Burro-crat's page

Over two-and-half years since I posted on this thread and was following regularly. Probably about a year since I last checked in at all.

Nothing has changed.

ND got away with fraud, because they operate in states with exceptionally weak laws.

Paizo has weathered any PR fallout and probably hasn't gone after ND for some combination of (1) money ain't there no more and (2) Paizo failed at performing due diligence and is consequently vulnerable.

Archon got the manufacturing deal they wanted and really hasn't had to devote resources to back up its promises.

I spoke with Ninja Division and they are unable to offer refunds on shipping (even if you purchase your minis directly through Archon to avoid the wait).

-Jim

And why exactly? Are the funds already spent on other things?

technarken wrote:

Ninja Division has no incentive to help us, and at this point I'd say no incentive to listen to Paizo either. They got our money, and shoved their obligations onto Archon and now are just ignoring the world.

Paizo did not get your money. I understand you're frustrated by Ninja, but Paizo is working to try to get you something after Ninja failed to deliver. Paizo is out in this endeavor too, but you refuse to see that.

Paizo got the licensing fee that was to be provided to them by ND, correct?

Burro-crat wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

(...All I can say is that if they didn't think the numbers made sense, they wouldn't have done the deal.)

I'm not saying things won't work out just fine--and I really hope they do for everyone's sake--but let's be real here, a lot of companies do things without fully analyzing, fully understanding, or fully intending to commit to the plan. That same line of thought was applied ND, and we know how that story worked out.

"Inattention to detail" is not a description that I would use to describe the people that I have met from Archon. I understand what you are saying, but based only on my personal interactions with the people at Archon I don't think it applies in this case.

I got to see a bunch of their stuff for Wolfenstein The Board Game at GenCon, and it looks pretty amazing. If the Starfinder minis come out looking anywhere near as good, I think you'll all be very happy.

That's good to hear! Fingers crossed (oh, so so crossed)!

(...All I can say is that if they didn't think the numbers made sense, they wouldn't have done the deal.)

I'm not saying things won't work out just fine--and I really hope they do for everyone's sake--but let's be real here, a lot of companies do things without fully analyzing, fully understanding, or fully intending to commit to the plan. That same line of thought was applied ND, and we know how that story worked out.

technarken wrote:

Well, we're coming up on another month of absolute radio silence from our 'friends' at ND.

Yeah, ND's "updates" come like clockwork that can be pretty much accurately predicted at this point.

I reported them to Kickstarter for fraud, and pointed out that they have been routinely giving fake, gratuitous updates every couple of months to keep the charade going, but they rejected my claim and said that ND wasn't a fraudulent company *shrugs* take from that what you will. At this point, backing ND is pretty much complicity. I know Paizo means well and wants to help push them into finishing the project, but really ND is just looking for a cash cow to pay off this debt by incurring another one. It's like paying for a credit card with another credit card, but with a worse APR.

Without knowing what's going on, it seems like ND's play is to leverage what intellectual property they have and sell as much stuff as possible, which I assume is to make them look profitable to an investor. The problem is that it doesn't seem like they have that much intellectual property to leverage, since they were mostly a "middle man." And they owe a lot of money, although it's not "owed" in the same sense as debt, since it was through Kickstarter.

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

(it get's grumpy when I try to edit)

So until it could proven that ND intentionally engaged in deceptive and/or malicious practices and wasn't just incompetent a case for fraud is ehhh...

Note: I am not a lawyer and merely going off what I'm remembering from various articles concerning Kickstarter cases.

It would most likely come down to what they knew when and if money from this KS was spent elsewhere.

Kickstarter does have a TOS agreement creators and backers are bound by, a form of contract between them, which KS has no part of btw, that's how they avoid any legal complications from there failures.

While refunds for failed projects were removed long ago, though many people fail to realize that and keep quoting the old ToS that no longer applies I believe the requirement that funding be for the project and used only on the project, not other projects.

If the used money for other projects, or knew they would use money for other projects (the most likely scenario) in a "pyramid scheme" even intending to use profits from old projects to finish this one, that would put them in violation of the ToS, i.e. the contract between backers and creators and since they agreed to abide by the ToS when using the site that could be fraud.

