krazmuze's page

We know that getting Unholy / Holy will be optional.

AFAIK we do not know if Edicts and Anathemas will be. Seeing them appear in Ancestries' descriptions makes me believe they will not be optional.

It is as optional as the "you might" "others probably" RP guidelines ever was in the CRB. It is as optional as leaving the two squares for alignment blank on your character sheet because you are not a cleric with a deity required alignment. It is as optional as D&D5e traits/bonds/flaws which appeared on the sheet but nobody ever used so a decade later they quietly drop it saying people can write their own motivational backstory.

So unless you are arguing that the existence of a thing means it is not optional - it is optional.

tldr; I think the Edicts/Anathemas system will be more like a personal list of roleplaying guidelines and some classes add them and only those added have to be followed or you lose powers.

And this is not any different than what you can do now. Instead of using a two letter alignment code 'LG' then following a god that is 'LG' friendly (and worrying that that code is copyright competitor) then following their edicts/anathema even though you are not a class that requires that, it just lists some suggested edicts/anethema for RP a class A,B or C.

It literally is not any different than the existing 'you might...' 'others probably...' already given for A & C, which exists solely for copy/paste together into an RP guideline. Where is the outrage over that?

Currently a dwarf using the existing RP guidelines....

Dwarves are slow to trust those outside their kin, but this wariness is not without reason. Dwarves have a long history of forced exile from ancestral holds and struggles against the depredations of savage foes, especially giants, goblinoids, orcs, and the horrors that dwell deep below the surface. While trust from a dwarf is hard-won, once gained it is as strong as iron.

If you want to play a character who is as hard as nails, a stubborn and unrelenting adventurer, with a mix of rugged toughness and deep wisdom—or at least dogged conviction—you should play a dwarf.
You might...

Strive to uphold your personal honor, no matter the situation.
Appreciate quality craftsmanship in all forms and insist upon it for all your gear.
Do not waver or back down once you’ve set your mind to something.

others probably...

See as stubborn, though whether they see this as an asset or a detriment changes from one person to the next.
Assume an expert in matters related to stonework, mining, precious metals, and gems.
Recognize the deep connection you have with your family, heritage, and friends.

So what if they rewrite this into edict/anethema so it can be combined with your gods list and class list? This is much todo over what amounts to a grammar change.

Breaking Anathema has consequences for clerics and champions only, not the vast majority of PCs.

IMHO is an advantage to using a unified set of terms to describe "do's and dont's" for roleplaying purposes.

absolutely agreed because with existing printings you can already do that, and nothing has changed here at all - be it alignment, anathema or edicts. Sure if you are a class which requires celibacy the GM can rule if you are sleeping with every bartender around you should either get a different god or lose your class abilities until you repent.

But if I go to the annual solstice event for that god once a year because I took that deity because it seemed popular thing to do with all my fellow elven forest dwellers? Well let me tell you about church camp ... it is fertile ground for a horny lad.

I'm hoping your personal edicts and anathema's interact with new Hero Point rules. The current rules are lacklustre, but I love stuff like WoD tying Willpower to your characters Nature and Demeanour.

D&D2014 had traits bonds and flaws that gave inspiration, but nobody ever used them, not even their official/sponsored streams. D&D2024(AKA Not The One) they are removing it because their survey said those who want to roleplay do not need restricting mechanics for roleplay, they will roleplay regardless.

So in PF2e that is Hero Points you are free to reward roleplay and give those out if they follow their anathema/edicts same as you would now for following their alignment/background or "you might' and 'others might' ancestry/class roleplay hooks that exist now, or you can give out Hero Points for metagame reasons like someone bought pizza for the group. The rules do not need to dictate that either way for that to happen, they just need dictate how Hero Point mechanics work and leave it to GM discretion on reward with recommended rates and suggestions.

It literally calls them out as specifically being "popular". Not biologically essential.

And it sounds like a replacement for the existing "You might..." and "Others probably..." roleplay hooks, they also serve no mechanical benefit.

I think it would help (and Paizo has an opportunity here) to separate species and culture (which are currently conflated as "Ancestry"). There is no reason that the dwarves of the Five King's Mountains would have the same cultural values as dwarves in Osirion or a country in Tian Xia simply by virtue of both being dwarves—unless they shared some fairly recent common history, and I don't think they do in current lore.

That is what Heritage already is, and they certainly could have anathema/edict as well there if they want. Just like champion and champion type adds tenets to an priority list. They could even go so far as add them to backgrounds too, a soldier never leaves anyone behind, a farmer never wastes daylite, etc.

To each their own. Personally, over time I have come to very much like the classic player book | gm book | monster book division, and don't mind magic items largely being the purview of the GM.

I think the bigger issue is what has to get dropped from GMG for page count if its replacement absorbs the shopping pages from the CRB?

