Concerns about the Adventurer's Guide

[ShadowChemosh]

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.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

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.

 

[Silveras]

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.

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.

 

[Minous]

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.

 

[Farling]

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 )

 

[Lord Magus]

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?

 

[ShadowChemosh]

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 )

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!

 

[Aaron]

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!

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.