Good points. Also, the question of fraud is going to be governed primarily by federal and state law and not the Kickstarter TOS. In other words, the TOS can't be used as indemnity to fraud.

Ultimately, it is up to the state AGs to decide whether to pursue a fraud case. This is probably fairly small potatoes to them.

We're really unable to say, both for legal reasons as Vic already mentioned, and because it's an unpredictable process.

When we say that we're doing everything we can to support Ninja Division and encourage them to fulfill their obligations to their Kickstarter backers, we do actually mean it. We just can't talk about it.

Yes, thank you.

Back to the topic at hand...

While I am unable to be more specific, we received an update this week that has made me more optimistic than I have been in quite some time that the light at the end of the tunnel will be coming into view for everyone soon.

If you had to guess, would you say within a month? Within a quarter?

SombreroDeLaNuit wrote:

...the real question is why did Paizo let ND put the Paizo logo in The Who were are section of the Kickstarter... letting people believe that it was a joint venture... and now decline any responsibilities and knowing that nothing will come out ...

Our logo was present on the Kickstarter because it's a licensed product, not a "joint venture." Just like our logo is present on Pathfinder Battles minis boxes, and Q-Workshop dice, and Owlcat's Kingmaker video game, and pretty much every other licensed product ever. That's how licensing works.

Saying we are "declin[ing] any responsibilities and knowing that nothing will come out" is a gross mischaracterization. Please see Sara Marie's post above for what we're really saying.

Having a logo prominent on a product is one thing--I don't know how your licensing agreement reads, but the Kickstarter campaign itself is not a product. If the only Paizo logo present on the campaign site was on a mockup of the packaging for a mini or something like that, I don't think folks would be as justified in complaining. Rather, under the "About Us" section, Paizo is the first entity listed, and it goes beyond your logo. You can see how people would interpret Paizo as being either the primary or a joint partner, right? Or at a minimum, strongly vouching for ND?

Burro-crat wrote:

No, it's this type of trollish behavior from the apologists that doesn't help.

*sigh*

Quote:

And being mean? Silas thanked Diego Valdez. I would like to thank him, too. I think people have been generally courteous to Sara Marie, too.

I'd read the whole thread.

I have, obviously, as I have posted occasionally over the past 3 months. But, by all means, continue to pour gas.

*pokes in head*

Yup, still a garbage fire. *reads it over* And now they're openly saying mean stuff to the Paizo Employees, as if they have your money in their back pocket.

They don't and you're not helping your case.

No, it's this type of trollish behavior from the apologists that doesn't help. You note that it's "still a garbage fire," but you're pouring gasoline on it.

And being mean? Silas thanked Diego Valdez. I would like to thank him, too. I think people have been generally courteous to Sara Marie, too. I appreciate her efforts as well. I don't fault the Customer Service folks; rather, I am sympathetic to them.

Sara Marie, is there any estimate on when a statement will be made? Even just a "no later than [date]," or a "hope by" date?

Has anyone seen any updates from Archon since the fiscal quarter ended this past weekend?

At this point leaving this thread up is causing more trouble than it's worth with the same tired points being made over and over and over.

No, I daresay leaving this thread up is a lot less trouble than if the thread were deleted/removed/closed. For many people, that would send a very loud signal. Paizo knows that.

Plus, you can choose not to read it. The ball is ENTIRELY in your court.

The melodrama is reaching a fever pitch and everyone screaming about their lost money are getting out how hand, people aren't even reading the actual facts at hand here and just keep spiraling angrily until someone comes along to rationally defend the Golem... at which point it devolves into hyperbole and personal attacks which get deleted along with any post that the attack quoted.

I would also say that outside of a few moments, the tone of this thread has been pretty appropriate and measured and not outlandish. People have the right to be upset and angry, and everyone is out some amount of money, and for many, it's not an insignificant amount of money. If you'll notice, the flames of this thread tend to get worse right after apologetics are posted (which are almost always baseless). To be fair and clear, it has NOT been Paizo doing that. Customer Service has walked an appropriate and difficult line.

It's a nasty cycle that is only serving to MISinform the poor folks who just want news about the project they backed.