The problem is the principals from dnd beyond think they can do the same biz as before. Except with more prolific publishers, who do not dominate the market and who do not lock up rules in exclusive licenses and with fewer apps and people. With their previous biz they did not have to compete with free rules and free tools as their license made those illegal piracy. It is like state owned monopoly company trying to succeed in free market.

Foundry is doing well from selling tools with free systems and rules. People would be ok if they even got charged a 10% or even 20% service fee for the pdfs to unlock tools but $20 is too high. DndB got away with full price digital books because free tools, tools and pdf was illegal.

The value economy is very different for paizo and others and they should have used a different biz model.

If you're talking about "two flaws for a bonus", no reason it would - the republishing is being treated as bigger errata, and that change was errata. "If the GM is chill with it, you're free to lower your ability modifier" will probably stick around, though.

I prefer they errata that errata to be pick any two bonus but if you take an optional flaw you can take another bonus, as that is the only way to make 3 bonus 1 flaw which is what CRB ancestries also use. You cannot shuffle those ancestry bonus/flaws around despite that being the intent of the new rule

Remaster is absolutely doing errata for errata that is not off the table, how many times has alchemist already been errata and its still not there yet and getting another pass with remaster.

In addition, I would really appreciate if we stop discussing other editions. OGL and ORC are important to the remaster, but do we really need to keep comparing 3.5 and PF1 mechanics with PF2?

Since OGL used cites D&D SRD 3.5 in PF1/2 - we do need to discuss why things are changing in ORC for PF2e, which is all about removing legacy things from PF2e. People saying that they (dis)like and have (not) a problem with the changes should not be confused with edition warring - because that is just as much an OGL SRD vs. ORC SRD discussion

It's important to note that one shots are intro adventures designed to showcase the game.

As a result, the higher level danger encounters have some sort of mechanism to overcome potential lethality that a home campaign might not.

EDIT: Which brings up a Remaster concern -- will they still 'fit' after Remaster?

You seem confused on what the Remaster is, it does not change the game math balance like a new edition will, the game math balance is identical.

They are reconcepting things that are OGL terms: replacing alignment with morality traits, replacing ability scores with bonuses - which was already done in beginner box, replacing chromatic/metallic dragons with magic tradition dragons, and errating some classes that are overdue

One shots will be the same one shot difficulty, just referring to a ORC monster instead of an OGL monster

That game balance is very different from other D&D/PF1e editions, because of new math balance design that adds level and critical ranges so that bosses turn into a triple crit fest of double damage. That is what makes a +/-1 step levels in difficulty, which is absolutely not the case in other editions. Changing from 18(+4) strength or +4(18) strength to just +4 strength cannot possibly change the game math balance.

But rolling scores and starting with 3 or 15 bonuses instead of 9 bonuses, is the same as being +/-1 levels. Which means it is in fact a step change in difficulty. That does not mean your group can or cannot take it, even Paizo admits that player team work skills might amount to +/-1 levels same as being off +/-1 players so if that is the case adjust their average skill four player target balance (using solid encounter/npc rebalancing GMG tools) This is absolutely not the case in other editions where +/-1 level or characters is not even noticed especially when you only have 5% or , especially when CR math balance is just a fantasy and there is only only have 5% or .25% odds of crit vs a boss that crits 80% of the time on multiple attacks.

When we started I gave my players the option to use the normal stat generation method or roll 3d6 to get a base and then add boosts normally (max of 18 at level one).

That is not how the PF2e alternate rolling rule works, you do not add boost normally, instead it gives you less AB boosts. What was your total number of start boost. The standard ABCD method usually results in nine boosts less flaws.

If they did normal boosts with rolling they was likely OP boost count.

Half disagree. I do think people way overestimate how bad +3 KAS builds are (feels like some posts act like they're borderline unplayable) but I don't really think it's necessarily a good trade. Trading +1 at your main gimmick for +1 to a secondary thing definitely is a bit of a loss.

Note it is better when that secondary thing at +1 can get your team a +2 (de)buff to take down the boss to your level, it just requires keeping score based on your team and not your DPR. teamwork makes the dreamwork

The idea did cross my mind to create a 'random character generator' for PF2e with options to randomise exactly what krazmuze is suggesting as a coding exercise. And because my friend decided to do that to randomise his character and obviously as a programmer I'd rather spend 10 hours to create a thing from scratch than just do it manually.

I do roll tables in Foundry VTT (used to have them in Fantasy Grounds that did that). Problem is keeping it up to date is painful across PF2e updates and Foundry updates. My macro coding skills are not good enough which is probably the better way to do it.

There are also spreadsheets and websites around that do it none of them do my half random AB pick CD method though just ignore C and D. ABCD character funnels are fun...once.

There is also roll for book then roll the table of contents method but like you said that is just too easy.

