bugleyman's page

Tariffs have to be legislated...

For the most part, that is not actually the case in the U.S. All the president needs to do to unilaterally impose tariffs is decide that the imports in question are “fostering U.S. dependence on unreliable or unsafe imports.”

There's also the fact that the president-elect doesn't have a record of caring one whit about formalities like legality, but that's dancing pretty close to politics, so I'll leave it at that.

Alex Speidel wrote:

Tomppa wrote:

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

I have written the text above in a very deliberate way, and I am aware that I wrote "increasing" and not "changing."

This is one of the more common ways rules are written to lead to gray areas.

If an inn has a sign that says "no red dragons"* Can a green dragon book a room?Conversationally The answer should be yes. There is no reason to specify red dragon specifically except to allow other dragons. Logically the answer is "unknown" because the exclusion of a red dragon doesn't automatically allow a green one. (Denying the antecedent would be the fancy name for it if I've had enough coffee to read wiki right...)

If the intent is allow the DM to decrease the difficulty of the encounters to account for taste, newguy not losing their first character, or dice being cursed it should be specified under the DM may. Otherwise the implication of increasing vs. changing the difficulty has to be weighed against the lack of such a rule where it should be and different dms will read those two things very differently.

*honestly one snore and there goes the roof

100%. Honestly, if you find yourself having to explain why you wrote something a particular way -- which Alex just did -- imo that's a strong indicator that it needs to be rewritten.

So. Much. Better.

If I'm reading this correctly, it should let GMs work around obvious editing problems and other errors without wondering whether they're running afoul of "run as written."

It also adds some flexibility. For example, the new mention of maps would not only allow GMs to use similar flip mat if they have a great thematic match that just isn't exactly the one specified, it should also allow subbing in better alternatives for some of the earlier maps that were made using flip tiles (which in some cases were quite poorly done).

I think this change, if enacted, would make for better player experiences at the table, and let GMs facilitate those experiences without having to worry about whether they're bending the rules. In the end, I believe that is precisely the sort of changes we want to be making.

Edit: Random, but I wonder why I show as a one star 1E GM on the OP board. I have four (as I said) if I click on my profile. I blame TOZ.

Mythic bugleyman wrote:

Mythic in a nutshell. ;-)

House rule mythic proficiency is now +11

Ok, that was pretty clever.

For anyone who might be interested, there is actually a sequel inbound.

Mythic in a nutshell. ;-)

Yes, there does seem to have been a downturn. I certainly post far, FAR, FAR less than I used to (which some would say is a good thing, but I digress). I also agree that some of the problem is a lack of features that have become commonplace on other forums (ignore feature, SPAM mitigation, etc.).

I think it's worth mentioning, however, that there is real value in Paizo maintaining its own forums, however clunky. For those who may be unaware, Reddit in particular has been up to some shenanigans recently with respect to charging search engines prohibitive amounts for the API access necessary to index the site, effectively locking out smaller players and ultimately contributing to a tiered, pay-to-play Internet. In my opinion that sort of behavior is extremely bad for everyone.

I guess I really don’t get the concept. Why have the adventures linked, but not be targeted at the same characters? It seems like a strange way to present a narrative and feels like an ersatz yet abbreviated AP... As for any comparisons to Dungeon about the only thing I see is that they are wildly different in level and vary in length. Dungeon adventures often ran the gamut of campaign settings, length, tone, level and obviously, theme.

I think the idea is that they're not presenting a narrative, but several independent (though admittedly related) narratives which can be dropped in wherever convenient for a particular group (much like Dungeon adventures).

At least that's my hope. :-)

Dungeon was absolutely fantastic; I'm just not sure the economics of the format make sense any more, at least not in print form.

I do like that Paizo is doing an adventure anthology, and will scoop it up in PDF just to support the format.

Edit: Ninja'ed by JJ.

Listen, I'm running a city adventure, Curse of the Crimson Throne. I need this book today:)

It seems like a very useful book. I've always wondered why the NPC codex didn't seem to get much traction.

Will this copy and remaster the statblocks from gamemastery or are these 100% new? Or whats the ratio of remaster/new?

