Concerns about the Adventurer's Guide
 

So this month paizo has released a new book, the "Adventurer's Guide" the problem is that it has a lot of reprinted content that has been drastically changed from their original source books. Is it at all possible to get the "reprinted" stuff as separate entries so that we can still use the original versions? Note that I don't believe the book says that these replace the originals but I wanted to ask anyway.

I'm sorry, but we try our best to keep Hero Lab up-to-date with the current version of the Pathfinder rules, which means that when content is updated, we update the way that item works in Hero Lab. Using old versions of a now-updated item would be a house rule that users can implement by using the editor to recreate those items.

There is currently a thread in Paizo's discussion forums asking if this is Paizo's policy and raising objections/questions if so.

I believe it is Paizo's policy that the latest published version of something is considered an update or replacement of the prior version. The issues with accidentally duplicating names complicates that a bit.

The thread is asking for an explicit statement that such is the policy.

If the case is that they are being replaced I would request that someone in LW copy them to a new .user file for the community to use. Since this will be a major change in how a lot of items work. Right now those objects are locked behind copy protection, and forcing the community to re-create them just seems like a jerk move.

The thing is that you guys have done this with other things. Off the top of my head the "Battle Cry" feat, the "Wild Caller" summoner archetype and the "Pact Wizard" wizard archetype all have two listings for the different sources they appear in. I understand having to update things because of errata, but this isn't errata and as such I think it should be considered a new thing that happens to have the same name as an existing thing.

That's for major differences, where a character built with the old version would not work correctly, or would need to alter their build, if it were automatically updated to the new version. For most differences, we replace the previous version.

But how do you decide if it's a major change or not? My Lore Warden character would need to be completely reworked or scrapped if he's forced to use the Adventurer's Guide listing. I apologize if my next statement is a bit too confrontational but I feel it needs to be said. Lone Wolfs job is to provide the content that appears in the books created by Paizo to use in HeroLab. It is not your job to decide what constitutes a "replacement for old content", unless stated by Paizo(as is the case with errata). If you change the old Lore Warden content from how it appears in the "Pathfinder Society Field Guide" should I get a refund for that book since you've removed content that I paid for?

Both "Wild Caller" and "Pact Wizard" are cases where the core RPG rules team and the Golarion team (composed of different people who do not compare notes of what they're working on) accidentally created different things with the same name. Both of these are referenced as such in the thread on the Paizo boards that I mentioned previously.

Battle Cry is one I don't know the origin of off the top of my head.

In at least one case, the change in the Adventurer's Guide is deliberate, as James Jacobs commented "I was finally able to fix that".

Couldn't you just not buy The Adventurer's Guide and keep things as they are? The changes would only occur if you buy the book.

That's similar to a sentiment in the discussion at Paizo, but there's a difference.

When it comes to the book, people playing PFS will be told what changes they MUST make.

When it comes to home games, people can choose not to accept the changes.

BUT, there is only ONE version of the ability in HeroLab. HeroLab is like automatically getting errata applied (which doesn't happen to the physical book). When LWD updates that ONE version, the change is applied to all characters using that updated "thing".

I view it as part of the trade-off of the digital tools... the tools need to reflect the "official" version of the rules. When possible, it is a bonus feature when they can accommodate house-rules, but not every house-rule is going to be easy to implement. So if the program provides tools for customization, that's the route fits most naturally.

Most of the time, with electronic tools, "getting all updates automatically" is seen as a feature. :)

And James Jacobs is not a source of official rulings, his comments are meaningless.

If they're going to "replace" the original, I'm guessing that it's also going to replace it even if you only have the original source. Also I shouldn't have to not buy something to keep something I already bought.

Which is why there's a box in the settings you can tick to apply the PFS content restrictions.

And until Paizo states that the content in this book should replace the original versions the "official version" of the rules is that it should be treated as new content.

I agree, and it's one of the reasons I use HeroLab. However, again, until Paizo says otherwise this should be in addition to the existing content, it is not an "updated" version.

I can tell you from doing work on this book for HL that things that have significant differences between the old and AvG version a new version is made and the old version is labeled with the book it comes from. Otherwise, things get updated. There is a lot of discussion behind the scenes on this.

For example, the Steel Falcon prestige class is significantly different between the AvG and the original Andoran book, so there will be two versions. The old version being renamed Steel Falcon (Andoran).

Something similar is done withe the Aldori Swordlord prestige class (in this book) vs. the archetype which has been around since the primer.

Most of the updates are tweaks to the language of abilities and done really affect their in game effect significantly.

Normally, I'd be one to point out that Mr. Jacobs has asked people NOT to look to him for rules adjudication support... both because his answers can change depending on the circumstances and his feeling of "that would be cool", and because he has, himself. pointed out that the Pathfinder Development Team is a separate group from his team, where he is the Creative Director.

However, this book is "experimental" ... putting out a book in the RPG-line (normally world-neutral) that draws on Golarion-specific content. As such, and as James Jacobs it the "Lead Developer" of the book, his opinion this time could very well be the final word.

I'd again argue that it's not up to you guys to decide what is significant or not, but I understand the decision has already been made. I do appreciate the quick responses from the team, not a whole lot of companies have such a great forum presence.