Well, sure, but that's not what anyone's talking about here, is it? That has nothing to do with the Remaster.

it goes to the argument that you need 3d6 straight or 4d6 place freely to have a random char thus we need ability scores to preserve the random roll alternate rule. Just make a new alternate rule that says you can randomize ABCD and free.

There are plenty of people on here who make a stand that starting with a +3 in your primary stat is a big problem. And most everyone agrees that starting with +2 or lower in your primary stat is enough to make the character not feel fun to play.

So sure, you can add some randomness to your ability score generation. But in PF2 it comes with a steep cost.

It can be fun to play such a character in a one-shot or something like that. But I wouldn't want to play through a 10-level or 20-level AP like that. Certainly not one like Age of Ashes.

But you can have randomness with ability bonus ABCD CRB generation, you do not need ability scores to do that.

Roll a random Ancestry with random free, Roll a random Background with random free and random choice. If you are feeling frisky and want to have a character funnel Roll a random Class and random Detailed bonuses. It is very likely to be more MAD than SAD. But if you want it very likely to be the +3/+4 prime then pick a Class then pick you bonus Details

All random, all crazy roleplay possibility no min/maxing - but perfectly balanced within the ABCD point buy rules. You can play PFS like this every night and they will be wondering where your creative character stable comes from

Enough pettyness about ability scores/bonuses.

you are distracting the real discussion to be had.

When do we get the first remastered AP. We all know they added ORCs to CPC1 for a reason. We gotta have ORC PCs taking on some evil unholy coastal wizards (but not red ones from thay because copyright)

One of the quirks about +0 as baseline is it feels like a minimum. Duh that mathematically +0 +/-1 is the same as 10 +/-2 leading to +/-1, but studies show numbers like that get processed differently by our feelings.

Since PCs can only take an 8 minimum it is trivial to change the presentation balance so min ability is +0 and you never have any negative feelings because you have a -1. The balance is the same because you change the math on both sides of the screen, of course the GM has to deal with negative feelings of negative numbers but because they already have negative feelings of they are supposed to lose the fight...I think they can handle that.

Art is (obviously) subjective, but I've never cared for the style of Mr. Reynold's work. Going back as far as the 3E days, it struck me as trying too hard to be xXxtreme!1! -- to the point of being comical. Swords that would weight 100lbs, silly pointy bits everywhere, etc. (And yes, I realize this puts me in a tiny minority in the Pathfinder world, but so be it.)

However, I really like the look of the "sketch" covers, to the point where I think they look better than any of his finished work. I like them so much I'm actually tempted to seek out this version of Player Core, when otherwise I'd just buy it in PDF.

Did you get the travel guide? They made his art canon style in certain areas some just like to wear lots of buckles straps and doodads. inception.

I think its funny that artists are seeing more value from unfinished works than finished ones! You can take them to cons, have him hand color and sign for even more value!

A 3 free boost 1 flaw option for ancestries.

That was my instant errata to the errata that had 2 boost 1 optional flaw, since 3 boost 1 flaw matches CRB2.0 net boosts, and if you are going to give free assignment with the errata I do not think that should be less powerful.

I'd honestly prefer they would switch to "squares" so we don't have to think about "wait this giant creature is only this sized?" implications xD

Well okay, that wouldn't change ;P But for real main reason I want to that to change is that they are never going to do monte cook book thing of "include both meters and feet" and I don't understand what feets are in real life so they might as well be squares to me x'D

D&D 4e was squares and it really does help with international, especially for those in US with scientific training who think in meters at work but have to use feet at home. That confusion is why a mars probe died! I like paces, I personally use that when I want to approx a room size IRL.

Evan Tarlton wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Evan Tarlton wrote:

I really hoped for a throwdown with Choral the Conqueror, but alas.

Why alas? I don’t think he’s been dealt with, and a few 2e sources have hinted at his imminent return.

He's a red dragon. Unless that AP is soon on the docket, they probably won't have us deal with him because they'll want to start publishing under the ORC. I'd love to be wrong, though.

This is a misunderstanding of what's happening. They're not removing dragons from the setting, they just won't use those specific types of Dragons. WotC doesn't own the idea of dragons and colors(no one give them ideas).

A Unique entity called Choral the Conqueror who happens to be a Dragon and who may or may not be reddish is still perfectly fine and canon to the setting.

You just won't see Choral the Chromatic Red Dragon of the Chromatic True Dragon family terminology used. Dragons who happen to have red scales still very much exist. WotC is more than welcome to try and sue Blizzard-Activision over mommy Alexstraza.

Copyright actually does cover curated lists of common things, which is why it has to change. A list of colored evil dragons and metallic good dragons is itself a problem even if they do not have proper names. Paint companies all use different names for common colors for this reason so they can go after anyone knocking off their paint line even though they all use the same pigments!