People are sharing information they have gathered from other sources on the internet. Don't act like it's all misinformation. I learned about ND breaking the silence on this thread. And about Archon's plans. There is useful information being conveyed.

If Paizo COULD come out and say anything they would, and temper tantrums being thrown and threatening to stop buy their products or boycott them is ENTIRELY MISSING THE POINT that they are NOT LIABLE for the poor handling, delays, and production issues that ND has. It only makes it HARDER for them to reply to your questions when the whole garden has been salted with bad info, hate, and trollfat.

Maybe, maybe not? I don't know if this is the agreed upon tactic, but a lot of companies get through bad PR by just not saying anything. It's probably the most common tactic. I don't think that's what's going on here since Customer Service has participated in this thread, but none of us can know for sure until the silence is actually broken.

Claiming Paizo is not liable at all is just as disingenuous as saying they are completely liable. Maybe a post or two suggested they are totally liable, but I can't recall any posts like that and the overwhelming majority--if not virtually everyone--who is upset is not claiming that at all. Too many of the apologetics involve forcing completely binary arguments like that one, and THAT is what's not helpful. If (1) Paizo hadn't been so publicly vocal about their confidence in ND and (2) the Kickstarter not had Paizo featured so prominently--and primarily really--as the owner of the Kickstarter, I don't think this situation would be where it was. There is no doubt that this Kickstarter had WAY more participants because of those two issues.

Acting like the ground has salted here is, in itself, a melodramatic statement. Folks have been pretty patient considering it's been a couple months since this thread was re-animated and yet there are still no real developments.

If this is true you cannot really blame a company for being forced to make a decision like this instead of taking a huge tax hit. I'd personally expect them to maybe bulk sell the items on ebay before that point though to at least recoup some of their lost revenue but I'm no business/tax guru so who knows?

I am assuming they cannot sell them, mostly likely per the contract with ND.

Kroothawk wrote:

You can go on claiming that the world has only 3 companies capable of doing scifi miniatures (and including ND in that list of "large" companies).

Everyone else knows this is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.

I will give you the same answer I've given before when this ahs come up.

Please list other companies that have the capability & willingness do do said project and provide a letter from them verifying they have the capability and would have said yes if approached.

Arguing that Paizo should have turned down ND's offer AT THE TIME WITHOUT KNOWING HOW BADLY IT WOULD TURN OUT, and gone to another, as of yet mythical company, because while people like you continue to spout off about how many there are, but no one has listed a single viable alternative is just nonsense.

If you want anyone to take you seriously you need to back up your claim as to the existence of these mythical companies that would have jumped at the chance to provide minis.

While true, just because ND is the last one standing doesn't mean a business arrangement should have been made. Maybe Paizo did exhaust all their options. Maybe their other options were also riskier. Maybe the two big boys on the block legitimately weren't interested. Maybe they weren't given enough time. Maybe the financials of the licensing deal didn't make sense to them. I don't know. But I do know a game can occur without minis and virtually all do. I mean, minis never come out for a while with even Paizo's games. Plus, the cardboard pawns were out fairly quickly if folks really needed something for verisimilitude.

I take as false any overt or implied argument from any party that the minis were "essential" for the success of Starfinder--whether this argument is being used to justify going into a deal with ND or to explain, in hindsight, while a deal the deal was made. As a business you seek out any revenue streams you can get--especially if they are low cost revenue streams--but let's not act like this licensing deal was one of the major revenue streams.

Furthermore, I think this argument is often being used to distract from the real issue for many. Paizo assessed their risk/reward with licensing to ND, but ultimately, the entirety of the immediate financial risk was borne by Kickstarter backers--and that possibility had to be known at the time of entering into a business engagement with ND. So, what was it, that made Paizo comfortable? I don't suspect we'll ever know, but I sure hope--and suspect--the reason is more than "well, we aren't the ones who will bear the financial risk, so let's do it."

Kroothawk wrote:

Are they able to do sci-fantasy miniatures?
ND said yes, but everyone in the business including customers knew: No, not for a while.

The minis they have delivered disagrees with that.

As for everything else, it's what's been stated. Others turned them down or couldn't meet what they were needing, ND promised them they could. So it was ND or nothing.

