| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is nowhere near as dire as you are making it sound for Magi. Why would you be willing to use PC 1 and SoM and not DA or G&G? If the GM is willing to let you play a magus there's no reason to then turn around and go I'm only allowing remastered content.
…
Because G&G and Dark Archive don’t help the Magus (much) either. The issue is that the magus class needs the CRB to function and that is a book, theoretically that has already been fully remastered, but not with the spells the Magus needs to function as intended. Maybe PC2 is going to reintroduce a bunch of spell attack roll spells…but why? None of the classes in the PC2 would benefit much from their inclusion and the end result would probably be a new onslaught of “we need spell attack roll boosting runes! Because spell attack roll spells suck for casters!” (Which isn’t exactly true anyway, but seems to be the primary feedback that moved cantrips mostly away from targeting AC.)
|
The real issue is that they aren't going to even announce something like a PC3 until they sell through all their stock of the original books. They can't afford to kill sales of those books while they've still got significant inventory.
Also agree that it wouldn't be called PC3, it would be Advanced Something-or-Other, just so it won't fall into the Core Assumption for PFS purposes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why on Earth or Golarion would anyone go for that when we already have G&G and the other books? It would also confuse the heck out of new arrivals to the hobby. We have enough of that with the Remaster; we needn't obfuscate things further.
It would feel bad for consumers and would be poor marketing for Paizo.
...Look if you want to play a Tiefling. Play a Nephilim. You just have to find both the Tiefling and the Nephilim feat lists and...
...So you don't have somatic, verbal, and material components anymore. So when you're dealing with this spell, instead you apply these traits...
...No, the Magus does not grant you those spells anymore. Instead you use these spells. Now it would be...
...Oh you see, the Unstable trait has this DC because it was balanced around the way Focus spells worked in Legacy, you see they...
...I know it's confusing, but you'll be able to use the Archives of Nethys to find out which items are legacy and which are remastered...
...Hm, I think your Eidolon would be holy?...
...Look, just look to this errata page, and apply it to your book. No wait! Don't go!...
As you said, we have enough confusion already. But what solves confusion? Standardization. Bring the defunct content up to code, proper code. Make a product that works, instead of requiring us GM's to try to add it back to the Remaster with duct tape and cartoon-brand bandages.
In all honesty, 5e players jump through way more holes than this for their system to function.
Gunslingers need guns and gun rules. Inventors need their gadgets, and their gadget and gear rules.
That would require a whole book on its own! How do you propose you fit all that in a book along with the magus, summoner, psychic, and thaumaturge?
It seems much more workable a solution to simply update G&G (etc.) with remaster rules (and other errata) once they have to reprint it. This has been Paizo's normal policy with books that receive errata.
Since right now if someone who only owns the remastered core books and has no other context for the hobby picks up Guns and Gears they might get confused by "the gunslinger dedication requires Dex 14? But your Dex can only be like -1 to +7" which is something easy enough to convert if someone explains to you what happened. But that's the sort of thing you fix in a second printing.
Maybe PC2 is going to reintroduce a bunch of spell attack roll spells…but why? None of the classes in the PC2 would benefit much from their inclusion and the end result would probably be a new onslaught of “we need spell attack roll boosting runes! Because spell attack roll spells suck for casters!”
Would issuing errata to the magus so that spellstrike works with the remaster cantrips (i.e. doesn't care about spell attack rolls) be on the table? I'm not sure exactly how you'd do it, but this seems the most elegant fix and would be on the order of just "normal errata."
Sure you could leave a lot of it in the old books, but in that case, why wouldn't you just errata the old books? Errata is more consumer friendly and doesn't eat into Paizo's productivity schedule or profit margins as much (especially since they were already planning to dedicate resources towards more regular errata anyways).That makes no sense, worse you're contradicting yourself: "Consumer-friendly" is the very opposite of "not eating into profit margins".
And it's contradictory in more than one way: For if Paizo were to rework those classes as is necessary for complete Errata, then where's the difference between these extensive errata and putting them into a new book? In terms of work, there is no difference. But in terms of money? They could sell the new book, but not the errata.
Also, errata doesn't address the licensing issue: Errata for OGL remains OGL content.
Not if the new print run of the errata'd product is published under the ORC license. They showed us they can do that when they published a Remastered version of the Beginner Box. Same adventure, same pre-gens, but with Remastered rules and some OGL creatures switched out for non-OGL ones.