That is the grey line that OGL covered because how simple and short do you claim a curated list is copyright before you will lose in court? dragons and alignments they seem to have said those are gone while abilities, skills, saves they are keeping those name lists. Will WOTC come after ORC PF2 for still using those and we have to do this again in 5yrs for PF3?

I'm also in the camp that Player Core 2 is a bad name. While all the core book names are a bit uninspired, I defintiely understand the naming conventions for Player Core, GM Core and Monster Core.

But if we have Player Core 2 (and we know in advance that it is coming), the front cover for the first one should be Player Core 1.

IMO, naming them so litereally is to make it obvious that you need (or at least want) them to play based on what role you are (player or GM).

But if the two player books are Player Core (withouth the 1), and Player Core 2, then I feel there is confusion, and most people would say, you only NEED Player Core (with the rules of how to play plus 8 classes). So in this case, the second book being Player Core Expansion makes more sense anyway.

If the idea is to say players will need both, then I feel it should be Player Core 1 and Player Core 2.

So put me down as one more vote for Player Core Expansion.

How about More Core and Hard Core.

I think Jason Bulmahn mentioned they originally planned a "D" step called "Destiny" which would be the four free ability boosts.

For my own purposes of memorizing the steps, I always think of a "D" step called "Details", for doing the boosts and filling out the rest of the character sheet. Then into "E"/"Equipment".

Lost opportunity to call it D is for Dump two stats. Just start at 12 and instead of boost 4 it becomes dump two!

then you have abcdef, ancestry, background, class, dump, equipment, finalize

glass wrote:

thaX wrote:

4th edition essentials... Was Compatible with the old in the same way 3.5 was compatible with 3.0 or that 1st edition could be used with 2nd edition.

Not remotely true. Those other examples were separate editions, separate gameslines, albeit with strong similarities. 4e Essentials was 4e.

It was as far as being published as such, but it put in 3.5 mechanics and blew out any balance measures that wasn't already broken by Psionics introduced after the initial release.

Essentials killed 4th edition. This new Errata and new formated books is not even close to the edition killer that Essentials was.

And to me how a game is balanced is what determines if it is compatible.

krazmuze wrote:

sure you could indeed decide since you was not in the room that someone else must have told them they had to.

Thanks. I read the same post(s) and listened to the same videos and came to a different conclusion: that they had been in discussions with their attorneys about removing OGL content for many years*, and the WotC cash-grab was simply a business tipping point that made the effort cost-effective. I concluded that their cost-benefit analysis had changed.

Quote:

I am actually amazed how open Paizo management is about this

One of the reasons I asked if you had personal knowledge is that the crafting of the ORC license has been an open consultation with the ttrpg community. In January, Azora Law issued an open invitation to the whole community to participate in the Discord discussions to help draft the new license.

They repeated the invitation in late January.

Then, once the first draft was finished, they again invited community comment.

I thought it was entirely possible that you had been a participant in those discussion and had first-hand knowledge of Azora Law comments.

*** spoiler omitted **

Nobody in the ORC discard is privy to any Paizo lawyer private discussions about what they need to change in their products. The press release you quote was discussing the change from PF1e to PF2e where they eliminated the copy paste of the 3.5e SRD words and rewrote things, but they still used the similar game concepts. And it is obvious their lawyer said - yes red is not copyright, dragon is not copyright, evil is not copyright, but could wotc take you to court for Red Evil Dragon maybe, but there is absolutely case law that says curated lists of common things is copyright (it is why every house and mini paint company uses a different name for red even though they all use the same pigments of red). So it is obvious their lawyer said you cannot just delete the OGL page like you think, you copied the list of chromatic and metallic dragons - it is not enough that you used different words to describe them. You seem to be arguing that Paizo does not need to do this, you are not their lawyer, and Paizo is doing this so clearly they are listening to their lawyer not you.

Also listen to Mona and Moreland again, they actually said it is a dumb biz move as they risk of all the 5e expats that just spent $$$ on new books that did not even last a year, and for PF2e it would have been better to wait a few more years and just proceed with a PF3e on the usual new edition schedule and not forgo new content now for core remaster contented now. They are doing it because they have to for legal reasons not because they wanted to for biz reasons.

krazmuze wrote:

Which is why Paizo decided with their lawyers the best thing to do is go all ORC and remaster anything they might think would be in court if OGL was pulled yet again.

Curious whether this is personal knowledge of the conversations between Paizo and their lawyers or just your best guess about why the decision was made.

