| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First I need to note that I already know that you can use the legacy material at will, that the PFS allows to use the older material an so on at last for now.
But let us focus in the context of players that only have the remaster books and don't want to buy the CRB/APG to get access to old content or don't want to use AoN or simply want to simplify and remove the content of CRB/APG for some reason.
I currently was reading the gnome's feats searching for changes when I read the Instinctive Obfuscation and I notice that in its description it doesn't have the mirror image reference anymore. Instead it gives the effect directly from the feat.
The magic within you manifests as a natural reaction to threats. An illusory double of you appears in your space for a brief moment. The triggering attacker must roll a DC 10 flat check; on a success, the attack targets you normally; if they fail, the attack targets the double and destroys it. The tradition of this action matches the tradition of your gnome ancestry options.
The magic within you manifests as a natural reaction to threats. You gain the effects of mirror image but with two images instead of three. The tradition of this action matches the tradition of your gnome ancestry options.
The point is that mirror image doesn't got ported to PC1 but the designers wanted to keep the reaction feat so they ported a modified effect of mirror image to allow the feat keep working. I know this is speculative from my part but IMO this reinforces the theory that many spells, feats and items will be removed from remaster for good. I'm afraid that due license and balance reasons some spells and other things would be really completely removed from remaster and won't back even in PC2 (maybe we can get the mirror image back in PC2 and this lack of reference may be just to avoid a cross book reference but honestly I think that many things that "disappeared" probably won't come back even in PC2).
This could result that even really popular spells like Synesthesia was fully removed from the remaster and maybe don't return even in PC2.
What do you think?
Yes.
Similar to how many of the "named" spells needed to be treated differently when PF1 was released (e.g., hideous laughter and mage's faithful hound no longer referencing certain personages from Greyhawk), the ORC will probably require shifting some "signature" AD&D/D&D spells from the OGL away from descriptions and exact mechanics that might be considered too close to WotC's TSR legacy IP.
Synesthesia is possibly not an IP issue as much as a balance issue that may be receiving some tweaks before being released in Player Core 2 in a few months.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would miss synesthesia, mostly because it was so powerful.
I would like more options that make other options equally effective. I'm a little tired of trip and reactive strike or synesthesia with true target.
It gets old using the same stuff.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A shame for spells like Synesthesia that are getting removed as power outliers and not for OGL reasons.
Even thematically, was always one of my favorite spells, even in 1e.
Paizo has been quite clear from the start that Remaster would be both the removal of OGL AND a truckload of errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has been quite clear from the start that Remaster would be both the removal of OGL AND a truckload of errata.A shame for spells like Synesthesia that are getting removed as power outliers and not for OGL reasons.
Even thematically, was always one of my favorite spells, even in 1e.
But they've also been clear about their opinions on compatibility and porting.
... Not reprinting it is the opposite of errata.
|
This could result that even really popular spells like Synesthesia was fully removed from the remaster and maybe don't return even in PC2.
What do you think?
Yeah, I think that's entirely possible.
I don't think it'll be many things that get removed like that. I think most of the things that get removed are things that are just really close to WotC stuff and it's more trouble than it's worth to restyle it.
Synesthesia seems like it was far above the curve, too good to be true. The way the forum talks about it definitely makes it seem that way.
Of course a powerful option is going to be popular with players, but is it also good for the game as a whole? Designers might decide that it's not, that it's crowding out other decently powerful things because this is just so much more powerful, so overall bad for the game.
I don't think there are many options that are so beyond the curve powerful that the designers do this. There's plenty of options perceived as strong that didn't get changed - popular feats like Double Slice, or even spells like Sure Strike.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has been quite clear from the start that Remaster would be both the removal of OGL AND a truckload of errata.A shame for spells like Synesthesia that are getting removed as power outliers and not for OGL reasons.
Even thematically, was always one of my favorite spells, even in 1e.But they've also been clear about their opinions on compatibility and porting.
... Not reprinting it is the opposite of errata.
Then Synesthesia is still available for those who want it, right ?
So, all is well.