Secrets of Magic, Guns & Gears, Book of the Dead, Dark Archive, Rage of Elements, and any other books stuck under the OGL license could receive this kind of re-print license change and that'd be a lot less of an issue for the consumer than to expect them to re-buy the same material for minor balance changes and changes to terminology. I'm honestly only mostly OK with LO: Divine Mysteries 'cause the gods will change a fair bit lore-wise due to the War of Immortals event, and it does come with a lot of new content as well. And the previous 4 Core books were an unfortunate necessity.
Now, the main point of contention lies is how long it will take for the OGL versions of those books to sell out so we can get the ORC licensed version. Will it take years, and therefore lock 3PP out of content unless they use Pathfinder Infinite? Or would it be better to bite the proverbial bullet and release a "Player Core 3 but not called PC3 'cause it won't be a Core assumption of the game" book to satisfy 3PP, but ask consumers to re-buy the same books with less content again?
It's hard to say. Not everybody wins in this complex situation.
Maybe PC2 is going to reintroduce a bunch of spell attack roll spells…but why? None of the classes in the PC2 would benefit much from their inclusion and the end result would probably be a new onslaught of “we need spell attack roll boosting runes! Because spell attack roll spells suck for casters!”Would issuing errata to the magus so that spellstrike works with the remaster cantrips (i.e. doesn't care about spell attack rolls) be on the table? I'm not sure exactly how you'd do it, but this seems the most elegant fix and would be on the order of just "normal errata."
Obviously, I don’t know what the official plan is, so I don’t know.
I do know that the playtest showed us what having a spell strike-like mechanic balanced around working with all single target spells looked like, and that was using 2 rolls, one to strike and then a potentially modified saving throw if the strike was a crit. That was my preferred mechanic to begin with, but it worked far more powerfully with spells from spell slots than cantrips and this really required a lot of scroll use and access to additional spells to be powerful, but it really was a wild way to make single target save spells dangerous against higher level enemies.
Expanded spellstrike is essentially a waste of time in comparison and giving it away for free to the magus would, in my opinion, be an added way to trap and confuse new players because it will just generally reduce how much damage you can do as a magus because you could already cast a spell that might affect multiple targets and then make a weapon attack.
There is no way to let spell strike work with saving throw spells and not require 2 rolls generally, because debuffing AC is easier than debuffing saves and attacking AC doesn’t interact with bonuses to saves vs magic. It could probably work with just cantrips, but word count-wise, that is a lot of extra work to add back in like 3 cantrips that are saving throw targeting and single target. Also, this route leaves the magus with very limited spells to use spellstrike with their spell slots, and if the magus is going to be more “buff with spell slot spells,” strike with cantrips, then wave casting does them little favors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Magi player has no problems because I just let him use spells from the CRB and basically anything, really - like, sure, yeah maybe for PFS it's an issue, or really stingy GMs, but I don't know if its actually that much of an issue at most home tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Magi player has no problems because I just let him use spells from the CRB and basically anything, really - like, sure, yeah maybe for PFS it's an issue, or really stingy GMs, but I don't know if its actually that much of an issue at most home tables.
It's not a problem in PFS, so really only an issue for home players with particularly annoying GMs.
There is no way to let spell strike work with saving throw spells and not require 2 rolls generally, because debuffing AC is easier than debuffing saves and attacking AC doesn’t interact with bonuses to saves vs magic.
There is if you say something like "instead of the enemy getting a save, your spellstrike attack roll is also used against their save DC." Which will usually result in the same outcome as the spellstrike itself while saving the extra roll. Having to make two rolls sucks because they already had to make one to hit, and a second one just boosts the chances of the enemy resisting and taking half damage, which largely makes playing a Magus feel awful (as opposed to a spell attack spell getting full damage from the first successful roll).
That's going to have its own problems, but it opens the spell list back up even as Paizo seems to back away from spell attack roll spells (which is good since they're frankly awful if you're a full caster).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Magi player has no problems because I just let him use spells from the CRB and basically anything, really - like, sure, yeah maybe for PFS it's an issue, or really stingy GMs, but I don't know if its actually that much of an issue at most home tables.It's not a problem in PFS, so really only an issue for home players with particularly annoying GMs.
