Nah. You have it twisted. The complaint isn't that they hired someone to look out for their own best interests. The complaint is that they are claiming that they did it in the best interest of their employees.
No...that's what you want them to have said. Paizo said.
"We chose MH&H upon the recommendation of a consultant with expertise in matters of DEIB. MH&H has a team of attorneys that specialize in these issues, and we’re confident they’ll be able to provide an impartial analysis of the facts that we need to move forward with any corrective actions.
Because the results of these investigations are private personnel matters, Paizo will not be able to make them public. Corrective actions will be taken against any employee (including managers and executives) found to be guilty of these allegations. "
Quote:
Twisting the truth is what got us here in the first place. Feel free to add fuel to that fire and just increase the confirmation bias that those of us asking for clarity already have.
The lack of understanding of business in this tread is appalling. First it's complaining that Paizo (a privately held company) doesn't follow the same mandatory financial reporting requirements that public companies do. Then it's complaints that they DARE hire a law firm that represents their interests. I can hate late stage capitalism as much as the next guy, but guess what, representing their best interests is what companies do. In fact, if Paizo were publicly held, failing to do so would be considered a violation of their fiduciary responsibility. Is there anything that you dozen that constantly complain can't complain about next?
So let's address the elephant in the room. Did Paizo "actually" hire a DIEB law firm.
Yes the did. Under the recommendation of a DEIB specialist they picked a law firm specialized in...*gasp* EMPLOYMENT LAW!
That's right, MH&H specializes in Employment law and provided the following statement(from their website), "While our employment attorneys are experienced and aggressive litigators, they also recognize that employers often prefer to avoid litigation if possible. Accordingly, the firm regularly counsels clients on how to avoid problems and minimize risk with respect to such issues as employee discipline, alleged harassment, the protection of trade secrets, reductions in force, severance and other matters." DEIB, being issues of harassment are inherently employment law issues, ergo they specialize in this work. Stating they do not is simply finding the next thing to complain about because the last thing to complain about fell on deaf ears.
Yes, arguments can be made that this law firm clearly has Paizo's best interests in mind (not the employees); however, in the case of finding and weeding out harassment the employer and employees needs align (the employer doesn't get sued, the employee has the harasser dealt with). Futhermore, as I said before - companies act in their best interest - that's the reason Paizo employees are founding a Union. If they didn't do so I'd question their very desire to stay in business.
I've watched for weeks now and all I see are the same dozen or so people that have already stated that they're done with Paizo come and find yet another thing to complain about because the path to a solution isn't EXACTLY the path that they've told Paizo that they have to follow. Without Jeff's head on a literal pike sitting outside the office, I can say that no solution Paizo will come up with will meet your demands. It's not even worth it for them to put out statements, because there is no statement other than, "we have launched Jeff into the sun" that is going to satiate this crowd.
As someone that wants to see Paizo employees thrive and survive this, I wait for THEIR opinion on what is going on. If they're unhappy, I'm unhappy. If you all are unhappy though, at this point I just see the old man yelling at a cloud.
"Please point out how I regularly break the rules."
While not a straight out violation of the guidelines as written, only providing quotes of others in quotes (as I have done above) rather than using quote markup in an attempt to bypass post moderation when an original post is deleted due to moderation is probably the most obvious one.
And what are they going to do/say when the changes they're demanding don't come overnight? I've watched this exact situation unfold in other organizations (most recently a year and a half ago) - a situation often kicked off by an employee engagement survey . It can take years for the solutions to fully actualize.
I've watched it unfold too. Many times.
Usually it's vague promises and little or no action, often followed by more problems blowing up a few years later.
I've seen three main outcomes.
My last company made lasting actionable changes. It took them about a year and a half to get there and it took reinventing the entire corporate culture. The changes really took to heart employee requests; their roll-out was stellar and well received by the employees. Result - positive. (Note, Mid-cap growth company with about 600 employees)
My previous company to that attempted to make lasting actionable changes. After a year they fell short in pretty much every instance as they failed to truly identify the root cause. Employees never trusted the process in the first place and dismissed it outright. The whole thing was doomed to fail. Result - negative. (Note: privately held small company most like Paizo in size and structure).
I know somebody quite personally who's organization is about a year and two months into the process. The organization has made dramatic changes, all of which could be interpreted as positive and directly related to employee concerns. The employees though don't like the solutions, and won't even give them the time of day. This is the most interesting as it's a case of the employer making a good faith effort, and the employees - since it didn't match their exact expectations, not even willing to give those changes an opportunity. Chances are this will be a miserable failure, but not without a solid attempt. (Without giving it entirely up, large 400+ employee organization that's part of a much, much larger organization with deep resources)
The process works as well as everyone involved makes it work. It can (and does), but it's no guarantee. That said the main point is that even having the list of items to change is not going to appear tomorrow, or next week, or next month. If you're really committed to the process, it'll be months before the independent organization is done with their assessment.