This seems more akin to the NPC Codex from 1E than the 2E Gamemastery Guide.

Elfteiroh wrote:

olimar92 wrote:

This better be a thick book for a $70 price tag. The Monster Core is cheaper.

The 4 "Core" books (Player Core, Player Core 2, GM Core, and Monster Core) are set to lower prices than all other books "for now", as mentioned in the Paizo Pricing & Sustainability Update blog post.

So yeah, no other books' price should be compared to them.
based on the blog post linked above, $69.99 should be for a 256 pages book. Being advertized as having 250+ stat blocks, plus a couple extra templates to change the ancestry/theme of most of these stat blocks, that sounds like a close approximation (the Gamemaster Guide had often 2 blocks per pages, so there will be some contraction there to make space for the lore.)
(If the Monster Core book wasn't specifically one of the loss leader books, it would probably be $79.99 based on that same blog, as it had a bit more than 370 pages.)

Then don't name the new one "Core" if it's not, in fact, core :/

^ This right here. It doesn't contain the core rules. It doesn't carry the core pricing. It isn't core in any meaningful sense of the word, no matter what is written on the tin.

Maybe it's just me, but I believe that words have meaning, and so die inside a little bit when a perfectly good word is sacrificed on the altar of marketing. :-/

How about a weakness to piercing that only triggers on crits? If a crit is a hit to the most vulnerable area, for Achilles that could well be the heel.

Updated with a third PDF that have the inside of the screen split per pages.

Excellent! Thank you.

Edit: And bought. I figure if I'm going to b+%%& when things aren't well done I should put my money where my mouth is when they get fixed. Seems only fair. ;-)

Any chance we can get preview images for flip-mats back?

Some third party sites will post them once the maps come out, but it would be very nice to be able to see what flip-mats look like without having to go looking.

Personally, as someone who has written more than a few bits of technical documentation, I have come to believe that one of the "problems" with Pathfinder 2E is that it is inconsistent with the level of specificity in the wording of the rules. Sometimes the rules goes into exacting detail, which, while helpful, understandably creates the expectation that the entire rule set will be written with a similar philosophy. But then, in other places where it is much "looser" with wording, people are left to draw inferences...inferences which are shaped, in part, by that expectation of clarify. I believe it is this inconsistency which has spawned many of 2E's biggest "RAI" vs. "RAW" debates.

The "you don't need an appendage in order to administer first aid" arguments of yore were a perfect example. You had people arguing, in apparent good faith, that someone with no limbs could administer first aid, solely because the game didn't explicitly state that a hand (or limb) was required. Which seems rather ridiculous, until you see other places in the rules which do explicitly state that a hand is required, even though the activity in question obviously required less manual dexterity than treating wounds. Personally, I feel that is like arguing that gravity isn't necessary in order to come down after a jump because the rules don't explicitly state that it is, and yet this argument spawned dozens of pages of (sometimes quite combative) back-and-forth. My big takeaway from that is that that simple existence of amount of debate meant that that the rules were unclear, almost by definition.

My point is that PF2E tried to move the rules into a much more codified direction, which I think was a laudable goal, but their implementation was hit-and-miss.

My advice to Paizo: When the time inevitably comes for a 3E, if you continue on the path of codification with the rules, please involve a technical writer. You'll thank yourself later. ;-)

Here's the D&D stone giant It has a rounded head, and more round features overall.

Here's the Pathfinder stone giant More elongated and angular head, and rockier features overall.

To me, Pathfinder stone giants do have a very distinctive look, one that we have had from book 3 of Rise of the Runelords on.

Agreed. I remember thinking they looked distinct right when Pathfinder #3 was released.

Just checked. The download I just did is still one big piece. I suppose it can be segmented using the PDF reader's Take a Snapshot tool, but that takes some work. Really wonder why it was done like this in the first place.

Yeah, that is really puzzling, and I'm sorry to learn they still haven't fixed it.

That said, thank you for taking the time to check; it is appreciated.