My partner and I have recently had a baby, so I’ve been out of PFS for over a year. Do you not need to own the books that you use for your characters any more? Because, from the beginning, I was talking about new players who are coming to the game buying the PC1 and Secrets of Magic to play their Magus Character.
But even in a home game, using articles of Nethys, players aren’t going to see acid splash, ray of frost, shocking grasp, acid arrow, etc unless they know to go digging for them. Someone at the table at least had to know that the options exist and how to find them. That doesn’t speak highly of the magus being playable from just the core rules and secrets of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Magi player has no problems because I just let him use spells from the CRB and basically anything, really - like, sure, yeah maybe for PFS it's an issue, or really stingy GMs, but I don't know if its actually that much of an issue at most home tables.It's not a problem in PFS, so really only an issue for home players with particularly annoying GMs.My partner and I have recently had a baby, so I’ve been out of PFS for over a year. Do you not need to own the books that you use for your characters any more? Because, from the beginning, I was talking about new players who are coming to the game buying the PC1 and Secrets of Magic to play their Magus Character.
But even in a home game, using articles of Nethys, players aren’t going to see acid splash, ray of frost, shocking grasp, acid arrow, etc unless they know to go digging for them. Someone at the table at least had to know that the options exist and how to find them. That doesn’t speak highly of the magus being playable from just the core rules and secrets of magic.
PFS includes both PC1 and CRB in its list of "core" books that are available without ownership (along with Lost Omens World Guide, Bestiary, Monster Core, and GM Core). So all PFS players have those spells available.
You're right that many of them may not KNOW they have them available, however. The experience at the moment is not new player friendly once you delve outside of the remaster material.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not if the new print run of the errata'd product is published under the ORC license. They showed us they can do that when they published a Remastered version of the Beginner Box. Same adventure, same pre-gens, but with Remastered rules and some OGL creatures switched out for non-OGL ones.For if Paizo were to rework those classes as is necessary for complete Errata, then where's the difference between these extensive errata and putting them into a new book? In terms of work, there is no difference. But in terms of money? They could sell the new book, but not the errata.
Also, errata doesn't address the licensing issue: Errata for OGL remains OGL content.
"new print run of the errata'd product" is almost a new book already.
But no, this is not the same thing as the Beginners Box at all; the box is a standalone product for a whole group of people to play one adventure, containing everything from dice to pawns ("minis") to battlemaps, all of which remains completely unchanged. The difference between the premaster box and remaster box is marginal (mostly rule terms).
The premaster-remaster difference between these others book wouldn't be marginal, but substantial. And just imagine how furious people are when they purchase the book and only discover afterwards that they bought the legacy version? Some people might even intentionally sell their OGL versions on ebay to fund the purchase of the ORC version. I don't think this would go down well at all.
A new book with new content removes all those issues, as it even offers owners of the old books something of value for their money.
Not if the new print run of the errata'd product is published under the ORC license. They showed us they can do that when they published a Remastered version of the Beginner Box. Same adventure, same pre-gens, but with Remastered rules and some OGL creatures switched out for non-OGL ones.For if Paizo were to rework those classes as is necessary for complete Errata, then where's the difference between these extensive errata and putting them into a new book? In terms of work, there is no difference. But in terms of money? They could sell the new book, but not the errata.
Also, errata doesn't address the licensing issue: Errata for OGL remains OGL content.
"new print run of the errata'd product" is almost a new book already.
But no, this is not the same thing as the Beginners Box at all; the box is a standalone product for a whole group of people to play one adventure, containing everything from dice to pawns ("minis") to battlemaps, all of which remains completely unchanged. The difference between the premaster box and remaster box is marginal (mostly rule terms).
The premaster-remaster difference between these others book wouldn't be marginal, but substantial. And just imagine how furious people are when they purchase the book and only discover afterwards that they bought the legacy version? Some people might even intentionally sell their OGL versions on ebay to fund the purchase of the ORC version. I don't think this would go down well at all.
A new book with new content removes all those issues, as it even offers owners of the old books something of value for their money.
1) As if they wouldn't have the EXACT same issue with the OGL Beginner Box VS the Remaster'd Beginner Box? Or the myriad of people confusing the Core Rulebook with Player Core? The only difference, as with most Remaster'd books VS non-Remastered books, is that the non-Remastered book have a red spine, while the Remaster'd products have a green-spine. And from the looks of Tian Xia World Guide, that's not even applicable to the Lost Omens line. People are going to be confused either way.