The problem if we consider not reprint as not an errata this means that all 4 erratas that we got could be ignored in order to choose just what you want (what is perfectly fine). But we know that most GMs will consider removal as balance and will forbid content from CRB/APG and probably the PFS will do so.
What Paizo was clear for me is that supplementary books like SoM, G&G and and other are still valid once the aren't targets for remaster just for compatibility erratas. The PC1, PC2, MC, GMC will be a replace for CRB, APG, GMG and Bestiary 1 (and probably we will get more MC in the future).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then Synesthesia is still available for those who want it, right ?
So, all is well.
Eeehhh, I'd really caution against this take.
That kind of "secret options that most players don't know about" is not good for the health of any game. It causes more drift in and unknowability in all forms of balance discussion, but more importantly causes more player:GM headaches to even run the system.
For Synesthesia specifically, it's one of the rare Occult only spells, and is notably potent. It really is a signature spell of the entire tradition, in a way that other spells are notably above the curve in other traditions.
It's not hard to understand that when people talk about how something like "occult casters / the spell list is horrible," or the opposite, that the unmentioned variable of whether or not legacy spells like Synesthesia are available is a huge complication.
_____________
The entire point of purchasing ttrpg books is to have the complete resources of said system. There is just no way to look at the idea of leaving legacy options off the listings, but as "valid" options to use in game as a good thing.
The most charitable perspective is that it's a "making the most of a bad situation" type affair. However, without the OGL excuse for Synesthesia, I honestly cannot approve of Paizo publishing Occult casters like the Witch as complete without publishing their full spell list. That's... really not okay.
The only "rush to print/publish" was entirely self-imposed, and now that we have the actual PC1/GM core books... it's really not a good result.
IMO, the issue of neither GM/PC book having a complete glossary, even just the problem of having direct conflicts between the two, is a sign of "mission failed."
_______________
Ultimately, that's the source of this discussion. The entire reason the player community has to spend their time wrangling and thinking through this precise topic is a completely unforced blunder on Paizo's part.
Look, Paizo could help with these self-caused issues in any number of ways. They could release a "preview" of Synesthesia, or just release the entire spell list digitally before the printed books. Even with the constraints of being a business and such, there's no end of possibilities.
Supposedly, Paizo already understands that places like AoN are not avoidable, and do not really affect their bottom line that much. Yet, their actions are not at all reflective of the good that can be done with that.
Without "word of dev" providing a set answer, at best, GMs/tables will need to seek out community help/consensus to find out what the "normal" is.
Even when it's a quick online search, the whole play experience is chipped away at every time a table needs to spend time deliberating and or researching how to play / what spells are even allowed.
________
idk, I guess I'm a little worried about the consequences and precedent set by Synesthesia being MIA from the (imo sloppy) remaster, which is why this topic needs to exist in the first place.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is probably better for tables to decide for themselves what spells to include in their games than try to crowd source interpretations of developer intention.
I think so GMs will say “core only spells” and mean player core, GM core and Monster Core. Others will be a lot more permissive. As long as you talk over your concerns with your fellow players before making assumptions, you can make changes before committing to a character concept your table won’t support.
PFS has been abundantly clear that legacy stuff is viable unless something else with the same name gets published. Assuming they are going to pull that blanket out from under players at some arbitrary moment in the future is unnecessarily skeptical.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
_____________
The entire point of purchasing ttrpg books is to have the complete resources of said system.
I'd challenge that premise. The biggest reason to purchase TTRPG books is so that the sales keep the publisher in business pumping out new books. And that cycle means you can't own a "complete" system until the end of a game's lifespan. Books are actually a pretty bad way to reference all the material in a game, compared to, say, looking at all of the occult spells once on Archive of Nethys.
Besides revenue, books are also better for learning the rules to a system from scratch than Nethys is. But that remains the case regardless of whether every item is included in a single book. Having every possible option actually cmmakes the book bloated and harder to learn.
Anyway, on the topic of Synesthesia... I couldn't care less until player core 2 releases. Until then this is a player manufactured problem. (And probably still will be afterwards TBH.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is probably better for tables to decide for themselves what spells to include in their games than try to crowd source interpretations of developer intention.