Watch the RFC stream with Mona and the thread response (this thread?) by Moreland. They said a remaster just to reformat the books (even without WOTC/OGL interference) was already in the long term plan because they knew the CRB puts off new customers because it is mixed lore, gm, pc huge tome. It was WOTC that forced their hand to reshuffle their publishing schedule by proving they cannot rely on a competitors copyright legal agreement despite doing so for prior decades- so they absolutely have stated they are doing this de-OGL as well because they have to it was not on their short term plan to do so. Someone else can try to find that post if you had not read it. I am actually amazed how open Paizo management is about this so this is not me reading between the lines as you seem to be implying. Obviously I am not listening in on attorney-client communications, I can only presume that what we know has been approved by their attorney, but neither you nor I can be in that room for that discussion. But since their attorney is also the same lawyer that wrote the OGL in the first place and the ORC in the second place, and Paizo has decided to remaster to deOGL - sure you could indeed decide since you was not in the room that someone else must have told them they had to.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Yeah, the biggest actual change I've seen--as in, requiring you to modify something in your game directly to be compatible--is the proficiencies of rogues and wizards. That's not a nothing change, but it sure isn't a new edition.

Is this really different from how in the 2nd CRB errata they added medium armor proficiency for alchemists?

Like if you really wanted to play an alchemist without medium armor proficiency, or a rogue without martial weapon proficiency, I guess you could.

Or play an alchemist that lugged their heavy alchemy lab around with them. Sure you can play the non-errata version if you want to! If the table want to use only original 1st print run and not 4th print run they certainly could do that. Same thing with every ancestry has same stats as human now use the original book. It is still the same edition.

Have they officially, formally, legally released it under CC-BY, or have they just said that they were going to?

They did it the day they said they was doing it in Jan. It was very much intended to be a boom we was just kidding before, please resub to D&D Beyond ploy that based on the creator summit months later did not really work. All the major D&D creators are off making their new system or supporting other systems, and the few that remain are hoping they do not get canceled for supporting WOTC.

WOTC did this so fast they literally just copy pasted the OGL version subtracting the OGL page not realizing that meant vampires names strahd are now CC. It if the very reason they promised SRD for 3.5 to also be CC but realized they opened a can of worms they should not have in promising that, (because of this very lack of PI/OGC split) because now they have to very carefully scrub the 3.5SRD and issue a 3.6 version for CC. I think it will remain in they are too busy with D&D2024 to get to it bucket, and be then everyone moves on to ORC and something else and there will be no demand for it.

But that is the very reason even if the lawyers liked the idea of dealing with the legal nightmare of crossing contract license frameworks and having ORC site CC somehow - there is not a 3.5SRD to base the work on - and that is what PF1/PF2/SF requires. Which is why Paizo decided with their lawyers the best thing to do is go all ORC and remaster anything they might think would be in court if OGL was pulled yet again.

So... getting a few more layers of bulletproofing in on that stuff? Yeah, that seems like a real good idea.

WOTC was very clever in going to CC-BY because the community fell for their ploy of look they reversed their decisions we won - but it left Paizo and everyone else making alternate systems in the same place. You cannot actually use CC-BY as a reprint replacement for OGL - lacking share alike and PI/OGC distinctions - something WOTC knew is lost on those not rules lawyers but those companies have decent enough lawyers to know they still needed to move on. So Paizo divorcing that last 1% of creature and spells and terms that could be claimed as copyright curated lists of common things - is a wise move!

Some of the numbers might be calculated differently but that's not as relevant. The balance might be off, but balance is something of an illusion anyway.

In the context of D&D 4e vs 4ee balance was not an illusion it was an intentional design change from equal power between classes (and like it or not 4e was the most balanced D&D classes but not 4ee) to classic unbalanced classes by design. Go all fighters and play the same adventure you will not have the same experience it will feel like a new edition. It would be like playing classic WoW vs modern WoW, the characters and monsters and setting are mostly the same but play very different.

But this also does not apply to PF2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 errata, and upcoming remasters because those really are similar level of changes. Errata have already changed character creation and class tweaks but not extreme game balance changes.

Yes alignment goes away but the game balance and roleplay will remain the same using traits, yes scores go away but they was already vestigial (and removed already in beginner box) and only used in one place as spend two boosts to get 18 to 19. This is purely a presentation issue.

For example of a presentation change you could also subtract PC level from NPCs and PCs and have a different version of proficiency without level that is mathematically the same balance as proficiency with level. because proficiency with level is actually balanced as proficiency with level difference. But the game was not presented that way because monster relative power going doing "feels" worse than player power going up even though it plays exactly the same.

So it could be argued even presentation matters, and that is the issue here is the Orc steering clear of the Wizard means presentation change.

The biggest change is someone wanting to come from D&D is going to have to substitute monsters as classic chroma dragons will only exist in PF2 bestiary books (and online versions if still available) but not in monster core. But that already had the problem of changing to golarion or porting a D&D world so to me it is not a new problem.

Like granted, rolling stats is mechanically extremely dangerous in 2e, but its still fun to be an option xD

random A random free random B random free, pick a Class and Dump relevant stats and you usually get a +3 or +4 prime. Or go crazy and random ABCD just save a backup for when that rando dies.

