It's also how the PDF is, so not likely to be a misprint.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're having troubles downloading the Monster Core PDF, please try the following:
1.) Click the "Problems downloading?" hyperlink. If that doesn't work...
2.) Purge your cache and cookies, as detailed in steps 2 and 3 in the Support Portal.
-Jim
I've lost your email address, so I'm trying to contact you this way ...
For the rest of you, I apologize for repeating my message -- I think this is important.
I think you're sort of on the right track with the Pathfinder editions, but there's a number of things I'd do differently:
Given that WotC lost the OGL battle and withdrew their threats (which they could re-instate at any time), if I were you, I would have let PF2e OGL continue in development for at least 2 to 5 years while, you, Paizo, worked on what I would call PF3e ORC.
While Paizo would be taking a risk (seems low) that WotC would cause more trouble, Paizo would have had more time to rework the core ruleset to create a truly unique RPG experience based on a fantasy setting, I think, capable of rivaling "the world's oldest RPG". I think you can do it. Just throw away the existing rules and re-imagine the whole thing. Of course, there's lots of common elements from legends and mythology to build such a game -- develop an RPG starting with this original source material and you've got plenty of your own.
Instead, though, I'm concerned that there is too much similarity with "the world's oldest RPG" core ruleset and now that this similarity is no longer acknowledged or licensed that, I feel, there's risk that PF2e ORC will be successfully challenged in court -- where upon I'd have to set aside all my PF2e ORC material (largely because of the cannibalism I describe below as a new PF edition is developed or possibly people leaving the Paizo ecosystem).
Your ecosystem seems to cannibalize itself. When PF2e OGL came out, the community for PF1e became much...
BTW, I sent an email to Jim Butler, Paizo President, and he addressed all of my concerns. I have no issues now.
1. They think they've done their legal homework such that a WotC lawsuit is NOT likely to succeed.
2. Players say PF2e OGL (Legacy) and ORC play together well. So, this gives us plenty of access to material (and it all seems to work great together in Fantasy Grounds Unity). Great transition, Paizo -- thanks!!!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
… as has been repratedly told to you by others and the numerous blogs and official posts since the formation of ORC and the Remaster was announced.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope they only sent the message once, instead of just repeating it until Mr. Butler got back to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed some off topic posts.
|
Is there going to be a pocket-sized softcover version of this book, as well? I like the smaller ones for portability.
Yup here
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know Paizo is waiting to see how the print copies of these sell, but why can't Paizo simply sell PDFs of the pawns for each adventure set?
They can't be very expensive to create, considering they're digital files. Plus, I'd have to imagine that they could come out at the same time as the adventure paths.
They still need people to do them, and that's extra job over what they do right now. Doing this means less time to do something else that they are currently doing. It's very probable that other stuff have priority over this. And for a while the pawns have been buyable in PDF format, and if they were seeing significant amount of people buying them, that would have raised the priority for what you propose... But the demand they saw wasn'T big enough, I guess.
|
Their double horns aren’t unique, merely the most prominent. And the scales match the environment they live in I believe. Nature/Primal in this context doesn’t merely mean forest.
Leaf-like in their shape and texture, which is flagged as notable in their description. Colour may vary, like leaves do.
Their double horns don't even appear that prominent to me. Honestly I had forgotten there was second horn, it's kinda small on the art... Not as dramatic as the omen dragon's horns, as many as the fortune, or as likely to impale someone as the diabolic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed an (admittedly, incredibly minor) editing issue within the Gimmerling stat-block on page 170. The effect text for the Sly Disarm action states the following:
The gimmerling attempts to Disarm (page 359)...
However, the details of the Disarm action are NOT reprinted on page 359 of Monster Core. You folks might just want to nix that page reference in future printing runs. :)
I also have another minor quibble concerning the Incorporeal trait (on pages 362-363). The second paragraph of this trait reads as thus:
An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.
I think the wording of the above paragraph dates back to the older Bestiary books, and it always kinda bothered me. Because attack rolls are, by definition, checks. Interpreted literally, this text implies that a corporeal character CANNOT make a Strength-based attack roll against an ghost. Yet if they wield a FINESSE weapon, it's suddenly possible. :P
However, I always assumed that "Strength-based checks" was meant to be read as "Athletics checks" in this particular context. If at all feasible, it would be nice to see this formalized/clarified in future printing runs, or forthcoming Monster Core books.