I think so GMs will say “core only spells” and mean player core, GM core and Monster Core. Others will be a lot more permissive. As long as you talk over your concerns with your fellow players before making assumptions, you can make changes before committing to a character concept your table won’t support.
PFS has been abundantly clear that legacy stuff is viable unless something else with the same name gets published. Assuming they are going to pull that blanket out from under players at some arbitrary moment in the future is unnecessarily skeptical.
How then will you, in the future, errata something that was in the CRB and has not been kept in the Core books ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
_____________
The entire point of purchasing ttrpg books is to have the complete resources of said system.
I'd challenge that premise. The biggest reason to purchase TTRPG books is so that the sales keep the publisher in business pumping out new books. And that cycle means you can't own a "complete" system until the end of a game's lifespan. Books are actually a pretty bad way to reference all the material in a game, compared to, say, looking at all of the occult spells once on Archive of Nethys.
Besides revenue, books are also better for learning the rules to a system from scratch than Nethys is. But that remains the case regardless of whether every item is included in a single book. Having every possible option actually cmmakes the book bloated and harder to learn.
Anyway, on the topic of Synesthesia... I couldn't care less until player core 2 releases. Until then this is a player manufactured problem. (And probably still will be afterwards TBH.)
Yeah, there's a fair bit of the playerbase that works directly off of Nethys and Pathbuilder, even if they buy the books. A greater percentage of the PF2e playerbase, by definition, has access to them than has access to the core book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How then will you, in the future, errata something that was in the CRB and has not been kept in the Core books ?It is probably better for tables to decide for themselves what spells to include in their games than try to crowd source interpretations of developer intention.
I think so GMs will say “core only spells” and mean player core, GM core and Monster Core. Others will be a lot more permissive. As long as you talk over your concerns with your fellow players before making assumptions, you can make changes before committing to a character concept your table won’t support.
PFS has been abundantly clear that legacy stuff is viable unless something else with the same name gets published. Assuming they are going to pull that blanket out from under players at some arbitrary moment in the future is unnecessarily skeptical.
They already did that with Produce Flame and Ray of Frost and co. That was post remaster errata to the original core.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without Synesthesia, the Arcane and Occult list reach parity. That spell alone set the Occult list clearly above Arcane in my opinion. Without synesthesia Arcane and Occult grow about the same if not Arcane a little better even if less versatile for healing, buffing, and condition removal.
|
|
They already did that with Produce Flame and Ray of Frost and co. That was post remaster errata to the original core.How then will you, in the future, errata something that was in the CRB and has not been kept in the Core books ?It is probably better for tables to decide for themselves what spells to include in their games than try to crowd source interpretations of developer intention.
I think so GMs will say “core only spells” and mean player core, GM core and Monster Core. Others will be a lot more permissive. As long as you talk over your concerns with your fellow players before making assumptions, you can make changes before committing to a character concept your table won’t support.
PFS has been abundantly clear that legacy stuff is viable unless something else with the same name gets published. Assuming they are going to pull that blanket out from under players at some arbitrary moment in the future is unnecessarily skeptical.
I do not remember seeing an errata for Produce Flame after Remaster. Where did you find out about this ?
Ignition does not count as an errata for Produce Flame since both spells are currently available for PFS.EDIT - Found it. Never mind. I had not realized they had changed the cantrips' damage.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all do know that Player Core 2 is still coming, right?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd challenge that premise. The biggest reason to purchase TTRPG books is so that the sales keep the publisher in business pumping out new books. And that cycle means you can't own a "complete" system until the end of a game's lifespan. Books are actually a pretty bad way to reference all the material in a game, compared to, say, looking at all of the occult spells once on Archive of Nethys.
Besides revenue, books are also better for learning the rules to a system from scratch than Nethys is. But that remains the case regardless of whether every item is included in a single book. Having every possible option actually cmmakes the book bloated and harder to learn.