Edit: Looks like (OPF) was a legal entity only and I was incorrect at Tonya being an actual employee of OPF vs Paizo. Feel free to drop the confusion aspects there as it relates to her!
Oh, the creation of the OPF? Yer welcome. I will neither confirm nor deny I was one of two people who were instrumental in pointing out WA state labor law in relation to volunteers for a for profit company.
I think I pointed that out about 10 years ago though. :-P
I love this list of "demands" and those like it. Does anyone even hear themselves over their pitchforks and torches? You've already made your decisions and these demands set forth the groundwork of "trial by the mob is complete".
* Paizo needs to hire a whistleblower/arbitration company.
A whistleblower/arbitration company you say? While it's clear, even by Paizo supporters, that there are management issues within, we've skipped the entire "hire a company to help investigate our corporate culture and have an external review of the concerns noted" and leaped right to "arbitration". Nothing says, "I have an opinion and it's right" then jumping past steps 1-9 and right to 10.
* Said company must investigate Sara Marie's wrongful termination.
It's clear that few here have had to actually let someone go. In my personal vacuum believe Sara's termination was a a poor decision; however, said termination being immediately classified as "wrongful" by a group of individuals who are not Sara or Paizo is ludicrous. Good people are terminated regularly for bad reasons. Good people are also terminated regularly for good reasons. Welcome to the real world of at will employment. Paizo owes us on both ethical and the legal front absolutely no commentary regarding Sara's firing - it is between Sara and Paizo. It may have been a good decision, it may have been a bad decision. And no, Diego's walk-out doesn't taint this, he is also a good employee that could have made a bad decision, or a good decision - we don't need to know which. Offer Sara solidarity over being fired because you like Sara, but that's where any of our involvement on the personnel issue should end.
* Executives need to be held accountable and investigated
Of course accountability in any organization is critical for the organizations function. Billion dollar industries exist to support this. As for investigation, for what? Are you going to be disappointed if the investigation doesn't include a bullet list of items from JP and Crystal? How about how? Do you need daily progress reports or is the demand going to get louder when an investigation (which can take years for some organizations) is quiet? How do you know that there isn't already an investigation underway? A lot of the claims involve personnel, are you asking for details on personnel records? What if the investigation is done and nothing happens because there's no wrongdoing found? If Jeff isn't immediately fired is everyone making these demands going to assume that the accountability investigation is flawed, or are you going to actually listen to somebody that comes in and doesn't say what you want them to say? Are you going to heft those pitchforks higher? You know what, why not simply ask for a seat on the board?
* Executives need to enter good faith negotiations with their employees
What does this mean? Negotiate for what? Salaries? Well that's the next point you make. Sounds like another open ended demand where you have the opportunity to move your goalpost when what you see isn't being done to me.
* Salaries need to be posted and raised; some employees live below the median living wage in Seattle
Aaah my favorite. We have a fundamental wage problem in America. Yelling loudly at a company clearly hasn't fixed it for decades, and isn't going to fix it here. Is underpaying your workers bad? Yes, but like all things the answer comes with an "it's complicated". I saw one person say "rehire Sara and Diego and give them more!" Okay, does that mean everybody else gets the more too? What about the need for more employees to cover the fact that it's clear Paizo has an under-staffing problem? Where does that money come from in what is universally known as a poor-profit industry? What about Paizo employees? How much of this should be put on them and the fact it's their job, or are you going to do all the negotiation for them? Do we get to figure out where the money for the investigation comes from before or after this? Every gamer loves to speak out of both sides of their mouths. "I need to cancel my subscription, it's become too expensive to maintain", followed by, "why don't you pay your employees enough." Living wage is a real and good goal, but a demand like this isn't simply going to move the boulder.
You might want to try backing up a step and looking at your own bias before jumping to your list of demanded solutions.
“Because it's a personnel issue that none of us have any business in butting our noses into.”
And you couldn’t be more wrong.
Awesome, because I think they're both great people let me know who asked you to be their voice in this discussion - was it Sara or Diego? I'd love to give them my support if they've asked for it.
Please, let me know when it's okay for me to start writing to my fired friend's boss to tell them, "you made the right call man."
You people are way too obsessed with Jessica Price, there’s more rants and froth in here about her because you all can’t let it go rather than focusing on Sara Marie abs Diego.
Let's look at Sara's firing in a vacuum shall we?
Sara Marie is fired, Diego resigns in protest with his short set of Tweets. JP and Crystal remain silent. People like Moreland simply comment, "somebody hire these great people." Nothing from Jeff; nothing from Erik or Jason.
We wake up Tuesday morning and there's a certain, "waaaa, why did Sara get fired and Diego resign in protest due to management activities?"