Just because ND *said* yes doesn't mean they could. Nor does it mean that that simple answer was enough, given their performance history.

And to be clear, it wasn't "ND or nothing," but rather, "[ND delivers OR ND completely wets the bed and severely ticks off some chunk of customers] or nothing." At the time, that was apparent.

We will probably never really know but I wish we could learn what ND said/did/showed to Paizo made the Paizo brass feel comfortable. That may lead to further frustration--or it may lead to some sympathy. I think that's what many people are really upset about--that we can't square how Paizo would go with this company--and let this company use Paizo's reputation as a security net on this Kickstarter--given the company's history and all the warnings from customers. And closure may never occur.

Erik has been wanting to post in this thread and he's been trying to formulate some thoughts. I have been hesitant to say this as I know that as soon as I say that, there will likely be expectations raised that may or may not be met and I try to be exceedingly conservative when it comes to things that might affect people's expectations. Particularly because I have not been sure if or when a post might come to fruition or what it will end up saying.

With the above in mind, I want to let you know that Erik has been working on putting some of his thoughts into words, and will post them soon. I'm not sure when he might be able to post anything. I know other execs are working with him to ensure what he says conveys the message he intends and I do not know how long that will take.
[ooc]I know that there are lots of questions you want answers to and things you want to hear be said. We are all very aware of the the issues, feedback provided, and questions raised in this thread and elsewhere. The Paizo executive and licensing teams, with the various information and knowledge that they have access to, are trying to navigate this in a way that first and foremost, does not put backers' prospects of receiving miniatures from Ninja Division's kickstarter campaign at further risk. Anything they (or I) want say is carefully viewed through that lens. There are over 2K backers and we take the responsibility to ensure we do not unintentionally and negatively interfere very seriously.

Sara Marie, many thanks for posting this. This addresses the question I was most interested in hearing an answer for (of those questions that I thought *could* be answered given whatever is going on behind the scenes).

Roflercoaster wrote:

I doubt Paizo cares....

I've seen this sentiment several times in this thread from a variety of levels of involvement with Starfinder and the miniatures and I wanted to let folks in this thread know, the people who make up Paizo absolutely care. We care that our community is frustrated, and feeling hurt, that people have been put off Starfinder or Paizo in general because of this. We empathize deeply with the community involved in this.

I'm not here to try to get people to stop feeling frustrated or upset or fed up over the kickstarter, or to ask people to stop posting how they feel. I'm also not here to give people assurances or provide resolutions for backers.

I'm continuing to update in the thread, so that however y'all feel about things, you know we are listening to feedback and internally this is not being ignored. That's all we can offer right now as far as commenting on the issue. We know people are looking for more answers, information, or details from people who are not me. We know that "No new information is available" isn't satisfactory for backers. But however much we want to say one thing or another or be able to provide folks with information and details, we are not able to (usually for legal reasons). If there's questions we aren't answering, usually it's because we can't, not because we don't care.

There's been an uptick in posts over the last week, particularly with the update from Monday. I am trying to keep up with reading them, but if there are things that I can answer (or not answer) I am not going to be able to get to them until probably the end of this week, early next.

Sara, I appreciate you communicating with us. I understand that there are certain things you can and cannot say as the PR person.

Can you tell us whether someone at Paizo--at the Erik Mona level or higher--will, at some point, address this situation publicly? Will this include any information as to why there was thought that ND could fulfill their obligation given their track record?

yukongil wrote:

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

J-Bone wrote:

I need to know why this decision was made

you've been informed multiple times. It was take a gamble on ND, or a 100% chance of no minis at all.

is it really a gamble to place a bet on the dark horse that sometimes comes in last, or just hops the fence and robs the betting station, running off with all the money?

If the bets in this race mean you also assuredly lose out on a lot of money by not betting at all, yes. Which would be the case with no minis for their new game.

Companies shouldn't "gamble." They may take risks--and those risks should be calculated--but it isn't gambling (and I take it you're not really a gambler either).

I find it hard to believe that the existence of miniatures was a "necessity" to sell Starfinder. In fact, if you look at Paizo's history, there's always a fairly long lag between release a campaign/AP/supplement and the associated miniatures. Which tells us that it's simply an additional revenue stream but not necessary to release the game.