That's not an excuse for failing to do what they already did the first time. Publishing a complete spell list does not make the book "bloated and harder to learn," it's a requirement for play that Paizo already knows.
In the original pf2 core book, they published 537 spells in that first release. For a system split into 4 traditions, 9 spell ranks, plus all the Focus Spells, ect, that's necessary for a complete package.
______
The idea is that a player or player-hopeful will buy the book with the class they want to play, and it will contain a complete list of options to be game-ready. The concept of additional supplement books does NOT remove that requirement.
If the purchaser cannot depend on "the Witch book" at least providing a complete set of options and tools for them to select, then they have no reason to ever buy the thing.
With signature spells like Synesthesia being missing, the reality right now is rather close to that.
________________________________
I throw money at Paizo via humble bundles, which is not something everyone can/will do.
Just from dealing with the .pdf remaster books I know I will never have a reason to purchase them. They are actively a worse experience / tool for playing their system than free, player-made alternatives.
That is really, really bad. I cannot understate how bad this norm is.
Paizo has put themselves in a situation where their books are little more than token or trinket purchases, not actual items with utility value.
Meanwhile, anyone who actually wants to have a fun and play their game outright needs to hear via the grapevine that you don't actually reference their books, you use this AoN website.
For their actual sold product to have no value to the customer is not normal. The idea that the .pdf is supposed to be a product they put effort into is a joke. Right now, their .pdfs do not even have jump links. I should be able to click on a glossary or spell entry and jump directly to the full text.
I just finished Abomination Vaults as a player, so I DLed the pdf and tried to read through it. It's a bloody mess, and trying to flip back and forth to reference I12c on a map was miserable (FFS, the font is not even serif so i I l L are a mess).
Digital documents have come a long way, being stuck with essentially ctrl-f as the only helpful tool is not professional in 2024.
With effort, their digital releases could have real utility. Unless / until Paizo get with the times and puts the effort into making directly valuable products, they are in a precarious position.
It's hard to say how much the ubiquity of AoN has been an excuse used within Paizo itself, but I pity anyone who genuinely stumbles across the GM Core / PC remaster books in a shop. Without a link from the official product to direct the buyer to how everyone actually plays the game via AoN, I don't want to know what the odds are of them never going beyond the painful book-only play experience.
If the purchaser cannot depend on "the Witch book" at least providing a complete set of options and tools for them to select, then they have no reason to ever buy the thing.
Alternatively, they have an incentive to buy all the books.
I mean that's the whole impetus behind the CRB becoming Player Core and GM Core in the first place. It allows them to sell one 60 dollar book as two 60 dollar books.
Whether or not that's a winning calculation who can say, but it's clearly part of the model.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all do know that Player Core 2 is still coming, right?
Exactly. Putting the more problematic classes in PC2 bought them more time to remaster them, and I expect that they followed a similar strategy for the spells that might need more work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the purchaser cannot depend on "the Witch book" at least providing a complete set of options and tools for them to select, then they have no reason to ever buy the thing.Alternatively, they have an incentive to buy all the books.
I mean that's the whole impetus behind the CRB becoming Player Core and GM Core in the first place. It allows them to sell one 60 dollar book as two 60 dollar books.
Whether or not that's a winning calculation who can say, but it's clearly part of the model.
IMO in a context of a game system with plenty of supplemental books, the "default" buyer will want to start with the "minimum viable package" and if they have fun, consider grabbing more.
The more expensive that is ("Excuse me, Sir? Do you know if I need to buy both the GM and PC?") and the less fun that minimum viable play is, the worse the outlook for them as a repeat customer.
____
I really, really struggle to imagine someone new to a ttrgp system and dropping X hundred dollars to get all published books at once without playing it first.
It's why I do think separating PC books out by Class works well, if they are complete.
But as soon as a player needs that full spell list, they need it. There's no way to cut it in half without that damaging the play experience.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all do know that Player Core 2 is still coming, right?Exactly. Putting the more problematic classes in PC2 bought them more time to remaster them, and I expect that they followed a similar strategy for the spells that might need more work.
