Pathfinder GM Core

Has anybody received their subscription orders for these books? I was billed on Oct 27th, allegedly shipped on Nov 1st (4-8 days shipping) and UPS continues to say the tracking number doesn't exist. Emailing Customer Service 7 days and 3 days ago has received no response either. It is currently Nov 17th.

I've had packages disappear before so I'm not sure if it's a delay in the actual shipping on Paizo's part or if I should be worried about another lost package (that cost me $135 this time).

Thanks!

Here a link for a post by Cosmo, Director of Sales, about what happened.

Now that I have more time to read, I do like expanded guidelines on running downtime hmm

In the Cursed Items section, the Cloak of Immolation is given as an example. Basically the cursed individual that wears it will catch persistent fire the next time they suffer fire damage. However, at the end of the entry, it says “Once the curse has activated for the first time,
the boots fuse to you.”
This is the first mention of ‘boots’ in the entry. Was the cloak meant to be an entire outfit, or did it start as footwear and undergo an incomplete edit at some point in development?

It might be a little thing but I really liked the art that was produced for the first and last pages, part of the cover.

If I have the Pathfinder player core rulebook, not he remaster, is this book the right choice to accompany it? or should I get the old Gamemastery Guide?

There will be some differences between the original core rulebook and the GM core, but if you are going with the remaster rules, this is the one to buy. You can review the Gamemastery Guide on Archives of Nethys if you want to see the differences.

This is the remaster. If you're not looking for the remaster rules than you would want the Gamemstery Guide. Just know that some of the terminology will have changed.

I've looked at 5e after learning a lot about and playing PF2e. I prefer buying and using Paizo material because of your flexibility and that I can get PDFs -- which I can't get from WotC.

I"ve spent thousands of dollars on Paizo products, especailly for PF1e.

I have a major concern about PF2e under the ORC license.

How is it that with all the similarities down to the rules and even text (such as spell descriptions) that WotC won't successfully sue the heck out of Paizo -- and, thus, kill my investment in ORC-based PF2e?

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

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?

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?

I think you can safely trust Paizo's legal team on this. After all their stakes here are the highest.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

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?

I think you can safely trust Paizo's legal team on this. After all their stakes here are the highest.

Yes, I would think so. A successful claim by WotC would do a lot of damage.

Hopefully, nothing happens. I'd think if we don't see anything in the next 2 years, we're good.

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. ;-)

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

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.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I'd think if we don't see anything in the next 2 years, we're good.

If only it were that simple. ;-)

I wish it was too. I think before we invest a lot in ORC-based PF2e that Paizo should help us understand that our investment is safe. To me, it looks like a crushing lawsuit is on the way.

bugleyman wrote:

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

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.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I'd think if we don't see anything in the next 2 years, we're good.

If only it were that simple. ;-)

I wish it was too. I think before we invest a lot in ORC-based PF2e that Paizo should help us understand that our investment is safe. To me, it looks like a crushing lawsuit is on the way.

TBH I do not see what they could say beyond everything they have already said and done that would make you feel safer.

How exactly would your investment be hurt by a lawsuit? Your PDFs and books won't spontaneously combust.

How exactly would your investment be hurt by a lawsuit? Your PDFs and books won't spontaneously combust.

A successful legal challenge would likely make ORC-based PF2e defunct. The player and GM base would evaporate. My materials would become useless. Not something I want.

I saw a lot of that happen when PF2e cannibalized the PF1e community.

A successful lawsuit would be much worse. Again, not desired but I fail to see how it won't happen.

Cori Marie wrote:

How exactly would your investment be hurt by a lawsuit? Your PDFs and books won't spontaneously combust.

A successful legal challenge would likely make ORC-based PF2e defunct. The player and GM base would evaporate. My materials would become useless. Not something I want.

I saw a lot of that happen when PF2e cannibalized the PF1e community.

A successful lawsuit would be much worse. Again, not desired but I fail to see how it won't happen.

Thaat might be because you didn't look at the stuff close enough. They are even removing mimics and dopplegangers, that have been used around other properties for a long time.

At this point, with the remaster, it wouldn't be hard for Paizo to win in court if WotC tried. And that could be DEVASTATING to WotC. When you lose a copyright case, you lose rights to EVERYTHING you contested... Some companies lost big copyrights like that a long time ago. So yeah. That's why there's not a lot of uncertain copyrights suing by big companies, and no, sending cease and desists can be done by anyone, and isn't actual legal action... That's usually the first step, but also most often the only one, unless the sender is close to 100% sure to win. Which wouldn't be the case here with Pathfinder.