And it ends there. Because it's a personnel issue that none of us have any business in butting our noses into. Good people are fired regularly for bad reasons; conversely, good people are fired regularly for GOOD reasons. Many of us (myself included in this) suspect that some kind of major screw-up has occurred, but without being inside the room we have no idea what really happened. In fact, it's worth noting that other than a vague "this was bad management" by Diego, none of the people inside the room have commented and the circumstances are 100% in limbo. Paizo can't comment (it's both unethical AND illegal) and without comments from Diego and/or Sara there's nothing else to say.
We have none of the "oh man let me tell you about the people involved" from JP, so it ends there. Maybe there's yet another discussion of how Paizo management keeps screwing things up, but honestly it's not going to get the same vitriol. Eventually the story of Sara's firing is a blip on the "well that was dumb" radar. So the very idea that "we're getting sidetracked" is totally missing the situation. JP sidetracked this discussion and made it a thing.
With the addition of JP to the mix we get the Jeff Alvarez thread (after his absolutely awful tone-deaf response), an apology from Erik where he has to affirm that Nazis are bad, and Jason is suddenly in the mix as well. No, everything here comes DIRECTLY from the stirring the pot, not the original firing.
Those interested in helping more can find the hashtag #PaizoAccountability on Twitter, where several former Paizo staffers, freelancers and community members have put together a list of demands, which are:
* Paizo needs to hire a whistleblower/arbitration company.
* Said company must investigate Sara Marie's wrongful termination.
* Executives need to be held accountable and investigated
* Executives need to enter good faith negotiations with their employees
* Salaries need to be posted and raised; some employees live below the median living wage in Seattle
I love this list of "demands" and those like it. Does anyone even hear themselves over their pitchforks and torches? You've already made your decisions and these demands set forth the groundwork of "trial by the mob is complete".
* Paizo needs to hire a whistleblower/arbitration company.
A whistleblower/arbitration company you say? While it's clear, even by Paizo supporters, that there are management issues within, we've skipped the entire "hire a company to help investigate our corporate culture and have an external review of the concerns noted" and leaped right to "arbitration". Nothing says, "I have an opinion and it's right" then jumping past steps 1-9 and right to 10.
* Said company must investigate Sara Marie's wrongful termination.
It's clear that few here have had to actually let someone go. In my personal vacuum believe Sara's termination was a a poor decision; however, said termination being immediately classified as "wrongful" by a group of individuals who are not Sara or Paizo is ludicrous. Good people are terminated regularly for bad reasons. Good people are also terminated regularly for good reasons. Welcome to the real world of at will employment. Paizo owes us on both ethical and the legal front absolutely no commentary regarding Sara's firing - it is between Sara and Paizo. It may have been a good decision, it may have been a bad decision. And no, Diego's walk-out doesn't taint this, he is also a good employee that could have made a bad decision, or a good decision - we don't need to know which. Offer Sara solidarity over being fired because you like Sara, but that's where any of our involvement on the personnel issue should end.
* Executives need to be held accountable and investigated
Of course accountability in any organization is critical for the organizations function. Billion dollar industries exist to support this. As for investigation, for what? Are you going to be disappointed if the investigation doesn't include a bullet list of items from JP and Crystal? How about how? Do you need daily progress reports or is the demand going to get louder when an investigation (which can take years for some organizations) is quiet? How do you know that there isn't already an investigation underway? A lot of the claims involve personnel, are you asking for details on personnel records? What if the investigation is done and nothing happens because there's no wrongdoing found? If Jeff isn't immediately fired is everyone making these demands going to assume that the accountability investigation is flawed, or are you going to actually listen to somebody that comes in and doesn't say what you want them to say? Are you going to heft those pitchforks higher? You know what, why not simply ask for a seat on the board?
* Executives need to enter good faith negotiations with their employees
What does this mean? Negotiate for what? Salaries? Well that's the next point you make. Sounds like another open ended demand where you have the opportunity to move your goalpost when what you see isn't being done to me.
* Salaries need to be posted and raised; some employees live below the median living wage in Seattle
Aaah my favorite. We have a fundamental wage problem in America. Yelling loudly at a company clearly hasn't fixed it for decades, and isn't going to fix it here. Is underpaying your workers bad? Yes, but like all things the answer comes with an "it's complicated". I saw one person say "rehire Sara and Diego and give them more!" Okay, does that mean everybody else gets the more too? What about the need for more employees to cover the fact that it's clear Paizo has an under-staffing problem? Where does that money come from in what is universally known as a poor-profit industry? What about Paizo employees? How much of this should be put on them and the fact it's their job, or are you going to do all the negotiation for them? Do we get to figure out where the money for the investigation comes from before or after this? Every gamer loves to speak out of both sides of their mouths. "I need to cancel my subscription, it's become too expensive to maintain", followed by, "why don't you pay your employees enough." Living wage is a real and good goal, but a demand like this isn't simply going to move the boulder.