That's why I put in the OP that some spells could comeback in PC2 maybe not even with the same name but they can appear there.
The point is that I starting to think that due balance or license reason they may choose to not come back with some of them and all the spells from CRB/APG that doesn't reappeared in PC1 are under this risk.
For example they switch Shocking Grasp for Thunderstrike changing the spell completely (in practice they removed Shocking Grasp and added an new different spell). Same for others spells like Ray of Frost and many others.
In the same way they can just remove some spells that doesn't reappeared in PC1. They can think that's better just remove instead of improve/fix them. Again, it's speculative from my part but probably Mirror Image once that's a spell referenced by a feat (and many deities) but they aren't showed in PC1 and if is to it stays was better just add it to PC1 instead of PC2 to makes the things easier. IMO Synesthesia is in a similar situation the designers may chosen to simply abandon it instead of make a revised version. They may be delayed it to PC2 to work better in it but it's a so iconic spell from occult tradition thats is strange to me why they didn't rework it in the PC1 once that's just a spell not something so hard like a class to be rebalanced. Maybe they can simply decided that "this spell is so strong and the occult tradition already has many other good debuff spells it's better we just forget it instead of try to fix it", this make completely sense once it's only a spell, something that any spellcaster can switch easily and there isn't too much need to rework every spell when you can just throw it away because there are many other alternatives.
Again all this are speculations of my part but stay prepared because it's very likely that some famous things will be remove from the remaster at all due not only license but also balance reasons.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trip, your idea that one specific spell needs to be in Player Core 1 (of 2) or the game model is a failure seems completely arbitrary to me. Also not sure why you're pointing to Witch specifically (other than the synergy with Resentment) because its not even an occult exclusive class. Occult sorcerers are going to be in Player Core 2, which makes sticking Synesthesia there just as plausible as putting it in Player Core 1 for witches. You could have at least said bards. But if you're going down that route, why should a "complete" occult package be placed in a book focused on 8 classes and all four traditions, instead of the occult themed book whose only caster only casts occult spells? (Dark Archive.)
You're also assuming that Synesthesia as we know it is something Paizo wants to include at all. If the spell gets nerfed to be in line with other 5th ranked spells, are you still going to consider it a signature option? Because the fact that it is really really good seems like the only reason to single it out.
And it also feels arbitrary to limit this complaint to CRB spells. Inner Radiance Torrent is a really good spell for patching a whole in the divine and occult traditions. It could also use a reprinting to clarify whether the current Paizo staff intends to "fix" what Mark Seifter said was too much heightening scaling. Why not promote that to Core?
At the end of the day printed material is always going to make choices to cut some things to make room for others. Is it really shocking that a spell many consider broken was skipped, either so Paizo could take more time to "fix" it or decide if they just wanted to gradually fade it out of existence? Especially when Player Core contained a subclass option that elevated this already amazing spell to insanity. It's probably smarter to see how the community does with the Resentment + CRB Synesthesia combo before making decisions about the spell.
It isn't even covering a unique thematic niche. Heck, it doesn't even cover a unique mechanically niche other than being the best-- occult has plenty of other debuff options.
If the purchaser cannot depend on "the Witch book" at least providing a complete set of options and tools for them to select, then they have no reason to ever buy the thing.Alternatively, they have an incentive to buy all the books.
I mean that's the whole impetus behind the CRB becoming Player Core and GM Core in the first place. It allows them to sell one 60 dollar book as two 60 dollar books.
Whether or not that's a winning calculation who can say, but it's clearly part of the model.
That's not entirely true either. Player Core + GM Core + Player Core 2 = CRB + GMG + APG. You're getting the same amount of content, essentially. I suppose you could have gotten away with only buying the CRB before but players sort of needed the APG for archetypes and the GMG contained way too much rules clarifications to skip.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really struggle to imagine someone new to a ttrgp system and dropping X hundred dollars to get all published books at once without playing it first.
It's why I do think separating PC books out by Class works well, if they are complete.
But as soon as a player needs that full spell list, they need it. There's no way to cut it in half without that damaging the play experience.