2) "A new book" would not fit all of the content from 3-4 books worth of stuff. And all of those options deserve to receive errata and brought under the ORC license, not just the guns and classes. Better to errata and change the license, rather than abandon whole swaths of content in order to bring a few classes and options under the license, and maybe some new content.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no way to let spell strike work with saving throw spells and not require 2 rolls generally, because debuffing AC is easier than debuffing saves and attacking AC doesn’t interact with bonuses to saves vs magic.There is if you say something like "instead of the enemy getting a save, your spellstrike attack roll is also used against their save DC." Which will usually result in the same outcome as the spellstrike itself while saving the extra roll. Having to make two rolls sucks because they already had to make one to hit, and a second one just boosts the chances of the enemy resisting and taking half damage, which largely makes playing a Magus feel awful (as opposed to a spell attack spell getting full damage from the first successful roll).
That's going to have its own problems, but it opens the spell list back up even as Paizo seems to back away from spell attack roll spells (which is good since they're frankly awful if you're a full caster).
I was there for the Magus playtest. I heard the many disgruntled folks wanting to condense spell strike into one roll. And while I still like the play test version better (because of how well it worked will all spells and could be combined into cool multi-action activities picked up from archetype feats), I admit that limiting the spells to spell attack roll spells worked for making the whole thing key off of only 1 die roll without being absurdly overpowered.
But that is because they were limited to spell attack roll spells, of which, there was a limited selection at higher levels and they are all really focused on just doing more damage, which is what most weapon attacks are about anyway, so it really didn't break anything.
Converting Saves into Saving throw DCs and then letting the Magus target both AC and that Save DC with the same attack roll is gonzo broken though. Even ignoring the question of whether the Magus would get to use their full weapon attack roll (with all the item/status/circumstance bonuses to attack that are possible), and the fact that just getting to be the person rolling the dice gives you essentially a +1 to land your effect, there is a reason why there is nothing easily available that lets a caster force a reroll against a saving throw DC. Getting to use Hero Points and Sure Strike on the attack roll that determines the saving throw is way too good. If the attack roll was the roll against the DC as well, you would completely break spell casting and full casters would all cry and feel useless.
Do you not need to own the books that you use for your characters any more?
As I understand it, PFS has been moving away from that rule, yes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was there for the Magus playtest. I heard the many disgruntled folks wanting to condense spell strike into one roll. And while I still like the play test version better (because of how well it worked will all spells and could be combined into cool multi-action activities picked up from archetype feats), I admit that limiting the spells to spell attack roll spells worked for making the whole thing key off of only 1 die roll without being absurdly overpowered.
But that is because they were limited to spell attack roll spells, of which, there was a limited selection at higher levels and they are all really focused on just doing more damage, which is what most weapon attacks are about anyway, so it really didn't break anything.
Converting Saves into Saving throw DCs and then letting the Magus target both AC and that Save DC with the same attack roll is gonzo broken though. Even ignoring the question of whether the Magus would get to use their full weapon attack roll (with all the item/status/circumstance bonuses to attack that are possible), and the fact that just getting to be the person rolling the dice gives you essentially a +1 to land your effect, there is a reason why there is nothing easily available that lets a caster force a reroll against a saving throw DC. Getting to use Hero Points and Sure Strike on the attack roll that determines the saving throw is way too good. If the attack roll was the roll against the DC as well, you would completely break spell casting and full casters would all cry and feel useless.
That idea is probably too strong, yes. But having to roll twice has the odds too high that one of those rolls will be poor and you effectively don't do much of anything. Spellstrike is very action and resource intensive, having to have two rolls go your way for it to actually work effectively just feels lousy and will leave you effectively not accomplishing much too often.
That's the reason why I basically don't see anyone using Disintegrate anymore: having to land the attack AND have them fail a save to get what you actually want out of it just doesn't have a high enough success rate vs something else that only requires one roll.
Maybe Magus could have an ability to take the damage part of a spell with a basic save and have it work the way a spell attack did. That would get you the damage without the rider effects, but it also doesn't require you to effectively pass two checks to be effective. I don't know. But if they did go back to "you need to pass what is effectively two 50% odds dice rolls to be effective every turn", I'm never going to touch the class again. That just feels awful. Fortunately I know about the legacy spells so it isn't a problem, but that doesn't help new players.