You might want to try backing up a step and looking at your own bias before jumping to your list of demanded solutions.
A quick skim of the first page shows 40-ish cancellations. Second page does have cancellations, but drilling into the individual posts indicates they aren't cancelling due to the "controversy" or don't leave a reason at all.
Out of how many active subscriptions exactly? Thousands? More?
40 subscriptions will no doubt raise an eyebrow but it's not going to sink Paizo. I mean hell I'm buying like $300 worth of Starfinder rulebooks/APs, both physical and PDFs in about a week.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I was curious about this earlier today so I tracked it. Reliably you can only look at yesterday and today (though arguably Monday could be counted, and if you're really interested in those numbers I have them as well)..
Between yesterday and today there have been 24 cancellations that were either tied to the current situation or where no reason was given. Of those cancellations only 7 can be explicitly tracked back to the situation at hand. That's almost half the "40" quoted.
Keep in mind, during that same time there were 13 that explicitly gave reasons for cancellation such as "shipping is too much", were old posts that were simply resurrected, were duplicates of the same request or were just regular old customer service questions about orders.
Edit:
Further note, compared to a week ago there were 7 cancellations and 12 random other CS requests. Is 7 greater than 24? Yes. But for the initial outrage that comes from a situation like this, I'd hardly call that bank-breaking.
I am aware that Paizo management cannot speak to it directly (at least right away), but it is difficult for most of us to accept that the firing of a certain long time employee was justified, as everything we customers have seen and heard suggests that she has performed in an exemplary manner.
I might accept something like "We didn't see eye to eye on certain issues, so we regretfully had to part company", but at this point I think many of us are beginning to give credence to various rumors that did not originally seem well justified.
Why do we need any input on this? Why do we need to accept it? I mean I loved Sara as much of the next person and honestly believe her firing was a loss for Paizo, but I also believe that Paizo owes me nothing in regards to statements on personnel issues.
And why would a statement matter anyway? As has been discussed here to death, statements of this nature are boilerplate anyway. Nothing that would be said is going to satiate your desire for more information about her firing.
The reason could very well be that management sucks and made a bad call. It could be that Sara was insubordinate (and yes, refusing management orders that suck can be construed as insubordinate). Regardless, none of that matters because any issues of her employment are between Sara and Paizo. And I hope they keep it that way.
Like, if you're there for 11 years, and these problems are that much in the forefront, I'd probably expect that you'd notice.
Let's also not forget that Mark has been there from the literal ground up. He may be "management" now, but has not always been management. I trust Mark's opinion an awful lot, and his comments go a long way towards my personal decision to take a watchful waiting stance vs. the "burn the whole place to the ground" stance.
This is really disrespectful to what people at activision blizzard have suffered and why the court casehas revealed.
It may be the case at Paizo, but we don't have evidence of that yet even in JP's incredibly biased and in many places intentionally misleading rant.
Also out of the woodwork to double up on this statement.
There is a vast difference between bad decisions that happen every day at every company in the world and the literal hell of Activision/Blizzard that required court involvement.
Good people are fired all the time for dumb reasons. Sara Marie was beloved, and it's pretty clear everyone here knows why. She was good at her job and every issue I had her deal with was dealt with appropriately. From that viewpoint I personally think this was dumb, but I also don't have any of the facts at hand other than a whole lot of airing of dirty laundry tweets from somebody with a personal agenda I absolutely don't respect (and a handful of less vitriolic tweets from the people I do respect).
Companies make terrible decisions all the time, and if one thinks that this is somehow "unusual", they really need to look around. But one thing is for sure, it's yet at the scale and scope of Activision/Blizzard. I don't have any subscriptions left to cancel, and I'm interested to see where this goes, but I'm not ready to pull out the torches and pitchforks yet.
Perhaps the greatest frustration for me (In a game that's laden with frustrations) is that the difficulty is representative of what the OwlCats found fun, not the actual difficulty of the adventure path. Back in May I gave up on balance because I was told directly that the difficulty was where they wanted it. I liken the Owlcats to that DM that everybody's had, but everybody hates - the one that feels the only way to have fun is to repeatedly kick your behind while giggling behind the GM screen.
But lo! somebody went through the effort to find the correct settings to put the difficulty at core Pathfinder rules!LINK
Between a deliberate difficulty hike and an oddity in the code the poster identified the following settings (details of how he got there in the original link):
Quote:
Core Rules Set Enemy Difficulty to "weak" and Enemy Stat Adjustments to "normal" for mostly-accurate Pathfinder experience, in terms of encounter balance.