A, archives of nethys exist. they do not need to buy every book before playing the game. They don't even need to buy any books at all.
B, You can play a witch without Synestia and have a perfectly good time, and be plenty strong. If you don't know it exists, your lack of knowledge will not hurt you. If you know it exists AoN exists so you have have access to it.
I have serious problems with the usage of AoN like a "silver bullet" as many people suggests. AoN is an incredible tool and is something that I thanks Paizo ever due they put the entire game as "open source" not just some rules like the Wizard made.
But the use of AoN as a substitute to the books is a very bad approach. It's good to search things and to check some errata fixes but it's not there to substitute the books otherwise whats the point to buy them at all? So let's just use AoN because it's more complete and mixes the legacy and remaster content and if want just use the Lost Omens books due lore content!? That's why I have serious difficult to believe that this currently compatibility mode will stay there forever it's just bad and strange and don't make sense for the health of the game at all.
One day and probably when the PC2 is out this will end. You could stay using all the content as you want for your home games but for those who want to play with just updated content specially due micro-balancement and probably for the PFS games the old CRB/APG content will be abandoned for good.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
if my favorite overpowered spell happens to not be in a core book, that obviously means that the game is incomplete
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They will keep them there because if you want you still can play using the OGL books. Not everyone wants to play using new books. It's same reason that they keep 1e until today.
It's different from foundry team that chooses to replace the content from OGL to ORC except those that have different names.
I glad for the work of AoN team. They done an incredible job. But I think this doesn't have any context here. What I'm criticizing is the people that says "we have AoN, so it's ok that some things aren't reprinted just use AoN istead of books if you don't have them".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not entirely true either. Player Core + GM Core + Player Core 2 = CRB + GMG + APG. You're getting the same amount of content, essentially. I suppose you could have gotten away with only buying the CRB before but players sort of needed the APG for archetypes and the GMG contained way too much rules clarifications to skip.
I get where you're coming from but don't entirely agree. GMC has significant content for both GMs and players such that the game isn't fully functional without both, whereas the GMG (while an extremely nice book) was primarily an advice and guidance book, with the CRB being rules complete on its own.
What I'm criticizing is the people that says "we have AoN, so it's ok that some things aren't reprinted just use AoN istead of books if you don't have them".
I mean that's literally always been the advice. I'm not sure why it's only supposed to be bad now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well force players that didn't buy CRB/APG to use AoN in order to use CRB/APG only content just because they wasn't reprinted in remaster is far from a good way to do the things.
For now I don't see this as a big problem because it's a temporary workaround while the PC2 is being developed but after this is a bad way to deal with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not entirely true either. Player Core + GM Core + Player Core 2 = CRB + GMG + APG. You're getting the same amount of content, essentially. I suppose you could have gotten away with only buying the CRB before but players sort of needed the APG for archetypes and the GMG contained way too much rules clarifications to skip.I get where you're coming from but don't entirely agree. GMC has significant content for both GMs and players such that the game isn't fully functional without both, whereas the GMG (while an extremely nice book) was primarily an advice and guidance book, with the CRB being rules complete on its own.
What I'm criticizing is the people that says "we have AoN, so it's ok that some things aren't reprinted just use AoN istead of books if you don't have them".I mean that's literally always been the advice. I'm not sure why it's only supposed to be bad now.
The advice and guidance of the GMG was pretty essential, IMO. Things like an unnoticed creature acting second in initiative and Recall Knowledge for general vs unique on the same creature are big messes without that guidance. It also brought us variant rules so popular they are treated like defaults (free archetype), subsystems that significantly increase the kinds of games GMs can make (chase rules, influence encounters), and rules to homebrew hazards and monsters. Skipping it was an incredibly bad idea and making it part of the core books is a good way to signal that outside of just selling more books.
Meanwhile, the only player content that made it to GM core was magical and alchemical items, which are the sort of thing Archive of Nethys excel at referencing anyway. That said, I would personally have preferred magic items moved back to player core and instead put uncommon and rare spells (especially rituals) in GM Core since you need GM permission to use them anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who thinks the PC1 version of Instinctive Obfuscation is a lot clearer than the APG one?