But if they did go back to "you need to pass what is effectively two 50% odds dice rolls to be effective every turn", I'm never going to touch the class again. That just feels awful. Fortunately I know about the legacy spells so it isn't a problem, but that doesn't help new players.There's 21 arcane tradition, spell attack roll spells in PC1, 16 of which do direct damage with no additional save (Given your post, I put Disintegrate in the group of 5 no-go's). With almost certainly more to come in PC2. So the player doing "legacy magus class + only remaster spell list" has a bunch of spellstrike options. Maybe not some of the legacy faves, but options.
Counting disintegrate, I see 7 total spell attack roll spells in the player core 1? I’d love to know what I am missing!
Cantrips: Gouging claw, Ignition, Tangle Vine, Telekinetic projectile.
1: Hydraulic push
2. Blazing bolt
6: disintegrate.
Edit:arcane spell attack spells
Might you have included focus spells by mistake as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Horizon Thunder Sphere, Magnetic Acceleration and Chromatic Ray are all in Secrets of Magic, so they would be spells available to a player who only bought PC1 and Secrets of magic, but that is still not nearly enough to make the magus spell strike feature playable for anyone who wants their magus to lean into their iconic ability.
Needle Darts and Slashing Gust require the Rage of elements books, and don't actually add much to the magus's ability to do different kinds of damage types. Needle darts could in theory, but that requires either having a weapon that already has the special material type, or having a free hand to hold an object in, while slashing gush really only adds an option for magi that take spell swipe. Neither one brings different damage types to spell strike or to arcane cascade. Phase Bolt is Dark Archive, which really shouldn't be seen as a necessary purchase for a Magus player, and also just doesn't really add much.
Horizon Thunder Sphere is the one spell in Secrets of Magic that kind of covers the Shocking grasp loss for the Magus, but you still don't have acid arrow or polar ray as future options, and doesn't really feel like it makes up for the loss of a couple more damage type cantrips, which is really what the magus needs to work in the remaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Horizon Thunder Sphere, Magnetic Acceleration and Chromatic Ray are all in Secrets of Magic, so they would be spells available to a player who only bought PC1 and Secrets of magic, but that is still not nearly enough to make the magus spell strike feature playable for anyone who wants their magus to lean into their iconic ability.
The Magus is also in Secrets of Magic. If you're saying that you can't play something you don't have the book for this theoretical player without access to HTS couldn't play a Magus either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Horizon Thunder Sphere, Magnetic Acceleration and Chromatic Ray are all in Secrets of Magic, so they would be spells available to a player who only bought PC1 and Secrets of magic, but that is still not nearly enough to make the magus spell strike feature playable for anyone who wants their magus to lean into their iconic ability.The Magus is also in Secrets of Magic. If you're saying that you can't play something you don't have the book for this theoretical player without access to HTS couldn't play a Magus either.
That is what I was saying. Even combining PC1 and Secrets of Magic, a magus doesn’t have 5 cantrips they can use spell strike with and all most all of them are limited to physical damage, if they even do damage. Then for spell slot spells you have HTS and Hydraulic push at first level. That is not bad, but hydraulic push doesn’t scale well except against oozes and enemies immune to crits.
Blazing bolt is not great for magi either. It is a multi target spell best for an eldritch trickster, which might not comeback the same way remastered.
Magnetic acceleration is really no better for a magus than HTS. Prismatic ray is the most interesting higher level spell attack roll spell, but it is pretty random how useful it will be.
There is no way a magus can do cold or acid damage with spell strike anymore. You are mostly limited to fire, physical and maybe some electricity with your spell slots. That is a lot more limited than it was before, and is something that should change if the expectation is not “you really need to use the CRB spells to make a viable magus.”
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would people buy a PC3 of Remastered classes from non-Core books where everything would be available for free on AoN ?
Why would people buy PC2 of Remastered classes when everything would be available for free on AoN?
Why would people buy PC2 of Remastered classes when everything would be available for free on AoN?
Because Paizo cannot just reprint "Advanced Characters Guide" and the "Core Rulebook" in the future because of deep OGL entanglements.
The same is less true of "Secrets of Magic" or "Guns & Gears" which can themselves be updated to break clear from the OGL without rewriting the entire book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well yeah, plenty of people don't buy the books if it is only rules content, because they can't afford/don't want to spend the money spent on the book and can be patient enough to wait for the rules to be posted on AoN, or Pathbuilder, or Wanderer's Guide. Even Demiplane gives you access to the rules content largely for free to look at, just not to use in their character builder.