Enemy Stat Adjustment only seems to influence Regeneration and Immunity bypass (no or reduced damage from non-magical weapons), and from what I can find in the code, only when choosing "somewhat easier" (half regen) or "much easier" (no regen) options. Any other option, such as "much tougher enemies" doesn't appear to actually be used anywhere I've found in the code. Comically enough, this even means choosing the "moderately easier" option is exactly the same as "much tougher" when it comes to this (which is all I can see it actually getting called for).
Enemy Difficulty changes the modifier scores (but not the base values) of the main attributes, skills, AC, Attacks, and Saves, by -2, +0, +2, +4, for weak, normal, strengthened, insane options accordingly. I'll go into why below, but you might notice attacks and AC get double-dipped due to the way the math is handled. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not, but it results in a rather steep increase in certain key stat values.
If you're getting frustrated by difficulty the above changes WILL help!
Here's a link to the Beta save game editor many of us used for testing. They changed how XP is stored, so that no longer works but you can edit your gold for enough to make your own party right off the bat.
As somebody that already experienced the NPCs (and I'm happy not to do so again - even though I'll give Kudos where Kudos are due and point out they really did fix them from the train wrecks they used to be), I can't wait to play a game with custom characters.
Also, stop spreading to other outlets. Reddit is not a place to take grievances, ever...
Except when the place to talk isn't being open about allowing it.
Nature finds a way...
While I don't in any way agree with Sara Marie's reaction, I also am aware of the impossible position she's been put in and it's unfortunate it finally came to this. The timing was also difficult as it's unreasonable to assume that Tonya can respond immediately which makes things harder for her. But I also don't think that's really the problem, as was just stated, this has been brewing a long, long while.
Archers are already at best slightly underpowered in Pathfinder no matter how you build them (they really only do one thing, ranged damage, and there are better ways of doing it), but an archer that can't add an ability score to their damage is completely worthless as a damage dealer and better be able to do something else to contribute.
I fundamentally support the change that larger gear requires higher cost. So for that portion of the petition I am not in agreement and am glad to see the FAQ change.
I am though fundamentally opposed to the whole multiplier on masterwork costs problem that the FAQ started. That makes zero sense to me and as previously shown (below) is contrary to the rules from the CRB. Therefore am in support of its suspension simply because it's so poorly worded and thought through.
The cost of armor for non-humanoid creatures, as well as for creatures who are neither Small nor Medium, varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same.
Weapons for Unusually Sized Creatures: wrote:
The cost of weapons for creatures that are neither Small nor Medium varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same.
Irrisen is known as the Land of Eternal Winter, as it stays freezing year round. Powerful witches known as the White Witches rule the nation and allow monsters the same rights as humanoids. The human descendants of Baba Yaga are called Jadwiga, and are the aristocracy of Irrisen. Ulfen people who find themselves in Irrisen at the bottom of the social hierarchy; the fortunate are serfs, and the rest are slaves.
For Lenora:
Intelligent monstrous races, such as ice trolls and winter wolves, are citizens in Irrisen. Though not as socially powerful as the Jadwiga, they command considerable respect and are often able to do as they please without consequence.
Haltani tilts her head approvingly at Rose's assessment, "Talking things over is always the preferred option, but be wary - the Ulfen I've met don't always give anybody a choice." She glowers slightly at Skødir as she speaks.
At this point Captain Benarray steps in and begins taking a handle of the briefing again. Placing herself firmly in the middle of the room she tries to address the lingering questions, "Lenora, you needn't worry about hauling trade goods."
She carefully pulls out a thick envelope and a folded map before handing them to the woman, "Here is a map of the area and trade vouchers. The former should hopefully help you get to Dalun, and the latter should get you to Naldak's Point, or at least secure permission for you to do so."
Almost as an afterthought she lifts her finger in recollection, "If though you are still worried about Blackifire Clay, or truly want to do your own trading while you are there, The Grinning Pixie's quartermaster is at your disposal. Speak to him for any supplies."
Any mundane or alchemical gear in addition to magical items worth 2,500 gp or less are available for sale on board.
This pliant black clay is always pleasantly warm to the touch. Working blackfire clay in your hands for a full round causes the clay to grow much warmer, granting you a +4 alchemical bonus on saving throws made to resist cold weather. You can combine five blocks of clay over the course of a minute to produce a source of warmth equivalent to a small campfire, allowing you to heat a campsite and cook food.
Blackfire clay only produces heat, never light, smoke, or odor. The clay emits warmth for 1 hour before hardening into an unusable lump. A newly created brick of blackfire clay is composed of 10 blocks.
Venture-Captain Benarry takes another swig from her flask, and wipes her mouth before responding, "I don't really know much about the Sky Key except it is rumored to open the previously forgotten Sky Citadel Jormurdun in the Tusk Mountains. It does have something to do with time magic though, but anyone I speak to insists it's strictly theoretical until we can untie the whole thing. As for Naldak, he was son to the last dwarven king of Jormurdun; they called him Gutheran the Bold. Little is known about Naldak himself though. I found the name in an old book, and then I found the location this old Ulfen map that predates Irrisen. It's mostly a dwarven town, so it was probably underground."