4e Essentials was additional rules and "updates" that were changing the then current edition to be more like 3.5, and was considered "evergreen" as a always printed accessory. (they also had a map and starter adventure)

Yep 4ee was Mearls wanting to fix D&D to be classic unbalance rather than carefull balanced and went back to wizards > fighter. I started with those pocket books and was confused when people kept saying wizards==fighter with same number of powers in 4e! Sure they was "compatible" and I remember Mearls saying you can play the same adventure at the same table. Which was not true as 4e MM1/2 math got changed in MM3 which 4ee used same math so you had to convert the numbers (copy/paste at print store is what I did) combined with if you had a 4e melee and a 4ee melee one of them will be happy and one will be sad. They also said the same thing about D&D Next and D&D 5e, so I do not trust them that D&D 2014&2024 will be "compatible".

But with Paizo already having done whole class erratas as well as changing ABCD rules flaws already and already ditching scores in favor of bonuses in Beginner Box- I trust them when they say they are the same edition and table compatible.

Padaddy wrote:

Have you heard anything about the affect this will have on VTTs and VTT modules? In VTTs you have to select a rule set. Will 2e VTT modules work with 2eR?

Why wouldn't it. VTTs are quite used to updating their rules for errata. Did the 4th printing of the CRB crash all of the VTTs?

Unless you have a VTT that is enforcing that a player role-play their character's alignment accurately...

Indeed Foundry was very quick to add the switch to use the old ancestry flaw/boost rule when they added the errata rule for optional flaw with any two boosts.

And they have always had the ability boosts as core for their UI with the ability score already being vestigal for years, because the beginner box is when that char sheet change was made, and the ABCD system had already made the change in PF2e to start with. It will be trivial for them to add an option to hide the ability score.

Just like it will be trivial for them to hide the alignment field, and they already have the ability to homebrew traits which is how people have already replaced alignments. And new traits with new rules interactions are being added all the time, so them having to have a holy trait with rules interactions is nothing new to the system.

None of these changes mechanically are anymore burdensome than the erratas which have even rerranged classes (alchemist)

Now you may have other VTTs that have not kept up with releases with new mechanics and erratas, but that has nothing specific to do with remaster itself.

Pretty much all the OGL concepts Pathfinder used are in the 5.1 SRD, and that got released under a Creative Commons license that WotC doesn't control. So it seems that Paizo could rerelease their ruleset using the 5.1 SRD under Creative Commons, and still license it under ORC.

The CC-BY does not have the ability to build a citation forest. OGL was a true sharealike you can plant new trees and new branches, you could have a PF1e which was 99% copy paste D&D3.5 with minor revisions or you could have a PF2e which was 1% copy paste, and if you cite OGL and publish under OGL your new stuff goes back into building the community forest. ORC keeps that concept.

CC also lacks the ability to divide your book into the Product Identity part and the Open Gaming Content part with a simple preample statement. Instead the open gaming content part has to be kept seperated which is what WOTC tried to do with their SRD. But in their rush to end the boycott they did not realize that CC lacked the concepts of PI and OGC and thus they have now made a vampire named Strahd and tentacle monsters from the great beyond named Beholder as part of CC! Even though these are banned in OGL PI!. All they did for CC was copy paste the SRD with the OGL PI/OGC preample removed. This is why when asked if they will CC older D&D versions, they are saying they need to carefully take their time sanitizing those SRD basically admitting they made a mistake stamping their OGL SRD as CC in a rush.

Also both PF1e and PF2e are 3.5SRD citations not 5.1SRD citations, and 3.5SRD is not under CC - so even if CC did not have the issues noted they cannot reprint PF1e/PF2e with a simple switch from OGL to CC for that reason alone.

When putting the pdf's together, why cant the maps be layered so that the room numbers can be hidden?

PDF 2 Foundry would import the hi-rez interactive PDFs that adventures come with that are layered, but this adventure is only in the new importer which does not read those hi-rez pdfs.

I am thinking of making a set of four pre-gened NPCs that can be run through this module that have everything they need to both make sense for the story as well as have everything the PCs need to succeed.

Basically, I think this adventure is a great introductory adventure for new players to pathfinder and I think it’d be great to just hand out four ready-made characters with backstories and say ‘here you go, have fun.’

Thoughts? Anyone find that useable?

I think it is a good adventure, but introductory not so much , rather go with the Beginner Box level to learn the unique PF2e mechanics step by step on a linear path first. Crown has darkmantles, gricks, and gelatinous cubes as early bosses and those can be frustrating mechanics to deal with when new - the beginner box has a gentler version of the bestiary. treatmonk of pf1e charop who moved onto 5e charop was in Crown on a PF2e for 5e players on The Rules Lawyer youtube/patreon and seemed really frustrated and even posted later he has no intent of moving to PF2e content. With BB The Rules Lawyer players seem to have way more fun and more likely to stick with the system.