But let's say that the Paizo thought miniatures had to be released for Starfinder to ultimately be profitable. Is the less than $40,000 in licensing fees really what made the difference? If so, I feel for Paizo's financials. But the more important question is was the less than $40,000 in licensing fees really worth the "very bad gamble" to go with a company with a terrible track record? To engender bad feelings from customers? (Sure, this won't affect the spending of some, but I can tell you my table has frozen its Paizo spending until this is addressed, and we collectively spend much more per year than we invested in this Kickstarter. I don't know how prevalent this thinking is, but I know we're not alone.)

To pile on, I still don't find fulfilling the explanation to go with ND over some other alternative. Reaper supposedly didn't want to compete with their sci-fi line--but that means you actually have existing IP to bring down your initial investment and can be re-purposed, using Starfinder as a revenue booster--score!

WizKids said they didn't have enough time for sculpting. So maybe delay release a bit? Or, hire additional sculpters on a freelance basis, which we know is how this industry often works. Oh, that may drive up the price a bit for Paizo? Do it, because it's better than the risk of total project failure from ND--which HAD to be identified as a possibility--and we know it won't be by much given the prices that freelance artists are paid. More importantly, if scheduling sculpting really was the case, how was ND going to have time to do it?

I obviously don't know the details, and I'm not pretending to, but the answers provided don't make good sense. Maybe those involved in negotiations simply don't have as much business acumen as expected, or maybe Paizo rushed Starfinder's release too much (TBH, the game definitely feels like it was rushed in places).

I think that article pretty much tells us everything we need to know.

Ninja divisions/Soda Pop has no money to fulfill the projects they were paid for.

And, that they are being looked at by the attorney generals of two states.

For what it's worth, Kai Nesbit is now the Director of Business Development for Jasco Games out of Las Vegas. He does not appear to officially be affiliated with Shinobi 7 anymore.

Found on the internet:

Christopher Birkenhagen
Director of Sales at Ninja Division Publishing LLC
Location:
5311 N. Glenwood St., Garden City, Idaho, United States
Company:
Ninja Division Publishing LLC
HQ Phone:
(208) 286-4135

Then googled using google map... This is now...

Industrial Storage Systems Inc
5311 N Glenwood St, Boise, ID 83714, États-Unis
MP39+FM Garden City, Idaho, États-Unis
iss-solutions.com
+1 208-376-1111

If this is true, now you can understand what hope there is left of getting anything...

So my question is now: DOES NINJA DIVISION STILL EXIST, OR IS PAIZO MAKING FOOL OF OURSELVES? ... for instance by hiding these very truth ...

PS: I will try to call these numbers but it may be easier for US backers...

I called the two numbers here...

The second number, for ISS Solutions, just rings and rings and rings. The website seems pretty amateurish and advertises contracting/renovation services. My guess is that it was the office for a [very] small business unrelated to ND, and that, like others said, the address is for a facility that rents out space.

The first number does not belong to ND or to Christopher Birkenhagen; rather, it belongs to a very established company that sells laboratory and research materials and supplies, called MilliporeSigma. Maybe ND released that number and MilliporeSigma picked it up to have a local number for sales. That's definitely possible.

Another possibility is less comforting, however. One would hope ND didn't knowingly list that phone number on their business filings when it actually belongs to someone else, because, well, that actually would be fraud.

The Kickstarter backers and GameOnTabletop late pledges are not customers of Paizo nor Ninja Division. We freely gave our money, not for a product, but to assist a company in developing a product. That is the fundamental basis of Kickstarter.

So our relationship to ND is not one of customer-retailer, but rather closer to patron-artist. As far as the failed Kickstarter goes, Paizo slapped their name all over it but they have no legal obligation or business connection to us at all. It's simply marketing.

By entering into a licensing agreement with ND and by allowing the use of Paizo's name, Paizo absolutely has skin in this game. It may not be in the narrowest legal sense (which is probably moot, since ND is broke), but to think Paizo has no responsibility here is an overly academic position.

So because an artist failed in their artistic endeavor, that makes them liable to suit from those that patronized them? That seems an unfair precedent to set.