Hearing the continued litany of questions Benarry holds up her hand, "To get there, you’re heading east, up the Rimeflow and Thundering Rivers, past the Grungir Forest, and into Irrisen. Desna smiles—the site is about half a day’s hike north of Dalun, a small trade city on the Irrisen border. I have a small river boat packed with supplies and a letter of trade ready for you. You'll make nice with the city officials, and see if you can get permission to travel inland. Then head to the site and find our missing Sky Key piece. You’ll know you’re on the right track if you recover signs that the royal family settled there."
She does a once over on the group of adventurer's, "Watch yourselves in Irrisen. Antagonizing the locals is like poking a sleeping ice bear in the eye, except it won’t kill you as quickly. The Society is not especially welcome in Irrisen, so try to keep what friends we have, and if you can, make new ones. With that it mind, I’ve hired a local to bring you safely to Dalun."
Venture-Captain Benarry gestures toward the Varki woman. "This is Haltani, and she will guide you into and out of Irrisen alive."
The Varki woman springs to her feet gracefully and addresses the party. "It is always a pleasure to meet travelers from faraway lands. It is true that Irrisen is a harsher land than most. Keep your wits about you, and your journey should be profitable."
A picture of Haltani can be found on the first slide.
I hated pregens before the new rule, and I hate them just as much after.
I understand their necessity in allowing new players to play, and have zero problems in that capacity, but my stomach drops under two circumstances. One, when you show up with something perhaps slightly higher than what everybody else brought and the reaction is, "why not play a pregen?" Well...I brought my character with because I want to play my character that's why. Two, when a regular shows up and plays a pregen yet again, never actually putting in even a modicum of effort in their own character.
One of the points of playing a role playing game is to become invested in the game. Pregens really prevent that and in my experience lend themselves more to "I'm just here to move minis around the table" style of play. At best we see very little in the ream of roleplay, often due to not knowing the iconic's motivations or not trying to create their own. At worst, the player with a pregen becomes a hindrance to table enjoyment as the player pushes too hard, starts fights, or otherwise doesn't worry about the other players at the table because they themselves are "expendable".
Other than pregen only scenarios I've yet to play one, and I plan never to do so.
I would suggest reading the Campaign Info first before deciding if you want to join. Two critical notes:
1. Daily posting is generally expected with only one post needed on weekends. Now, I understand that things come up and we all will miss a day from time-to-time (including me!), so just let us know before that happens and it shouldn't be a problem.
2. I'm not one for "I swing my sword" <Series of dice rolls> or "I look through the room" <Series of dice rolls>. If you're not willing to put in some modicum of effort in your posts, describe actions with some flavor, and speak in character, you'll probably have very little fun as I call you out for it incessantly.
Selection will be based on a loaded lottery. This means that I will be giving priority to players that have GMed for me or have impressed me to no ends in previous PbPs. Secondary preference will be given to anybody that actually writes up an introduction here as opposed to just, "I have a character, I'd like to play". If there's anybody left over, those will fill the last seats.
Note: This game has a handful of pre-sign ups, so all seats are not available.
Black Waters is easily one of my favorite creep-factor scenarios. Well run with all the window dressings and it can be a pretty fantastic "Ravenloftesque" scenario.
Is it not one of the most powerful fighter options in the game?
It is arguably one of the best fighter options for what it provides bonuses to.
But that statement does not make it one of the most powerful fighter options.
In an entirely different thread I provided 10 different ATs that are also best at what their bonuses provide and provide an equal dip opportunity than the Lore Warden. If I were to expand that rambling sentence beyond level 2 I could demonstrate a dozen examples of other fighter ATs that are equally desirable, depending entirely on what you're trying to do.
I hate playing any 2 skill point/level classes (with an ire directed almost exclusively to fighters and clerics), and yet this is why I have characters with fighter levels in Lore Warden, Unbreakable, Armor Master, and Tactician.
As many people have pointed out though, the Lore Warden a) was designed specifically to function as a Pathfinder Society fighter class (evidenced by being in the book written for Pathfinder Society (I was at the PaizoCon VO dinner when Hyrum first showed it to us) and b) it deservedly gained that reputation because of the skill points.
That doesn't make it "most powerful" though, just "most powerful at being a Pathfinder".
A Lore Warden makes a better fighter at almost any fighter type build other than tank (and that's due to the armor proficiency loss). There is almost no reason not to take Lore Warden as your archetype if all you are going for is straight up look at mechanical differences with straight fighter and other archetypes.