Since the beginner box is also a logging fishing town it could easily substitute in blending in the NPCs together and it is also about kobolds so you can run straight to the dungeon saying there is a preestablished trail from prior adventurers and fast forward past forest hexploration trying to find it. Throw in some Troubles of Otari as town side levels.

You can use existing iconic pregens they have ones for every class or just use the beginner box version. . The only real requirement is pick one or more of the quest hooks which are for recommended backgrounds so they make sense. If you roll from town population everyone will be human with the rare halfling, elf, or dwarf so basically sticking to CRB sans goblins (the town as written is very 'redneck' but you can tone that down)

'at once' in this context seems 'simultaneously'. normally you must craft items one at a time.

rereading it says 'all at once' not 'at once' so skimmed rules back in Plaguestone times and ruled it wrong.

hours even though it is GM fiat as rare
Quick Setup

I read 'at once' to mean the 4 days, as in no stretching it out no putting it down and coming back with the reasoning they are so cheap compared to permanents devs did not want you cheapening it further - and in fiction that you do not want to burn something in the alchemy set. But I guess 'at once' just refers to the the batch of 4 (or 10)? So either way of gather first or use less materials it is the same time/cost as long as limit to 50% then complex it just reduces the 4 days for lower levels and adds quirk/curse risk for even faster.

Anyways I was running as a check to gather and prep material costs as a earn income task then another check for the crafting itself. I think I will keep it that way as they are really two tasks, then just start saying you have the option to spend more days to use less materials. I personally homebrew that you can gather material costs simultaneous as adventuring days - since many a quest has you do that for hire so why not do it for yourself.

Consumables And Ammunition

You can Craft items with the consumable trait in batches, making up to four of the same item at once with a single check. This requires you to include the raw materials for all the items in the batch at the start, and you must complete the batch all at once. You also Craft non-magical ammunition in batches, using the quantity listed in the Ranged Weapons table (typically 10).

Simple crafting you must spend all the costs for all the consumables in four fixed days and there is no option to reduce cost with extra days.

Is this still applying to complex crafting in TV? It is a variant system that replaces simple crafting that has the option to reduce days for lower level items for consumables, yet it does not repeat the full cost clause of simple consumable crafting.

Since it is a replacement system I would argue that is an intentional omission that complex consumable crafting drops the all up front costs from simple crafting and it does not carry forward. After all with simple crafting skill you could have done prep work to earn income for material, thus narrating complex consumable crafting to say you used less materials because you worked slowly and carefully is the same time/cost overall. And quirky/cursed consumables also make sense if you want risk a rush job.

I like this generator because it tells you the reverse engineering it did on paizo names

https://dungeonetics.com/pfnames/halfling.html
https://dungeonetics.com/pfnames/gnome.html

honeylyn is not fitting either template for female names, it does sound like an american southeastern diner waitress though

Need to crawl thru the SRD as their OGL1.2 says that specific pages are in the Creative Commons Carve out - my bet these are the pure mechanics and likely all the common compound words used in spells and creatures like owl bear and magic missle required using the OGL1.2 and not just the CC part of the SRD.

I like the full size art as well and never tokenize. You really lose that sense that halflings, goblins and kobolds are half the size of humans when they are the same zoomed in face. With the scaling feature you can even fine tune this so you can have the 4' dwarf and the 6'5 elf.

Also there is an isometric module which the full size transparent art background is absolutely perfect for using.

The journal entries tagged in each map room is how the PDF Foundry importer map layer has been done, but the journal notes icon needs selected to see them

I am happy to pay, but I do think a discount for PDF-owners is in order, especially for APs/Modules, which are more expensive to begin with. I hope that is at least being considered: one of the main draws of Foundry is its cost-efficiency as opposed to Roll20 or FGU, which can quickly soar into the hundreds of dollars with premium subscription models and pricey game addons.

This is something to worry about since their existing policy for other VTT is you pay physical book price comparable to what Amazon would charge and if you own the PDF then that is discounted using the Paizo/FG store links or you get the PDF using the FG/Paizo store link with the purchase of the FG module.

So you end up paying for each media you use the material in, rather than having portable materials which is what the PDF by definition is supposed to be.

I really like the way the Foundry PF2e adventure importer works, that your PDF watermark is your authorization codes, and on top of that you get the community created map wall layers as part of the import.

Make the watermarked PDF the authorization codes instead, simple as that. So what everybody really want is just named .webp (not .jpg not .png) for creatures (token and portrait versions) so we do not have to suffer thru PDF ripping methods for content we already own. Things like Flip Tiles are already available as .jpg alternates from Paizo and import straight into foundry with no other work than copying into the user data directory and pointing to that directory (unless you want to convert to .webp)

I hope you support those who already own the bestiary, battle cards, and pawn sets with the free codes to get the art integrated into the PF2e bestiary compendium. The OGL bestiary is already free, so we just want the art.

