I think it's just simple economics that a monster core 2 will happen. They have the content and the demand exists.Probably the same way these other remaster books are happening: if they run out of copies of Bestiary 2 and do a new print run, it'll be updated in some way or another.
The tricky bit with reprinting the Bestiaries is that Monster Core drew from all 3. A lot of content from 1 and 2 went into the Monster Core, and choice bits of 3 were also picked out. You also have a lot more dnd-isms to cut out from 2 and even 3. A 2nd Monster Core is probably the best way to reprint the stuff that was left out from each of the books as well as some new stuff to cover holes left in the remaster (Cold dragons in particular have no representation at all!), and Red and Black dragons have certain famous representatives that don't currently have a good alternative (Diabolic looks visually like a Red Dragon, but their MO doesn't match Daralathyxyl, and we need a swamp dwelling dragon for Dragon's Demand).
Just Remaster Secrets of Magic, no really with the update to Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer, Dragon Eidolon and just most Eidolon in general need updates. We all know Magus needs an update because like no one uses Arcane Cascade class feature, it is just one of those odd power budget class features, almost as odd as Necromancer getting additional Lore for Undead Lore which is either super useful or not at all, unless you take the Class feat that lets you use Undead Lore on anyone who has a skeleton. Also Inventor got the minimal change to make it more functional, would been nice to either get rid of Unstable, make it a focus point like system or make them like the Kineticist, no resource period. Also I'd like to have seen Inventor personally have gone to 10 hit points as a martial but that is because I don't value Inventor & Gunslinger like I do Investigator,Rogue & Thauamturge, as skill related classes.
Arcane Cascade was already fixed in errata they probably just will add it to the a new print.
The main point and difficulty of a remastered SoM is its lore parte. There are tens of pages about magic schools that needs to be fully rewrite or just removed.
The inventor is just recently remastered even with all these complain I doubt that they will change it soon. Also the thing that people most like (here in this topic) in it in general is the unstable options not the opposite. The most controversial point is its Overdrive due action costs and damage is the far weakest when compared to other classes that got some additional damage ability.
[...]
The alchemical bomb feat on gunslinger was also updated to 4+half level of advanced alchemy of at level bombs or ammunition.
[...]
Wait, what?
...
What the f$~!...
Alchemists lost any ability that links -number- of items to level. Meanwhile, Gunslinger both got an upgrade to max-heighten their bombs or alch ammo, while keeping the total # boosted by level.
For comparison, if you take the Alch Archetype & then the Advanced Alchemy feat for daily items, you get 4 dailies total.
Gunslingers for 1 feat, gains 4 + 1/2 level of a limited subset.
That is so good by comparison, that I think an Alchemist feat for "gain 1/2 your level extra daily items of ___ subcategory" would be taken on many Alchemists..
I mean, it's great that Gunslinger got a genuinely good feat out of the remaster like that, but holy hell, why does Paizo appear to hate/fear Alchemists so much.
Totally agree
Even thought you don't get the other Alchemist bonuses, it's still a level 1 feat that scales with levels.At level 8, you get as much daily items as a 18 INT alchemist and at level 9, you get more than him, for a level 1 feat.
Herbalist, a dedication, only has 4 daily items.
Poisoner, another dedication, also only has 4 daily items.
I think that needs an errata...
They won't remaster SoM until it sells out. If it continues to not sell out the existing print run, a better solution is to simply update the relevant material in other books.
The reason G&G was remastered was that they sold out the book, so they needed to order a new print run anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three things are for sure:
2. We are getting a winged bear (of whose name I don't know if it was announced yet) that is totally-not-an-owlbear.
Considering the winged bear is in Sarkorian art, couldn't it be a variety of the Spirit Guide? They already have the feathered bear, and their spirit guides/gods are usually amalgams of various animals. Maybe it represents a Sarkorian God, or is a higher level version of the feathered bear (like the Royal Basilisk in HotW is to regular basilisks).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the winged bear is in Sarkorian art, couldn't it be a variety of the Spirit Guide? They already have the feathered bear, and their spirit guides/gods are usually amalgams of various animals. Maybe it represents a Sarkorian God, or is a higher level version of the feathered bear (like the Royal Basilisk in HotW is to regular basilisks).Three things are for sure:
2. We are getting a winged bear (of whose name I don't know if it was announced yet) that is totally-not-an-owlbear.
Yeah, that might just be Dolok Darkfur, the bear-god of the Farheavens clan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, an interpretation of Dolok Darkfur seems possible. He was the Sarkorian God responsible for leading the reclamation efforts as mentioned in Divine Mysteries. This new Sarkorian school of magic seems to be about supporting that reclamation and promoting traditions. Maybe they told the artist "feathered bear" and that was interpreted as winged.