Ignoring simple +1 bonuses...Vikings can demoralize as a move action, Varisian Free Style Fighters get Martial Flexibility, Ustalavic Duelists and Armor Masters get the equivalent of dodge (without taking dodge, so they can stack that), Unbreakables get die hard and endurance, tacticians get skill points and a +1 to initiative, Polearm Masters can hit adjacent targets with polearms, Eldritch Guardians get a familiar without needing to go the skill-focus route, Drill Sergeants get tactician, Dragoons get two mounted feats for the price of one...
Simply put, your statement is not true.
Lore Wardens were good at what they did (and in my case I concur with Hillary, that is for providing skill points), but they are not "a better fighter at [sic] almost any fighter build". I should know, I have at least three of the above that are not lore wardens for the specific points noted.
Yes, the Pathfinder Society Field Guide was written with PFS in mind. So was the Pathfinder Society Primer, and probably Seekers of Secrets, as well. The existence of these three books does not suddenly mean that the entire rest of the product line even takes PFS into consideration.
I didn't really want to get involved with this one, but I will try to explain the frustration.
A book was published that was then inserted into the Core Assumption. Back when it was added, that meant it was basically the equivalent of saying "everybody has access to this product". Sure, it was taken off the Core Assumption list, but the ramifications for that is an argument for a different time. The point is, anybody was assumed to be able to use it. So if I've been sitting on this great idea that uses the class as currently written, I'm SOL once the new content comes out in two aspects:
1) I don't get to make what I anticipated (fine, things get updated, let's not get into that), but 2) I don't own the legal source anymore where before I didn't need to.
I think what bothers many individuals (and the more I think about it, me) is that this existing process is akin to to the MMO "Adventures of Princesss Puppy-pants" having the great class of "Puppywrangler" available in the free "Puppies of Penzance" DLC, but then at a later point releasing an update in the "Puppywrangler" class (which weakens them) but then says, "oh yes, but even though you originally got this, you need to shell out $30 more for the "Puppies take Paris" DLC before you can play the class again. That just feels fishy (again, I recognize that's the way things are).
It's been pointed out to me that a different path was taken with the Skinwalker, which is a more reasonable alternative, but the general rate of updates at this point have been more along the Pain Taster, Living Monolith, or Summoner. Which is to say, it's not as if there aren't solutions, it's just saying that publishing a book with a significant amount of recycled content that requires you obtain it in order to make characters with that content regardless of whether that material used to be Core Assumption or not does feel like dirty pool. Sure it's happened in the past, but I don't think it's ever been to this extent.
And here's the rub - I can afford product, so I don't feel the pain. VOs get product for free, so they don't feel the pain. It's the run of the mill player that has to carefully weigh their gaming dollars that winds up getting punished here, and it's unfortunate we don't always see their point of view.
Two: They removed all bonuses to combat maneuvers.
This isn't exactly true; it just uses a workaround now instead of spelling it out. One of the swords secrets grants you access to the brawler's maneuver training. It's still far less than the original, of course.
Also true-ish.
They removed the "general abilities" mandated by Lore Warden and turned them into specific abilities you chose at levels 3, 8, 12, 16, and 20.
Manuever training is one of these things (granting you up to a +5 now instead of the +8 from the previous). This also though means that other abilities, while possible to obtain earlier (i.e. picking Hair's Breadth at 3 instead of 11), may also be weakened (such as hair's breath now having a daily limit to its use).
I think it's fair to say that the current Lore Warden is an entirely different AT than the previous Lore Warden, which is a bit part of the concern.
I'm fairly certain my character that uses the AT will cease to function as designed if it goes through, which would mean trying to completely re-envision it.
Did the lore warden itself get that nerf bat that badly or just the two level dip?
The Lore Warden took a One-Two hit.
One:
Your level two feat is lost to gaining a "virtual" Combat Expertise feat (i.e. Combat Expertise for purposes of qualifying for other feats). You then get Combat Expertise at level 6. In essence you've lost a bonus feat (because it's now the mandated feat at level 2).
Interestingly, the new level you gain Combat Expertise is the level AFTER you qualify for the Student of War Prestige Class. When the Lore Warden was introduced, it was clearly meant as a pathway into Student of War; however, now if you were building a Student of War for entry at level 6, you have to shuffle levels if you wanted to actually obtain Combat Expertise, not just the virtual version.
Two:
They removed all bonuses to combat maneuvers.
If the Lore Warden gets changed, that'd be the 7th time I've had to fix my Eldritch Knight due to errata, Lol.
I'm really crossing my fingers on a grandfathering on Lore Wardens. As it stands, they took it out back and beat it within an inch of its life with the nerf bat.
I'm fairly certain my character that uses the AT will cease to function as designed if it goes through, which would mean trying to completely re-envision it.
It sure would be nice to know what the intent of providing only the "obvious" paths is. It seems very, very short-sighted to list only hexes 1-8, without providing rules that you need to head due south (thought it was East there for a second, damn map makers making North not up...).