With things like this we have to strike a balance between keeping things the same for people using "old versions" of the content, and making things more complicated for users. If we end up with multiple versions of something in Hero Lab, it's confusing to users who may not know which one to pick, and it's more work for us to maintain - for example, if a bug is discovered, it may need to be fixed in both versions.

It's better in 99% of cases if we just integrate minor changes to an ability's text into a single version of the ability. If your gaming group wants to keep using the older version, you're free to use the text from the PRD or PDF instead, and just ignore the changes in Hero Lab.

As Frumple said, for a few of the new classes / archetypes in the AG, the changes were major enough that we created new versions of the class / archetype for them. If we followed that path everywhere, the data files would take longer to download and be more confusing to use, so we try to avoid it unless the changes pass a reasonable threshold.

Can someone from LW please send me a user file with a copy of the ioun stones before the updates from the book are applied? Because this is a large shift it would be nice to move these to a community file for those who want to use the legacy versions.

That has been my concern the whole time when this came up. The biggest being for many players that don't live on the Paizo forums having multiple versions of the same class is going to be confusing.

My take is, just like in 3.5 days, the latest printing of the rules is the version that should be used. WotC did this and now Paizo does also. It seems like a common method for small game companies to fix issues.

The thread I mentioned on the Paizo forums is asking for a definitive statement whether or not this is the policy Paizo is following. I believe it is, based on past comments about various products, but I don't have a particular quote to point people at to say "yes, this is indeed Paizo's policy".

Overall, I can see LWD is in a tougher position, though. They have an official license, and that pretty much means they have to conform to what Paizo decides is the official version of these things. At the same time, they have their own paying customers to consider, and avoiding causing them inconvenience is also necessary.

I am totally lost what your point is? I am very sorry but you seem to just be "summing" up information. :(

Can you be very clear to your point?

My main point is I DO NOT WANT multiple classes with the same name in HL. This will cause ridiculous levels of confusion to my players. Most HL users I deal with now refuse to even read a book or have a bood with the rules and only go by HL. So having "two" classes to pick from is going to confuse them. They will have NO WAY to know which version to use as most can't/don't track which book just came out or when.

Now lets add to the issue that from the past changes d20pfsrd will simply "update" the class text to the latest printing. This leads to more confusion if the text from d20pfsrd does not match HL. If the text abilities don't match they will complain to me to put in a bug report(s). Then I have to try and explain about books and versions and UG all I will get is a blank look of dear in headlights. :(

That's a problem with your players, not something that should affect the program.

Except my PLAYERS are paying for the software and they have every right to demand the software works the way they want. Sense I PAY I also get to demand the software works the exact way I want.

See demanding works both ways not just what you want. :mad:

Please remember I DO NOT work for Lone Wolf. I get no compensation from them at all. I am a customer and I pay for HL. I am speaking as a customer not any type of representative of Lone Wolf.

Frumple actually works as a contractor to LW and is compensated for his time. I do not. Even the core work I do in d20 (3.5 D&D) is done as a 100% free volunteer service in an attempt to help the community.

So I 100% feel I am allowed to speak up about my desires and my groups desires for how LW will handle this. If you disagree that I am not allowed to speak for my group then I am sorry but I will speak up anyways.

Last thought is as a customer my "wants" is not weighted anymore than any other paying customer.

Yeah.. I wasn't clear. Sorry.

I was just summarizing in the end. I deleted a paragraph or two, or three, as I was composing... and my point got lost in the process.

The point: I agree. I am fairly sure that Paizo's policy is the same as WotC's was for 3.x (latest printed version is the one considered "correct"), and I think LWD should follow the same policy. I think it is a bad idea for LWD to try to present multiple versions, because that will cascade to become similar calls for every change made in errata or a FAQ by Paizo. Do it once, and you open the gates.

Here is the root issue, this is not a FAQ or errata, these are alternate versions of the same items. If Paizo and LW want to take the position that these are replacements for the prior content, but are unwilling/unable to do so thru the normal errata process, there should be a way to continue using the original versions of these materials. Not all campaigns use all source books, what happens to campaigns where the original source is legal but the AA isnt? I understand that LW isnt willing to support dual versions. There is a fairly easy solution then, let us fork them to a community package. Because we are at a point where we still have the original versions accessible please give us a copy of them that the community can branch out and continue to support.

It would be nice to have the information presented according to which sources are selected, so if you don't have the Adventurer's Guide ticked in the "configure hero" box then it presents the old versions of the things; however if it is ticked then the old things get replaced with the new things.

("thing" referrings to feats, classes, whatever; not the HL term :) )

Could the description text of the "old" versions of the things contain a snippet of text such as "Please note this thing had been updated in the Adventurer's Guide" or something like that, which would alert users that this is indeed an old version?

WOW that is actually not a bad idea at all. I "think" I could even achieve this using the editors current *Preclude tab.

I would honestly have to test because HL may complain based on which license a person has. Basically if a person has "both" Licenses for the old book and the adventures guide it will work fine. The issue would be the person only has "one" of the licensed books. Hmmmm something to look at.

Thanks! :D

I'm relatively sure you could do it from a mechanic. As I recall, there were a couple "piratey" weapons we did a similar thing for, because they were presented in one of the Shackles AP issues with a different description than in published books, and we didn't want to overwrite book content with AP setting article content, so we did an amendthing for the description when users turned on the AP source.