Cori Marie wrote:

How exactly would your investment be hurt by a lawsuit? Your PDFs and books won't spontaneously combust.

A successful legal challenge would likely make ORC-based PF2e defunct. The player and GM base would evaporate. My materials would become useless. Not something I want.

I saw a lot of that happen when PF2e cannibalized the PF1e community.

A successful lawsuit would be much worse. Again, not desired but I fail to see how it won't happen.

Starfinder 2nd Edition will be based on PF2. I think Paizo would not do this if they felt they were at legal risk with PF2.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

How exactly would your investment be hurt by a lawsuit? Your PDFs and books won't spontaneously combust.

A successful legal challenge would likely make ORC-based PF2e defunct. The player and GM base would evaporate. My materials would become useless. Not something I want.

I saw a lot of that happen when PF2e cannibalized the PF1e community.

A successful lawsuit would be much worse. Again, not desired but I fail to see how it won't happen.

Thaat might be because you didn't look at the stuff close enough. They are even removing mimics and dopplegangers, that have been used around other properties for a long time.

At this point, with the remaster, it wouldn't be hard for Paizo to win in court if WotC tried. And that could be DEVASTATING to WotC. When you lose a copyright case, you lose rights to EVERYTHING you contested... Some companies lost big copyrights like that a long time ago. So yeah. That's why there's not a lot of uncertain copyrights suing by big companies, and no, sending cease and desists can be done by anyone, and isn't actual legal action... That's usually the first step, but also most often the only one, unless the sender is close to 100% sure to win. Which wouldn't be the case here with Pathfinder.

Not to mention it would further erode their own fanbase after the OGL stuff.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

How exactly would your investment be hurt by a lawsuit? Your PDFs and books won't spontaneously combust.

A successful legal challenge would likely make ORC-based PF2e defunct. The player and GM base would evaporate. My materials would become useless. Not something I want.

I saw a lot of that happen when PF2e cannibalized the PF1e community.

A successful lawsuit would be much worse. Again, not desired but I fail to see how it won't happen.

Starfinder 2nd Edition will be based on PF2. I think Paizo would not do this if they felt they were at legal risk with PF2.

I'd think that was true, but I just can't figure it out. I think there's way to much text for classes, monsters, spells, equipment ... and so on that seems to be exactly WotC text. Not being a lawyer, I'm left with a queasy feeling.

I've already been through the rapid declines in the PF1e community and now, I suspect, OGL PF2e community (for example FVTT game system PF2e is now ORC).

I don't want too see this happen to PF2e ORC -- at least until someday we have PF3e ORC.

It's really good for Paizo to get away from WotC licensing. I'm just worried that too much has been taken verbatim from WotC material. For example, fireball (or whatever it's called now) seems to work very much like a WotC fireball. And the classes seem to work mostly the same way.

I'm hoping the split between Paizo and WotC is good and final and that Paizo cannot be sued. This would be good not just for Paizo fans -- but also the entire RPG industry INCLUDING WotC.

I just can't figure out how calamity has been avoided. I will look at Paizo PF2e ORC and WotC material in more detail.

Not being a lawyer, I'm left with a queasy feeling.

[snip]
I just can't figure out how calamity has been avoided.

You avoid legal calamities by hiring your own legal team to steer you through the situation.

That's the job of the Intellectual Property lawyers that Paizo hired:
to make sure that everything they publish under the ORC license is free of any and all material that WotC could possibly claim as their intellectual property.

Paizo has its own lawyers, who are looking out after Paizo's best interests (and to some extent, the best interests of the other, smaller ttrpg publishers)

This is not Paizo's first encounter with IP hostilities from WotC. They aren't naive or inexperienced, and neither are their lawyers. Paizo's lawyers kept them from being sued by WotC for all of PF1 under the OLG license. It's highly likely that Paizo's lawyers will keep them from getting sued by WotC under the ORC license.

And all our our anxiety, hand-wringing, and reading of tea-leaves (and forum posts) is not going to stop any legal moves by WotC.

If you don't trust Paizo's lawyers, and are still uneasy, then the only safeguard you have is to buy the books you need to run games totally independantly of Paizo's existence.

I'd think that was true, but I just can't figure it out. I think there's way to much text for classes, monsters, spells, equipment ... and so on that seems to be exactly WotC text. Not being a lawyer, I'm left with a queasy feeling.