That's why Paizo is finding success in books that offer a combination of lore and rules, with their thematic book releases. It gives the buyer a reason to buy the book beyond using it as a rule reference guide. The writing found in Secrets of Magic in regards to the traditions of magic are still something I go back to read even years later. And Paizo staff have not be shy in sharing the thematic books' success in sales, either!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the reason Paizo decided to do remaster books to begin with is that they cannot on-board new players to the game if they do not sell "a basic rulebook", "a GM guide", and "a monster book" and they decided that the basic rules they wanted would fill two volumes. So it would be an existential threat to Pathfinder if they were prevented from selling copies of the CRB etc. due to legal shenanigans.
The same is not true of "Guns and Gears".
|
Why would people buy a PC3 of Remastered classes from non-Core books where everything would be available for free on AoN ?Why would people buy PC2 of Remastered classes when everything would be available for free on AoN?
Would players buy a book with Champion, Barbarian, Sorcerer, ... ? I think so.
So many classic MedFan tropes and characters to build.
Would they buy a book with Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Psychic, Summoner and Thaumaturge ? I highly doubt it. Niche and/or complicated classes that were not that needed to play in PF2 for years.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Magi player has no problems because I just let him use spells from the CRB and basically anything, really - like, sure, yeah maybe for PFS it's an issue, or really stingy GMs, but I don't know if its actually that much of an issue at most home tables.It's not a problem in PFS, so really only an issue for home players with particularly annoying GMs.
It can also be a problem for people playing on VTTs. There's definitely been some inconsistent implementation on some of those regarding exactly which versions of things are available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused. Are you trying to refute the point being made there, or are you agreeing? Because that is a pretty good argument to not purchase PC2.Why would people buy a PC3 of Remastered classes from non-Core books where everything would be available for free on AoN ?Why would people buy PC2 of Remastered classes when everything would be available for free on AoN?
Mostly challenging the person I'm replying to to explain why they think a book of remastered classes/feats/etc wouldn't sell when that's what PC2 is, and Paizo thinks that'll sell. I know I'm buying it!
Far as this idea goes, I get the desire for it as it would clean up an experience that is far from ideal right now, despite folks saying its actually fine. It's usable, but its far clunkier than it has to be. I don't really expect it to happen because Paizo's business model is selling new content, and selling the same classes a second time when it's not out of necessity doesn't seem like its that likely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would people buy a PC3 of Remastered classes from non-Core books where everything would be available for free on AoN ?Why would people buy PC2 of Remastered classes when everything would be available for free on AoN?Would players buy a book with Champion, Barbarian, Sorcerer, ... ? I think so.
So many classic MedFan tropes and characters to build.
Would they buy a book with Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Psychic, Summoner and Thaumaturge ? I highly doubt it. Niche and/or complicated classes that were not that needed to play in PF2 for years.
Quoting myself:
AoN is only complementary, no book can replace it efficiently, as it is just a computerized system organized in a way that facilitates your searches and research, nor can it replace a book, as it is not a linearized PDF for you to be the entire content of a series of ancestries, classes, spells and items sequentially.
Or as simply answer AoN is pretty bad to read an entire class or a book content linearly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would people buy a PC3 of Remastered classes from non-Core books where everything would be available for free on AoN ?Why would people buy PC2 of Remastered classes when everything would be available for free on AoN?Would players buy a book with Champion, Barbarian, Sorcerer, ... ? I think so.
So many classic MedFan tropes and characters to build.
Would they buy a book with Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Psychic, Summoner and Thaumaturge ? I highly doubt it. Niche and/or complicated classes that were not that needed to play in PF2 for years.
Quoting myself:
AoN is only complementary, no book can replace it efficiently, as it is just a computerized system organized in a way that facilitates your searches and research, nor can it replace a book, as it is not a linearized PDF for you to be the entire content of a series of ancestries, classes, spells and items sequentially.Or as simply answer AoN is pretty bad to read an entire class or a book content linearly.
I hardly disagree. Reading the PDFs is cumbersome to me most of the time because everything feels kinda constrained in the page. In AoN (or Pathfinder Nexus for the matter) I don't have such problem.
