Adventurer's Guide Implementation

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh

To be perfectly honest I am not sure I want to open that door either. Maintaining a whole separate set of Classes/Feats/Abilities would suck. I can see where lots of issues with Pre-Req and Archetypes will cause problems and error reports. It means trying to "trick" HL into thinking these "Custom" versions are the same as the "Real" versions.

I quickly see this not being maintained by the person who wants it and dropping it in my lap. I can't speak for anyone else but I simply have NO time to add this to the my current work load. Sorry....

Fair point.

[Minous]

My main thing was for items. Right now because the AvG isnt PFS sanctioned yet Im having to research what has and hasnt been changed. With ioun stones and what not, its kind of obnoxious.

[bodrin]

Originally Posted by Krothos

I kinda feel a bit like Dwayne, and felt things should have stayed the same from other material. Further on that, I don't remember seeing anything official from Paizo that these duplicated items in AG are actual updates/errata to previous sources. Is this official Paizo errata (if so, from where/whom) or just a decision of LW team?

If I recall correctly, from the D20 Dungeons and Dragons V3.5 era, the latest publication of a given instance overrides the old version.
The text over table mantra also applies.

Paizo follows this strategy as it was cited in Dungeon / Dragon magazine. The option to use the old version is still a valid choice though.

Living Monolith is one past example of this.

[ErinRigh]

Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh

I quickly see this not being maintained by the person who wants it and dropping it in my lap. I can't speak for anyone else but I simply have NO time to add this to the my current work load. Sorry....

I look into my crystal ball and observe you not giving a single f@%k

[Ualaa]

If a group has some books, but chooses to not use others, the only version of something in hero lab is the latest version then, despite the group not owning the new book with the updated version of the feat or item or whatever.

I see both points of view...

It's nice to have the version, that your sources give you access to.
But it's also nice to be able to use your feat/item, because it's in the original source (that you have access to), but to get free errata (the updated version) despite not having bought the updated source and adding it to your license.

[ShadowChemosh]

Originally Posted by ErinRigh

I look into my crystal ball and observe you not giving a single f@%k

Have to disagree to this being accurate. Its not that I don't care its more I a feel "overwhelmed". I am pulled in a dozen directions from 3.5/d20, Pathfinder and 5e now. I get emails and PMs asking for help and advice and asking to add this or that to the Pack.

Even when I have others adding stuff to the Pack it always requires my assistance to script stuff and add features. Or I have to write new Procedures to make it easy for something to be added to the Pack. This all takes up the "little" free time I have.

I am also frustrated that the "base" books like PoW or Psionics are not finished yet but people want to keep adding "other" supplemental books. Then I get error reports that a "base" ability or class or archetype is not in the Pack yet and all I can give for an answer is yes not done.

Then add in things like PoW just got a whole thing of Errata that should be incorporated and sigh. I am starting to feel exhausted so the idea of taking on yet "another" project may just be that final straw.......

[Silveras]

Originally Posted by Ualaa

If a group has some books, but chooses to not use others, the only version of something in hero lab is the latest version then, despite the group not owning the new book with the updated version of the feat or item or whatever.

I see both points of view...

It's nice to have the version, that your sources give you access to.
But it's also nice to be able to use your feat/item, because it's in the original source (that you have access to), but to get free errata (the updated version) despite not having bought the updated source and adding it to your license.

I see this as the growing pains of the emerging digital future.

Content "canon" is tied at this time to the physical media someone possesses, or the digital representation of physical media (PDF). As the digital implementations become the standard in the future "living documents" that always and only represent the "present canon" will become the norm.

How publishers (such as Paizo) and how tool vendors (such as LWD) handle the conflicts and work out exactly how the "living documents" work will be a sometimes painful process of trial-and-error.

[Silveras]

Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh

Have to disagree to this being accurate. Its not that I don't care its more I a feel "overwhelmed". I am pulled in a dozen directions from 3.5/d20, Pathfinder and 5e now. I get emails and PMs asking for help and advice and asking to add this or that to the Pack.

Even when I have others adding stuff to the Pack it always requires my assistance to script stuff and add features. Or I have to write new Procedures to make it easy for something to be added to the Pack. This all takes up the "little" free time I have.

I am also frustrated that the "base" books like PoW or Psionics are not finished yet but people want to keep adding "other" supplemental books. Then I get error reports that a "base" ability or class or archetype is not in the Pack yet and all I can give for an answer is yes not done.

Then add in things like PoW just got a whole thing of Errata that should be incorporated and sigh. I am starting to feel exhausted so the idea of taking on yet "another" project may just be that final straw.......

Honestly, I think it was a mistake to merge all of the Community pieces into one Pack. It may have been good for resolving dependencies, but I think it made the whole too much for one person to manage.

I think this is especially true for major alternative systems, like Psionics and the Path of War. They're deviating pretty far from Paizo's published route on Pathfinder, and probably should be stand-alone add-ons for those who want them much like the Spheres of Power content maintained by The Iron Golem. I think that's a better solution for them.

[Ualaa]

I don't know that Dreamscarred Press is large enough to hire someone to maintain their Hero Lab files.

Honestly, for my group, those two files are the most important pieces of the Community Package, but other groups may different priorities.
I really appreciate the time and effort put in, to provide these resources to the community.

[charlieluce]

Originally Posted by Silveras

Honestly, I think it was a mistake to merge all of the Community pieces into one Pack. It may have been good for resolving dependencies, but I think it made the whole too much for one person to manage.

I think this is especially true for major alternative systems, like Psionics and the Path of War. They're deviating pretty far from Paizo's published route on Pathfinder, and probably should be stand-alone add-ons for those who want them much like the Spheres of Power content maintained by The Iron Golem. I think that's a better solution for them.

I have to agree with this. While we have used Psionics in the past, for the foreseeable future we only need the Community Pack for the Adjustments and Unchained material and I'd love to be able to only load that part.