It's really good for Paizo to get away from WotC licensing. I'm just worried that too much has been taken verbatim from WotC material. For example, fireball (or whatever it's called now) seems to work very much like a WotC fireball. And the classes seem to work mostly the same way.

Can you please indicate any text in the ORC rulebooks that you think is "taken verbatim" from WotC?

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Not being a lawyer, I'm left with a queasy feeling.

[snip]
I just can't figure out how calamity has been avoided.

You avoid legal calamities by hiring your own legal team to steer you through the situation.

That's the job of the Intellectual Property lawyers that Paizo hired:
to make sure that everything they publish under the ORC license is free of any and all material that WotC could possibly claim as their intellectual property.

Paizo has its own lawyers, who are looking out after Paizo's best interests (and to some extent, the best interests of the other, smaller ttrpg publishers)

This is not Paizo's first encounter with IP hostilities from WotC. They aren't naive or inexperienced, and neither are their lawyers. Paizo's lawyers kept them from being sued by WotC for all of PF1 under the OLG license. It's highly likely that Paizo's lawyers will keep them from getting sued by WotC under the ORC license.

And all our our anxiety, hand-wringing, and reading of tea-leaves (and forum posts) is not going to stop any legal moves by WotC.

If you don't trust Paizo's lawyers, and are still uneasy, then the only safeguard you have is to buy the books you need to run games totally independantly of Paizo's existence.

Probably what I'll do is buy some PF2e ORC material and use a wait-and-see approach, hope things work out, and then buy more when the smoke clears.

Dancing Wind wrote:

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Not being a lawyer, I'm left with a queasy feeling.

[snip]
I just can't figure out how calamity has been avoided.

You avoid legal calamities by hiring your own legal team to steer you through the situation.

That's the job of the Intellectual Property lawyers that Paizo hired:
to make sure that everything they publish under the ORC license is free of any and all material that WotC could possibly claim as their intellectual property.

Paizo has its own lawyers, who are looking out after Paizo's best interests (and to some extent, the best interests of the other, smaller ttrpg publishers)

This is not Paizo's first encounter with IP hostilities from WotC. They aren't naive or inexperienced, and neither are their lawyers. Paizo's lawyers kept them from being sued by WotC for all of PF1 under the OLG license. It's highly likely that Paizo's lawyers will keep them from getting sued by WotC under the ORC license.

And all our our anxiety, hand-wringing, and reading of tea-leaves (and forum posts) is not going to stop any legal moves by WotC.

If you don't trust Paizo's lawyers, and are still uneasy, then the only safeguard you have is to buy the books you need to run games totally independantly of Paizo's existence.

Probably what I'll do is buy some PF2e ORC material and use a wait-and-see approach, hope things work out, and then buy more when the smoke clears.

All the Remaster rules (as well as the pre-Remaster ones) are available for free on Archives of Nethys.

I noticed a typo on page 56. The second sentence under the paragraph heading of "Party Size".

This sentence includes a page reference to the rules for building encounters, but erroneously suggests that the full rules can be found on page 57.

The full rules for building encounters start on page 75. More specifically, the rules for adjusting for different party sizes are found on page 76, which is what the aforementioned paragraph is ostensibly concerned with.

Hello! I noticed on Page 83. For Automatic Bonus Progression Rules. Under Ability Apex it has the wording "At 17th level, choose on attribute score to increase by 2 or increase to 18 (whichever grants the higher score).

I'm pretty sure 18 in the new rules would break the game. This may need to be looked at and changed.

Hello! I noticed on Page 83. For Automatic Bonus Progression Rules. Under Ability Apex it has the wording "At 17th level, choose on attribute score to increase by 2 or increase to 18 (whichever grants the higher score).

I'm pretty sure 18 in the new rules would break the game. This may need to be looked at and changed.

Yeah, it uses the old stats rules and was mistakenly not updated.

The different party size XP adjustments for encounter building (pg 75) is slightly different from the CRB (pg 489), but only for Low difficulty threats - what was the thinking behind this?

(It used to be 15 per character at Low in the CRB, now it’s 20, the same as Moderate)

The different party size XP adjustments for encounter building (pg 75) is slightly different from the CRB (pg 489), but only for Low difficulty threats - what was the thinking behind this?

(It used to be 15 per character at Low in the CRB, now it’s 20, the same as Moderate)

It's a typo.