God art can be inconsistent sometimes. Instructions can be vague instructions and uo to interpretation, especially for minor gods. In lore their depictions are usually malleable to the region anyway. Teki Stronggut, the new goblin God, has a head/nose like a Warhammer goblin and is the same fleshy ochre skin of D&D goblins. She doesn't look like a Pathfinder goblin at all.
Just realized the remaster killed my Inventor build because the invention can only be level 0 weapons and not a Gun Sword... Why did they prohibit level 1 weapons for level 0's?
Just realized the remaster killed my Inventor build because the invention can only be level 0 weapons and not a Gun Sword... Why did they prohibit level 1 weapons for level 0's?
I think because the role of making totally mundane items level 1 (or higher) is to signpost "brand new level 1 PCs probably shouldn't have this" so you don't want to let the inventor get around that. Like you technically could afford Full Plate at level 1, but it will cost 100% of your starting wealth so it's a bad idea. Normally this is fine since proficiency operates in big bins like "heavy armor" and "martial weapons" but the inventor cares about their specific innovation.
I think a friendly GM would probably let you rebuild your innovation as a similar level 1 item in downtime later though. That seems like a simple and easy to apply houserule that solves a problem.
Just realized the remaster killed my Inventor build because the invention can only be level 0 weapons and not a Gun Sword... Why did they prohibit level 1 weapons for level 0's?I think because the role of making totally mundane items level 1 (or higher) is to signpost "brand new level 1 PCs probably shouldn't have this" so you don't want to let the inventor get around that. Like you technically could afford Full Plate at level 1, but it will cost 100% of your starting wealth so it's a bad idea. Normally this is fine since proficiency operates in big bins like "heavy armor" and "martial weapons" but the inventor cares about their specific innovation.
I really don't think that's intuitive & equating it to full plate doesn't make sense to me since a gunsword is only 13 GP and not double the typical starting wealth. But more over, I think that it's a flavor mismatch, what class makes more sense for a Gun Sword than a mad inventor when (up until recently) the weapon wasn't very good?
I think a friendly GM would probably let you rebuild your innovation as a similar level 1 item in downtime later though. That seems like a simple and easy to apply houserule that solves a problem.
I'm not sure what you mean here, what other weapons are similar? Everthing else is finesse-y or not a sword so it doesn't really seem like a good fit. Combinations are a pretty narrow set of weapons last I looked too.
And my DM is definitely a follower of RAW & we play in Foundry & rely on a lot of the automation so finding this out as I was updating my build was pretty disappointing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just realized the remaster killed my Inventor build because the invention can only be level 0 weapons and not a Gun Sword... Why did they prohibit level 1 weapons for level 0's?I think because the role of making totally mundane items level 1 (or higher) is to signpost "brand new level 1 PCs probably shouldn't have this" so you don't want to let the inventor get around that. Like you technically could afford Full Plate at level 1, but it will cost 100% of your starting wealth so it's a bad idea. Normally this is fine since proficiency operates in big bins like "heavy armor" and "martial weapons" but the inventor cares about their specific innovation.
I think a friendly GM would probably let you rebuild your innovation as a similar level 1 item in downtime later though. That seems like a simple and easy to apply houserule that solves a problem.
It's kind of a horrible solution though because it completely wipes out 20 levels of conceptual space because they don't want it to work at level 1.
It's not like weapons aren't generally balanced regardless.
And my DM is definitely a follower of RAW & we play in Foundry & rely on a lot of the automation so finding this out as I was updating my build was pretty disappointing.
Also worth noting that my DM wasn't a fan of these updates breaking existing builds either & decided to just allow the Gun Sword anyways. Not sure how to get get the automated features to work in Foundry though but it's a start at least.
