Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9268329" data-attributes="member: 6790260">As stated, it's a sorites thing, how many grains of sand are in a heap.But I agree that we can make a rough, approximate, intuitive comparison. I, personally, would not consider the Unchained stuff to be errata-level. It's one thing to say "add this paragraph to one action" or the like. It's another to replace multiple classes with versions that are no longer compatible with archetypes that used the original class--which is the case for at least U-Monk and U-Summoner, since their class mechanics differ in both when you get them and how they work. In some cases, it's not too hard to rewrite an archetype so it fits (e.g. the Synthesist archetype was never updated for the U-Summoner, but it's not that hard to tweak it), but other archetypes (particularly some of the Monk ones) specifically swap out or replace class features that either no longer exist or are acquired at different levels, sometimes with different and dependence-laden function. Officially, IIRC, it's not kosher to combine original-class archetypes with unchained versions of classes. That kinda puts things out of the running for mere errata--unless you're intending to errata both that class and all or nearly all archetypes published for it.Now, if it had been as simple as "this is the new Summoner spell list" (which is the bulk of the power-loss for the U-Summoner, since "core" Summoner was MUCH more powerful due to getting otherwise high-level spells at low levels), then I could probably see it as just errata. Extensive and impactful errata, to be sure, but hardly more than rewriting a single list. You wouldn't need to go through and review a bunch of other mechanical bits and bobs to ensure compatibility. (To be clear, I'm sure there would be some because that's PF1e's nature, it's a tangled nightmare of convoluted interactions, but it wouldn't be nearly as impactful.)I guess that's really my dividing line, if you held a sword to my throat and demanded that I make a call. Does the change induce significant cascade effects, e.g. fundamentally rewriting character sheets, updating extensive bolt-on content like PF1e archetypes or D&D 5e subclasses, etc. Essentials (and TCoE, for that matter) did not do that. They offered new options, but didn't replace or significantly rewrite old ones. I call "the new 5e books to be published in 2024" the name "5.5e" because it is replacing significant elements, albeit with the pretense of total backwards compatibility. Few who read the 5.5e Warlock are going to want to play a 5.0 Warlock, it's just better. There's no reason to not use the new Background rules for 5.5e, because the 5.0 ones are simply not going to be as impactful, and won't be compatible with new characters (without rewriting them...to make them into 5.5e Backgrounds.)The changes aren't earth-shattering. It's still the same overall game. But the parts have been meaningfully rewritten and moved around. Some of the changes are under the hood and relatively unobtrusive, bordering on mere errata woven into official text, or mere presentation changes without any content difference. But some are not that. Races, classes, and backgrounds are not that. The changes to weapons, giving them special features if you're proficient, features that (usually) don't exist in 5.0, are not that. The "Bastion" rules are not that. Etc. This is both altering and expanding, and it's quite clearly intended to replace what came before, in terms of player-facing options, while still being compatible with the adventures and monsters of yesteryear, meaning in terms of DM-facing content.</blockquote>

Verification