I think it's better when feats spell out exactly what they do rather than to refer to a spell that is hundreds of pages later in the book while making alterations to how the spell works in the feat text.
Like sure, a lot of people knew how Mirror Image worked and the assumption was that you read the CRB before you read the APG, but the Player Core 1 probably should assume you read the ancestries before the spells, since ancestries are in Chapter 2 and spells are in Chapter 7.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well force players that didn't buy CRB/APG to use AoN in order to use CRB/APG only content just because they wasn't reprinted in remaster is far from a good way to do the things.
"Force?" Force them to use a 100% free authorized reference instead of buying a book?
Personally, I'd use the word "Let" for allowing players to not have to spend money to play a game they make.
Am I the only one who thinks the PC1 version of Instinctive Obfuscation is a lot clearer than the APG one?
I think it's better when feats spell out exactly what they do rather than to refer to a spell that is hundreds of pages later in the book while making alterations to how the spell works in the feat text.
Like sure, a lot of people knew how Mirror Image worked and the assumption was that you read the CRB before you read the APG, but the Player Core 1 probably should assume you read the ancestries before the spells, since ancestries are in Chapter 2 and spells are in Chapter 7.
Yes but also is way more weaker but way more frequent.
The original feat gives the mirror image with 2 images what's means that it had "a 1 in 3 chance of hitting you (1–2 on 1d6)" and also had a duration of 1 minute.
Now the chance was increase to 55% and the duration is now instant but recharges every our.
Well force players that didn't buy CRB/APG to use AoN in order to use CRB/APG only content just because they wasn't reprinted in remaster is far from a good way to do the things.
"Force?" Force them to use a 100% free authorized reference instead of buying a book?
Personally, I'd use the word "Let" for allowing players to not have to spend money to play a game they make.
The point is there's no point into buy an older book that has 99% of the book that you have a new one and once that this doesn't make sense why do you have to get the content from AoN to access a non-ported content if you already buy the PC1, PC2 and GMC?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I am skeptical Mirror Image (or a spell mechanically like it) comes back as a spell for Pathfinder Remastered. The mechanical expression of a spell that creates duplicates that pop when attacked is a pretty D&D spell expression. The difference between that mechanical effect and just a blur type effect are very minimal, except where they they have that specific effect of disappearing after being attacked.
The same with Stinking Cloud as a fog spell that sickens.
Which isn't to say that defensive spells that get worse over time/getting attacked or a stinky area spell are copyrighted expressions, but moving them (as spell slot spells) away from those iconically D&D spell expressions is probably a necessity.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not entirely true either. Player Core + GM Core + Player Core 2 = CRB + GMG + APG. You're getting the same amount of content, essentially. I suppose you could have gotten away with only buying the CRB before but players sort of needed the APG for archetypes and the GMG contained way too much rules clarifications to skip.I get where you're coming from but don't entirely agree. GMC has significant content for both GMs and players such that the game isn't fully functional without both, whereas the GMG (while an extremely nice book) was primarily an advice and guidance book, with the CRB being rules complete on its own.
What I'm criticizing is the people that says "we have AoN, so it's ok that some things aren't reprinted just use AoN istead of books if you don't have them".I mean that's literally always been the advice. I'm not sure why it's only supposed to be bad now.
We still have 3 books for 3 books (4 for 4 with Monster Core). It is NOT a cash grab.
|
|
Personally, I am skeptical Mirror Image (or a spell mechanically like it) comes back as a spell for Pathfinder Remastered. The mechanical expression of a spell that creates duplicates that pop when attacked is a pretty D&D spell expression. The difference between that mechanical effect and just a blur type effect are very minimal, except where they they have that specific effect of disappearing after being attacked.
The same with Stinking Cloud as a fog spell that sickens.
Which isn't to say that defensive spells that get worse over time/getting attacked or a stinky area spell are copyrighted expressions, but moving them (as spell slot spells) away from those iconically D&D spell expressions is probably a necessity.