Here's why.
The two main routes that the author assumed the party would take equate to 24 movement (Likely, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 OR 1, 2, 4, 6, 8). At no advantages taken, and no forced march (which is dangerous due to being severely under-equipped), a speed 3 party can move 7 a day. That equates to a trip time of just under 3.5 days, with likely death due to no water.
An equally obvious "direct-ish" route that takes 1, 2, plains, plains, plains, plains, plains, plains adds up to only 18 movement and bypasses the swamp altogether. Taking that route, per the instructions of when encounters occur, would yield only the first encounter. A group that's particularly ballsy and heads to plains, plains, hills, plains, plains, plains, plains, plains would also only incur 18 movement and would bypass all of the encounters altogether.
In those two cases, with only 18 phases, a group following the same exact strategy of the "main path", but adds a scavenging phase once per day for food and water (providing them a total daily move speed of 5) would reach the finish line at exactly the same time as the expected routes. Using the same deadly strategy as outlined previously (perhaps they have create water?), they'll finish in two and a half days.
In either case, only 18 phases, with zero advantages taken, a group that takes their forced march, even with food/water gathering during that phase will easily beat any competition and will avoid every single combat as they never "enter" tile 2 or 3, "leave" tile 3 or 4", or "finish progressing through Tile 8"
1) Developing scenarios is not just slapping box text on an author's work as was recently suggested. If you think that it's the story writing that takes up all the developer's time, I think you'd be surprised the amount of other editing, rewriting, and verifying that needs to go on. These scenarios aren't going to develop themselves, and John and Linda work their asses off already.
2) There are two Pathfinder developers, and until somebody figures out a way to prevent the already in the office at all hours John and Linda from sleeping, your only other option is to clone them or hire another. Since the first isn't likely to happen, the only way the second will happen is if it becomes financially viable for Paizo to do so. That's limiting factor number one - and a big reason why those of us that would rather keep PFS accessible keep talking development hours.
3) Specials have evolved greatly over time, and there's been a lot of work on making them accessible to all. Why? Because when you have to run one every night of Gen Con, and at Paizo Con, you're going to write them with the broadest appeal possible while still hitting on the core of what Pathfinder Society is about. Sure, there will be a few misses, but there's a reason most these days either a) are difficult and designed around pregens, or b) allow in level 1's.
4) Actual play data (which we do not have direct access to, but have some solid evidence regarding from previous conventions) indicates that Bonekeep 3 in the convention environment was not nearly as successful as the first two, and there was a drop-off over time from one to two. For many years (and a few of you have been around long enough to remember this) the reason another Seeker Arc wasn't initiated was because "nobody is playing Eyes of the Ten, play that and we'll consider it". So think about that too when asking for Bonekeep 4.
So combine everything above and you'll see why those of us that don't like Bonekeep want to keep John and Linda sane enough to write the bulk of the other 22 scenarios they have to put out annually that need to keep the game going. As the demand for more and more seeker content (which often includes hard mode), or alternate rules such as chase/pursuit, or intrigue rules increases, they have to pick and choose which projects get their time, and which don't. Chances are, they're going to produce scenarios that appeal broadly or introduce a new Paizo written rule subset until there's data-driven evidence indicating otherwise. Concepts and ideas like "hard mode" surely increase development time, but also increase it to a lesser extent than a whole new scenario designed just for a specific subset of players.
So while I agree 100% on Leg 'o Lamb's interpretation of events and I personally as a VO watched the Bonekeep (and season 4/5) driven war of escalation push people out of the game, this is why my first statement said, "put your development hours elsewhere." To me, Bonekeep 4 isn't worth sacrificing any of the above.
I'm not a fan of Bonekeep. The existence of adventures similar to Bonekeep encourages an arms race between developers and players that often means that new players can't keep up. Furthermore, it encourages the creation of unskilled, yet high-damage characters that can tank through the dungeon - exactly the opposite of the type of adventuring that the Pathfinder Society is supposed to be doing, from an in-game perspective. We're archaeologists, not warriors. There is certainly a place for challenging adventures, and I rather enjoy many of the hardest PFS scenarios, such as King of the Storval Stairs, The Elven Entanglement and Of Kirin and Kraken. The difference is that those adventures feature story elements and combats that are not just difficult, but also interesting. It makes sense for the Pathfinder Society to be in those places. Bonekeep? I don't know that the Society's gotten much out of exploring it.
I'll just quote this rather than writing it out again. Bonekeep did nothing good for the community as a whole. The aforementioned arms race and its ramifications to new players is the primary reason I quit for two years.
Aw you are gone already. I had wanted to hug you goodbye.
And thank you for your kind words. I have had an awesomen time. And I have had a great time with the bloggery.