You are making an illogical leap here. You went from saying in the binary designation of "customer-retailer [relationship]" or "patron-artist [relationship]" (the binary designation is debatable, but let's go with it), our relationship to ND is more of a patron to an artist--to that holding an "artist" liable would be an unfair precedent to set. First, if you contracted with an artist for some sum of money to be exchanged for a fairly specific work of art--and the details of that art, as well as mockup, were well documented before the exchange of money--and all that artist produced is a very small part of that work of art, you would have legal standing. That doesn't mean it's prudent to sue, but "doing art" doesn't absolve responsibility of the artist.

Furthermore, ND is not an artist. Backers did not ask them to produce something of some indeterminate or nebulous quality. ND said they would create a very tangible, understandable, generally ordinary product (albeit for a particular piece of intellectual property). Outside of the specific look of Starfinder, we all understand what minatures are, generally how they're made, and we knew exactly how many ND said they would produce--and which ones--based on the money provided. That they asked for money up front to deliver a very explicit, specific product implies an unwritten contractual obligation to the people who provided money. That the commercial transaction did not occur in a more traditional medium does not make it less of a commercial transaction.

We knew upfront that this money was effectively lost the moment we spent it. There's a whole section of every Kickstarter description devoted to potential risks, so we can't say we weren't aware what we signed up for.

This is a pretty acrobatic apology. Yes, we all know there's risk when we engage in a Kickstarter. However, folks that funded it DID expect it was likely they would get a product. To suggest otherwise is silly. Moreover, that Paizo's name was allowed to be used all over this Kickstarter provided additional "reasonable assurance" that the Kickstarter would at least largely be fulfilled. Therein lies the skin in the game.

And again, there is no contractual obligation for ND to provide us a product. Now, if it came out that they defrauded everyone with 0 intention of delivering anything, just to take the money and run, then maybe we'd be able to go after them in court. But that's a really high bar to clear. And the fact that some people did receive miniatures (however few) shows they at least attempted to do what they said they would. They just failed.

The absence of a written contract does not mean there is no contractual obligation, just like the presence of a written contract does not mean that the written contract is full-proof. Again, you're posing a very binary view of things (complete, outright fraud v. earnest but failed management of a project), which is particularly problematic since it's likely neither one of those options encapsulates ND's intentions. Producing a fraction of the product promised does not mean ND earnestly tried to fulfill their obligations as presented in the Kickstarter campaign. I, as many others think, suspect ND was raising funds to pay off moneys owed to others, hoping they would catch lightning in a bottle and make themselves and everyone whole. Those don't equate to earnest intentions of fully fulfilling the Kickstarter campaign.

Does it suck? Yes. Do I wish someone else would have taken the license and made SF minis? Absolutely. But to keep blaming Paizo or demanding some recompense for mistakes we made is pointless. I know I'll take a hard pass on anything associated with Ninja Division or the people who work(ed) there in the future. Lesson learned. Let's move on. I've got Infinity miniatures to paint!

Edit: I really appreciate that Sara Marie and Paizo in general are not giving up on this and continuing to work behind the scenes. But I'm honestly treating anything we might get in the future as a surprise bonus. ND failed us and trying to punish them now is pointless.

Suggesting that Paizo is either "completely" or "not at all" responsible is disingenuous. I don't think any of the critics are saying they're completely responsible; we are saying that Paizo has skin in this game, and they know it. Even if no legal action occurs--and I expect no legal action to occur--this is a bad look for Paizo given that they (1) engaged in a license with what is in their business a known bad operator, (2) allowed free and generous use of their name in the solicitation of funds, (3) are profiting from the same product, albeit through a different legal mechanism, by selling the exact, same minis on their website (no one can convince me that the funding ND acquired from Kickstarter and any funding ND acquired from Paizo for developing those same minis can be properly segregated), and (4) didn't address this issue publicly until there was a robust and protracted outcry from customers.

Fully absolve all you want. Many won't, and they are justified in doing so.

Sara Marie wrote:

Looking into how much detail I can go into about store operations regarding the question about minis available for sale.

Just popping in to let you know this is still pending and has not been forgotten.

Have a good weekend!

Thank you.