I hope we can still stack all those defensive spells (or similar) together.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not at all "worried" about any player savvy enough to know about Humble Bundles or search forums online. My whole point is that Paizo's choices have essentially made that type of "savvy play" more ~mandatory than it used to be to enjoy and not be frustrated with the pf2e system.
I know that there really are people disconnected from the online zeitgeist, and many of those people play table top games. Like with all unofficial community resources, there's 0 way for someone with just the book(s) to know about the existence of AoN, ect. Official products will never point players anywhere outside their paid set of products.
As such, the spellcasting classes within PC1 suffer from a spell list shorter than even the original pf2e release. This really is not a question of "Would that harm player fun?" but rather "How badly does this harm player fun?"
With the fragmentary and incomplete glossaries in the GM / PC1 books, and with how they outright conflict with each other sometimes, I very much worry that actually playing pf2e "paper raw" or however it ought be described, honestly seems to be a potentially aggravating experience as both PC1 & GM books need to be on standby at all times for rules questions. And even then, there's no getting around the outright contradictions, such as one book saying bomb splash on miss hits only the targeted foe, while the other has the old text saying that splash on miss hits all in the splash zone.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As such, the spellcasting classes within PC1 suffer from a spell list shorter than even the original pf2e release. This really is not a question of "Would that harm player fun?" but rather "How badly does this harm player fun?"
Gotta disagree with you there again. Your assumption is that more content/options has no draw backs, and that is not the case. Having a smaller, more curated list of options which cover your major bases are easier for new players to parse, and less likely to overwhelm them when choosing spells. Even I am finding this to be the case, and I have top tier familiarity with the system. I've found myself using player core 1 alone to pick spells lately. Part of that is that the player core spells are largely more powerful than their legacy equivalents, but it is also because the full spell list is just super duper bloated at this point. I don't need 95% of the published options. They tend to be worse than that 5% or at least too niche for a spontaneous caster to ever bother learning.
Does Synesthesia feel like a glaring omission? Sure. But it also strikes me as a strategic omission, and one I wouldn't actually worry about until we get player core 2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I think then your problem is going to be with the entire future industry, not just PF2E-R. Everyone is moving in the direction of more online resources, more pdfs, less dead tree reliance.
I explicitly stated that Paizo's **lack** of proper digitization is doing harm to pf2e. People who naturally find Paizo products in the wild will not have the community digital resources. I gave examples like dumb / raw pdf releases of books without so much as navigation and jump links. (Meanwhile VTTs do the work to make the info easier to use)
AoN is not Paizo, meaning that any Paizo book purchase lacks the connecting thread to the "savvy play" version of pf2e that exists if you find out about the play-enhancing, quality, 3rd party digital resources.
The digitization of ttrpgs is an unprecedented and massive boon for the hobby. VTTs, in particular Foundry, have escaped all notions of being a side-grade experience compared against raw paper. Playing pf2e via Foundry is incredible. If I ever do play in-person again, we would be crazy not to have the GM imputing our actions onto a Foundry game.
And all critical fun-support for pf2e is not Paizo.
Paizo has missed the bus, and really do not seem to be at all in a hurry to catch up.
_________________________
_________________________
And to respond to the "half a spell list is better, actually" take
Man, that's really starting to echo the "I had fun playing my Alchemist, therefore the class is well designed" "arguments."
Having more options for spell selection really does not add much in the "decision paralysis" department, and only full-list casters like Clerics are even affected by it directly. Even for Clerics, they are only "option stunlocked" by a need to review a big list when they get access to a new rank of spell. More to the point, that is what players sign up for when selecting the class. It is no coincidence that Clerics and Druids have Champions and Rangers as "caster lite" variants of similar theme.
It is absolutely wild to me that PC1 can have so many *less* spells that the original base launch, and players will still find someway to say that "it's better."
_
Like, every caster affected is unambiguously nerfed when they have fewer options to pick from. I would hope that at the very least from a mechanics and game balance perspective, it can be agreed that fewer spell options weakens the caster who uses that list.