I've never had the impression that Paizo has been raking in undeserved YPMs (yachts-per-month). They're not gouging, I'm confident. That doesn't make products more affordable to more people, but ultimately these are the dollars required to a} pay the wonderful people who make the products and b} actually print and ship the products.

Agreed. In fact, I don't feel like anyone here really believes that Paizo is price gouging (and really, it's not really possible to price gouge on a discretionary good, meaning the term doesn't really apply to Paizo in any event). To me it seemed more like a general complaint aimed at groceries, rent, etc.

Now if Erik Mona starts giving Taylor Swift a run for her money as far as private jet usage goes, then something might be up. ;-)

Edit: "Yachts-per-month" was pretty great.

Physical copies have been expensive. The costs have only gone up. I didn't bother with a physical copy of my last publication. The cost of proofs for originals and updates isn't worth it on a small scale.

Paizo is able to access discounts from their scale, but they also have to handle distribution and accommodate markup. I don't know how they're able to do it in this industry. I'm happy to send them my money to support P2, and I wish them all the success. I'm fortunate enough to be old and able to afford it, but I understand everyone has to make decisions about how to invest their resources. If you like the hobby, recognize that it's a high cost, low margin industry. Even if you only purchase pdfs, that's a great way to support Paizo. If you go for books, know that they're not making more off of them, and it's a lot more work to produce.

Personally, I think I'm done with print books. The only RPG products worth buying in print anymore are things like pawns, GM screens, etc. Everything else just works better (for me) in PDF. Not only have tablets have gotten so reasonable that using them is actually more cost effective than buying books, but PDFs have other benefits. The latest Errata, portability, search-ability, (frequently a) discount on related VTT assets, etc.

On PDFs: I am a long time customer, and admittedly have had a love/hate relationship with Paizo over the years (they make great stuff, but also some really bone-headed mistakes, like $9 for a PFS scenario -- wtf?). But one thing I can't fault them for is that they have stood by PDFs since the beginning, and have not once tried to move (legal) access to their content behind a monthly subscription. As far as I'm concerned, that alone warrants both praise and continued patronage.
</soapbox>

bugleyman wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Unless of course you are one of those folks that presumes collusion on pricing between companies which is a rarity and a crime. It doesn't occur anywhere near as often as anti-capitalists like to promote. It's myth that isn't in line with how markets and money operate.

I know, right? Just look at this filthy anti-capitalist:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Which is why price fixing is a monitored crime.

Yes, but you also argued that price fixing is uncommon, and further, you literally stated that those who believe otherwise are "anti-capitalists." Meanwhile, there is Adam @$@# Smith arguing that price fixing is quite common indeed; inherent to capitalism, even.

So was Adam Smith "anti-capitalist"? Or did you misspeak? Because it doesn't seem like you can have it both ways.

Unless of course you are one of those folks that presumes collusion on pricing between companies which is a rarity and a crime. It doesn't occur anywhere near as often as anti-capitalists like to promote. It's myth that isn't in line with how markets and money operate.

I know, right? Just look at this filthy anti-capitalist:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Hmmm. A large theater for the upcoming AP? That will be very nice if it’s going to be used multiple times. I would like to see images of the maps to see if they’ll be closer or much different than others that I already have (especially the inn). Is Paizo still posting images of maps under the specific product?

Sadly, no. They stopped doing that a while back, for reasons that -- as far as I know -- remain a mystery. In any case, not having the images make flip-mats much less appealing.

Turns out people like to know what they're buying. Why knew? ;-)

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.

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.)

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. ;-)

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?

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.

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)_/¯

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. :/

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. ;-)

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.

"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.

I would LOVE to see the Striking Runes and Potency runes be reversed...

as they stand they always confuse me... because why would a STRIKING rune be used to add DAMAGE when STRIKE is an ACTION? Wouldn't it make more sense to call a weapon that HITS better to be given the tag STRIKING?

POTENCY Makes far more sense as a DAMAGE aspect rather than a HITTING aspect as in it is a POTENT weapon... POTENT does not mean you hit better with it... I know it is a small, small thing but it just doesn't make sense to my language understanding... I think that was a major oversight. :)

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).

Katina Davis wrote:

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.