes, or even longer. If a
spell’s duration is given in rounds, the number of rounds
remaining decreases by 1 at the start of each of the
spellcaster’s turns, ending when the duration reaches 0.

The important word really is "round". The game goes round and round and everyone gets a turn in order (unless they Delay and change the order).

When you roll initiative, for a brief...

I certainly understand the "round" concept for spell duration and in general the round concept as for 3.5. It just seems to me that Pathfinder 2e uses a different round definition in Encounter Mode.

Edit: better wording.

Nope,...

The parts you quoted from the manual do not prove your point. I mean, it is possible that you are right, just I don't see any evidence of it in the text you quoted.

I think instead that what Melfast quoted indicates that the "Delay" action could not be completed into the next round (as defined at page 468), and that the description of the "Delay" action indicates that you will not re-trigger the negative effects: (page 470) "the rest of your turn doesn’t happen yet" seems to indicate that in the first part of your turn you trigger the negative effects and declare the delay. Then you are going to complete you turn when re-enter initiative order: it is not a new turn, so no negative effects trigger.

Ascalaphus wrote:

The rules for Delaying anticipate that and say:

CRB p. 470 wrote:

When you Delay, any persistent damage or other negative

effects that normally occur at the start or end of your turn occur
immediately when you use the Delay action. Any beneficial
effects that would end at any point during your turn also end.
The GM might determine that other effects end when you
Delay as well. Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative
consequences that would happen on your turn or to extend
beneficial effects that would end on your turn.

So you can delay as much as you want, but you're not escaping any bad stuff or prolonging any good stuff.

Sure, but I think that you don't re-trigger them when you re-enter initiative order.

Otherwise, if you re-enter turn order in the same round, you would trigger the negative effect twice in same round.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Ah, that's incorrect. There's also a different definition, as given in the Spells chapter:

CRB p. 304 wrote:

Durations

The duration of a spell is how long the spell effect lasts.
Spells that last for more than an instant have a Duration
entry. A spell might last until the start or end of a turn, for
some number of rounds, for minutes, or even longer. If a
spell’s duration is given in rounds, the number of rounds
remaining decreases by 1 at the start of each of the
spellcaster’s turns, ending when the duration reaches 0.

The important word really is "round". The game goes round and round and everyone gets a turn in order (unless they Delay and change the order).

When you roll initiative, for a brief...

I certainly understand the "round" concept for spell duration and in general the round concept as for 3.5. It just seems to me that Pathfinder 2e uses a different round definition in Encounter Mode.

Edit: better wording.

SuperBidi wrote:
Negative effect triggers when you choose to delay. So, with your strategy, you'll take them more often actually. When you delay you take them and when you choose to act you take them. A bit more than once per round.

Yes, they trigger when you choose to delay, but you don't re-trigger them when you "complete" (re-enter initiative order) your turn. Otherwise, if you re-enter turn order in the same round, you would trigger the negative effect twice in same round.

So if you delay into the next round, the next time you will trigger them will be two rounds from the last trigger.

Edit: better wording.

I think you cannot delay in the next round, because otherwise you will be able to trigger any negative effect on your character less than one time every six seconds: if every turn you delay in the next round and act in a position one step better that your actual initiative position, you will trigger the negative effects nearly one time every two rounds.

There is only one definition of "round" in 2e: "A round begins when the participant with the highest initiative roll result starts their turn, and it ends when the one with the lowest initiative ends their turn. "

Jason Nelson wrote:

For reference, the caravan encounters were created based on the benchmarks in Table 1-1: Monster Statistics by CR on p. 291 in the Bestiary. However, as has been pointed out, those CRs were based on the operating principle of a PC party, with 4 PCs vs. one opponent. However, the mistake that we made, apparent in retrospect, is that the caravan isn't 4 PCs; it's *ONE* PC. As a result, those target CR benchmarks ended up 4 CR's too high.

Is it perhaps the same just make the caravan level = highest player level + 4 from the start (so starting the caravan at level = 5), and leave the encounter stats unchanged? Or, since the level just determines how many feats a caravan has, just start with 4 more feats and pretend that a first level caravan has 5 feats?

Could it introduce other problems?

I only readed through the latest four. My rating (that changes 1/week :) ) is:

1. Council of Thieves. IMHO, underrated. Excellent plot and some really wonderful chapters (2,3,4). The first adventure is a little bland, and the latest required a really skilled GM for shining. Suffer the absence of a Westcrown dedicated sourcebook.

2 (or 3). Kingmaker. Nice twist with kingdom-building and management rules. I find the first 3 adventures not much interesting plot-wise. I know it is a sandbox, but I think that you could have sandbox and a more interesting plot. I find the Stolen Land (as setting) not so charming.

3 (or 2). Serpent's Skull. I really like the idea of ancient cities and big archeological expeditions. Perhaps a little bit too much dungeon crawl in the second half.

4. Carrion Crown. I don't like the main plot that much and even if you want to do an horror AP, I don't think you really need to have Haunts, Frankenstein, Werewolves, Lovecraft, Vampire and Liches all in the same campaign and symmetrically divided in 6 episodes.