Or enable the adventure importer to also be an art importer for all the books, as they already import npc art in the adventures for easy linking to the NPC sheets.

Also the isometric module is popular so I hope you provide the creature art in full portrait sans token rings, as well as tokens as appears in the GM placement maps. Even just as a directory of named .WEBP for easy import with the Image Compendium module, please do not use PNG or JPG.

Foundry modules have the most transparent DLC with automatic updates interface that is decades better than the Paizo download site, so I hope it is utilizing that.

Some groups play with a "death flag" kind of mechanic. Normally characters can't be killed but if a player thinks something is sufficiently important (like a major story goal, such as saving the town), they can "raise the death flag" for some sort of mechanical extra oomph.

Hero Points in PF2e....it resets your dying count without an extra wound. So your friends can be heroes with more time to save you. Or you could simply choose not to cash them in and cash in your PC instead. Whatever you think is the better story. Here points saves from that crit on the dying, but you have people here saying it is bad wrong fun for the GM to crit the dying. Without that dying crit wounded mechanic (not by coup de grace but by virtue of AC-6 combined with OP boss math crit on DC+10 combined with wounded increased dying combined with GM having to actually attack the dying wounded) it is indeed very hard to actually die.

That is perfectly fine if you want to have an extra way for players to decide when they die. It is not in the rules but you play your table how you want and agreed to at session 0.

For improv players they are used to being handed a new character and 'yes anding' that into the narrative because that is what improv is. Improv gets stale without things mixing it up. You are now a elf barbarian....go! It is also why I use the critical fumble deck it mixes things up at great risk to characters (including instadeath) because it improvs the story better.

If players are invested into that playstyle at session 0 that the dice and cards control their PC fate, then their fun is not bad wrong.

krazmuze wrote:

Plaguestone only had a high death rate because too many severe encounters with persistent damage.

I'm sure your 'kill as many PCs as possible' style had nothing to do with it at all.

The entire reason this thread exists is because Plaguestone is considered severe by GMs and players, so that comment is unwarranted.

There is nothing a GM can do about persistent damage, other than hand wave it out of the module. If you are dying with persistent damage you are going to die if your friends are not in any position do something about it. The best they can do with high DC is lower your DC, they cannot make the damage go away, so even if they try it is very possible to still die. That is totally on how the party rolls, the GM is not even rolling - the only thing they could do is say lets just delete that persistent damage so you do not die.

And I remind you when the module had an encounter designed to TPK the party because its total XP was beyond deadly? I pulled some GM BS to not have to kill all the PCs that even the players said was silly justification but if happened they was eager to move to AoA rather than restart a new party in the final dungeon with weak encounters, So I compromised and weakened most of the encounters so only the endboss was tough so we could finish off the adventure as is.

But it is nice to see that everyone wants to dogpile on someone with false facts about killing parties, even though they say they would never dogpile their players, when clearly you do enjoy dogpiling on forums.

And where did I ever say I kill as many PCs as possible?. I use the wounded attribute for what it was designed to do, prevent players from min-maxing the encounter actions by ignoring the dying, and force them to disrupt their plans and actually be heroes when stakes are high and focus on the boss that will kill their friend - even if it means lost actions to move over there and fight the boss.

If they receive healing and get the wounded condition, THEN the wounded rules come into play. And what those rules do is make it very dangerous to re-gain the dying condition.

But only if you attack the wounded, which is my very point I have been making. Taking that off the table because of some bad fun wrong adversial GM concept? Takes you right back to the very thing it is trying to fix, battlefield sleeping and/or popup healing. The odds are still good that at dying 2 you will survive recovery or you friends in two rounds can pop a heal or stable on you. And this is not even taking into account diehard and toughness. It is only a 5% critical failure to recover chance compared to the very very easy critical success the boss has at killing the prone unconscious dying 2.

If i am a wolf that just took down your wounded friend, and you do not come after the wolf but instead ignore the wolf on the assumption that your friend will survive while you min/max your action economy by ignoring the entire reason the designers moved your friends initiative to give everyone a chance to go after that wolf?

Your friend is getting eaten because that is what a wolf would do - they are a hungry predator and wounded prey is the best chance of a meal they have had all day. My wolf is going to bite off a bloody chunk with my first attack which will crit and kill, then I have two more actions to GTFO. It would be stupid of the wolf to leave the meal at hand (paw) and try to take down another meal. Their goal is not to kill the party they are neutral, they already accomplished their goal of getting a meal. I want the players to know this is their PC reality so that their party actually does go after the wolf rather than ignore it.

If you are the evil smart wise BBG that knows this is the party disrupting their plans then your strategy is first you take out the cleric so you can double tap their wounded friends, then party best run if you can else TPK.

The very point of wounded is to force the players to drop their min-maxed spreadsheet plan and do what their characters would do.

Have you looked at Pathfinder Society scenarios/quests?