Guns and Gears probably can be republished under the ORC license in full with minimal work, but it would still not be cheap, because you need your chief lore person and probably rules team lead to fine tooth comb it so there is no potential overlap with truly OGL content. The same is probably true of dark archive, although some of the occult lore stuff might need more looking at, again, I don’t know.
But those 2 books are probably in the “just a very expensive editing pass” could get them ORC ready, so I don’t see a good reason to try to pull the mechanics from them to put in a new rules book. Each of them work just fine with the PC1 and their own content.
Secrets of Magic is the problem child. It needs more than an editing pass to be ORC compliant and both classes in it rely on lore and mechanics that are pretty OGL entrenched. Even the archetype mechanics in that book are about 50% superseded at this point and don’t have much value to the remastered game, and I think that will eventually paper cut its way into needing to be addressed in either a “Secrets of Magic: Revealed!” Book or separated out to fit in other books where it fits.
So PC3 seems like a waste, but “just use secrets of Magic as is” is probably not going to cut it long term.
Agreed. The only reason the PC2 needs to exist is to bring the Champion up to speed with the Remaster. None of the other PC2 classes "needed" an update. If anything, Paizo could have swapped the Witch for the Champion in the PC1 book and never made a PC2, as the Witch didn't "need" an update, but the Champion did, on top of the fact the Witch was from the APG to begin with. In this case we'd be having the same arguments about a prospective PC2 as we are about PC3, as many of the arguments I'm hearing against PC3 could easily be applied to PC2.I'm confused. Are you trying to refute the point being made there, or are you agreeing? Because that is a pretty good argument to not purchase PC2.Why would people buy a PC3 of Remastered classes from non-Core books where everything would be available for free on AoN ?Why would people buy PC2 of Remastered classes when everything would be available for free on AoN?Mostly challenging the person I'm replying to to explain why they think a book of remastered classes/feats/etc wouldn't sell when that's what PC2 is, and Paizo thinks that'll sell. I know I'm buying it!
Far as this idea goes, I get the desire for it as it would clean up an experience that is far from ideal right now, despite folks saying its actually fine. It's usable, but its far clunkier than it has to be. I don't really expect it to happen because Paizo's business model is selling new content, and selling the same classes a second time when it's not out of necessity doesn't seem like its that likely.
Champion isn't the main reason. The main reason is to avoid to force those who buy PC1 to need to had to buy CRB in order get access to some core classes and as I said before not everyone like to read everything from AoN.
Would players buy a book with Champion, Barbarian, Sorcerer, ... ? I think so.
So many classic MedFan tropes and characters to build.
Would they buy a book with Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Psychic, Summoner and Thaumaturge ? I highly doubt it. Niche and/or complicated classes that were not that needed to play in PF2 for years.
Why not? I'm a player, right? And I've bought 2 books with only two of them (SoM and DA). I sure as hell would have bought a book with all of them!
Yes, one man is not a trend, but I see people around playing most of those classes, so I see no reason for unpopularity either.
The other good reason to have a compiled book not just a reprint of some of the currently books is to avoid to rewrite and reprint in ORC every each time one of the becomes out-of-stock. In practice this can avoid much extra work and costs but may risk to slow/stop the selling of other books that the content are included in to it but not yet becomes out-of-stock. It's a question to balance gains and looses (but I think there's more gains than looses once that many players probably will buy a "PC3" even already having the other OGL books just like is happening with currently remaster books).
I think the thing about "remastering Guns & Gears to be an ORC book" is that it's probably not necessary to do so. In terms of CYA stuff, it was important for Paizo to have the basic core of the game free and clear from the OGL in order to avoid the scenario where an opportunistic competitor decides to try to sue to put you out of business.
But there's far less potential gain from a malicious competitor suing you to keep you from reprinting your Guns book compared to what they would gain if they kept you from reprinting your basic rules.
If it comes to some sort of apocalyptic copyright situation Paizo can just wash their hands of the OGL books and just use the core rules, but this wouldn't be an option if they didn't remaster the core rules to begin with.
I do think that of the existint non-remaster classes the Gunslinger, Inventor, Kineticist, Thaumaturge, and Summoner can be made to work with the remaster rules with relatively little work by the GM, but the Magus and the Psychic require more attention and maybe you could reprint just those two classes in a new book. Like I could see a new "Secrets of Magic" analogue similar to how we're getting a new Gods & Magic analogue.