Perhaps wrong subforum. I'll repost it the "Council of Thieves" subforum.

I finished to run Haunting of Harrowstone,

Spoiler:

After Harrowstone I would like to run The Sixfold Trial, but I'm struggling to create a strong connection between the two adventures (I prefer that the two adventures don't seem unrelated).

Any suggestion?

I finished to run Haunting of Harrowstone,

Spoiler:

After Harrowstone I really like to run The Sixfold Trial, but I'm struggling to create a strong connection between the two adventures (I prefer that the two adventures don't seem unrelated).

Any suggestion?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
On the other hand, since the evolution pool is mutable at every level after 4 levels the evolution pool would go to something useful, and then you could switch it over to constitution at 8th level.

Sure, it is really powerful, more powerful that the gnome summoner option but at least it seems that a direct controntation is more complex to do than I thought.

Verik Jarrow wrote:
Its not quite as good as it seems though, for the first 3 level the gnome would have extra hp on his eidolon, the half-elf would have nothing. After that yes its clearly stronger, and for me I am not sure why half-elves should make better summoners. Or why summoners do not get the option to add to their spells known like every other spontaneous casting class.

You are right about this. Actually it is worst than this. The half-elf need 8 levels for buy the first ability increase, not only 4 (it costs 2 points). And for it to give a better HP bonus than the gnome HP bonus, the half-elf need to reach level 16.

So, perhaps, it is not quite as bad as it seems. Better at high level, but not necessary better at low/middle level.

I'm trying to understand if is the half-elf summoner favored class option "broken".

I know that some alternate favored class options are "better" than others, but usually they offer more and different options, not simply the same option but better.

I.e. the favored class option for a human sorcerer is really good, but you have to sacrifice HP or skill points. For someone HP could be better...

Now just compare the favored class option for a gnome summoner and a half-elf summoner:

- the gnome summorer can add 20 HP to the eidolon

- the half-elf summoner can add 5 evolution points to the eidolon. 4 of this 5 points could be spent for buy ability increase (con) two times (for a medium size eidolon), so +4 con, so 30 HP. And the half-elf has another evolution point for something else.

Is there something wrong about my understanding of this rule?

Lisa Stevens wrote:
Kvantum wrote:
March now? Seriously? How many delays can this book get?

Until it is as great as we can make it. This is a book that we want to keep in print for a LONG time, so taking the extra time to look it over one more time and catching a few more errors is worth it. A lot of companies are willing to sacrifice quality in order to hit deadlines. Not us. I would rather have a book be a lot late than to have it be something that we aren't proud of. And having stayed at work until almost midnight on Friday giving this book the last once-over, I have to say that I am very proud of this book and think it may very well be the single best campaign book I have ever seen. :)

-Lisa

I really hope that Paizo will continue to produce rpg books of this quality for many years.

I don't own the 2008 edition, so it's a MUST-BUY for me.

After reading all the posts, I'm no more so sure that the human/sorcerer favored class option is unbalanced. It's pretty strong, and a wonderful choice for someone who love the sorcerer but has always dreamed of being more versatile. But probably not game-breaking or a troublesome power creep.

BryonD wrote:
This change lets you drop the equivalent of one feat to gain the equivalent of one feat every level.

I agree with BryonD.

This favored class option seems strongly unbalanced. Probably there are other rules that we don't know yet, i.e. perhaps some of this new racial options could be selected only a limited number of times.

James Jacobs wrote:
There's no such thing as a "Jason Jacobs" though... at least... not to my knowledge!

Sorry, corrected :)

I've found an interesting explanation about core classes vs new base classes from Jason Bulmahn in an old blog post:

"In addition to the expansion of the core classes, this book will also contain six new base classes. They are called base classes because they go from level 1 to level 20, but they are not core classes. Confused? Allow me to explain. We are making an assumption that these new classes will take a role in our world (and possibly yours) that is less common. You will not find them in every adventure, nor will they appear in every product. That means that you can introduce them to your game in a more limited fashion, without having to retcon them into every facet of your campaign."

That help me to understand better what James Jacobs meant with his previous post, and I have to say that I like the philosophy that leaded the development of the new classes and that the 11 core classes remain the main, most common classes now and forever.

James Jacobs wrote:

Yup; which is 100% intentional and by design. The 11 core classes will probably ALWAYS have more options than the newer 6 base classes, simply because those 11 core classes are the core classes—they're the classes we know that folks have access to. (It's unrealistic to imagine that everyone who bought the core RPG will also by the APG... although that'd certainly be nice!).

We'll be supporting all 17 classes (core and base alike) going forward in new books, but we have no plans on doing a "catch up" product for the 6 base classes.

I asked this because my fear is that the core classes will become (using the new options) more powerful than the 6 new base classes, so that selecting one of the 6 new classes could seems a weaker choice for a player.

Could it be the case?

James Jacobs wrote:
There's about 75 or so pages of new options for the base classes. And that doesn't even count things like feats, new combat maneuvers, spells, magic items and prestige classes.

Does that means that the base classes will have more options (core rules+APG) than the six new classes in the APG? Or will the six new classes have alternate options too?