I do think that Paizo has the responsibility to explain to some extent how they are selling the miniatures yet the Kickstarter backers are left in the cold. I understand this may be the best way for the Kickstarter to get funded, and there was certainly a different contract for Ninja Division (oh, how the name is so fitting) to deliver product to Paizo than the agreement around the Kickstarter, and blah blah blah--but Paizo's name is ALL OVER the Kickstarter page. Paizo has skin in this game. And Paizo hasn't spoken to this at all.

Maybe instead of allowing their name to be linked to the Kickstarter in such a prominent way, they should have done their due diligence on this company. Clearly, they didn't.

To me, the answer's simple: no Kickstarter fulfillment, no more Paizo purchases.

PF2e Remaster?

I wish Paizo would release a compilation book of some kind like a Bestiary 7, Ultimate Equipment 2, or Class Compilation book(every class including variants plus maybe all the bloodlines, rogue talents, oracle mysteries, ki powers, etc.) but I know that will never happen.

I've wanted an Ultimate Equipment 2 for so long!

For me, it's not.

I understand the need for the Remaster after everything that happened with the OGL and the creation of the ORC. However, I already have a lot of money invested in Pathfinder (1e and 2e) and can't justify paying $120 for the new cores (or even $40 for the PDFs). I play 1e more than 2e anyway; I enjoy it more and I already own most of the books for it.

When I do play 2e, I'll probably stick to the books I already own, and if I want to play the Remastered, version I'll likely use AoN to look up the rules.

It's mostly a cost-for-content issue for me. Some of the new stuff looks cool, but I can't shell out that much money for it, as much as I'd love to support Paizo.

KingGramJohnson wrote:

However, this does not change the fact that there is a mechanic in Starfinder that allows a GM to turn off the core abilities of some class in an insignificant fight, as per RAW. This is something I think is asinine.

I do not believe this rule is conducive to a good RPG table. And thus, we will be house-ruled out for our group. If you like it, that's cool; you may use it. The bag of space rats is not an issue for me and my group; thus, this rule is unnecessary at our table.

So, it does look like I glossed over the rules says stellar mode doesn't activate, which does mean your denied some powers.

However, I would urge caution is calling the general stupid or asinine. The general rule makes sense and is good.

The rules applying it to stellar modes was probably a bad decision. And it would be reasonable to house rule it, so that it was generally usable. And in fact, there are some revelations that are only useful and make sense to use outside of combat. They're not impossible to use in combat, but you also shouldn't (IMO) be restricted to using them in combat only.

But again, I think you're having an emotional reaction with being frustrated because of a bad experience caused by improper application of the rule. You should have been able to use your stellar mote to turn into your weapon and armor, and while you may not have had the damage bonus or access to your revelations you probably would have had a different experience with the combat.

Don't get rid of the general rule, but I will admit it being attached to stellar mode doesn't make sense.

Honestly, I've played a Solarion before and forgot that line was even in there. Ultimately the rule is about stopping exploitative play. And I agree that you shouldn't be able to build up attunement outside of combat (which is why it says you can't use it outside of combat (or more specifically combat with significant enemies) but their explanation of why you can't use it at all is kind of BS. That I will agree...

This is absolutely the intention of the rule, but it's not written as well and cohesively into the system as we wish. Because while you and I understand the intention, it's not immediate obvious and Stellar Modes does say you can't use it against non-significant enemies. But the intention is to prevent you from building up attunement prior to a fight.

Fair enough about the general.

After looking things over, I think what I most have an issue with is the way the rule is worded, especially with Solarian. I get what they're trying to do, but it could have been worded better.

As a follow-up, we played tonight, and my whole group agreed that we don't have a "bag of rats" issue, and thus APL-4 abuse will not be a problem for us. So we have house-ruled it out. No harm, no foul.

As long as no Paizo exec ever tells me it's racist to call myself half-something like that Jeremy guy at WotC did, and as long as they don't 'erase' being mixed meaning anything like the 5E revision is doing (where you only take abilities from one side and just wrap it in a paint job).

Then I can handle it.

Making 'mixed heritages' that actually means something - letting me take from both of my ancestries...

As a 'real life' mixed race person that is highly appreciated.

I've grown up with a cultural mix from 4 continents, and it means something. And having that concept represented in gaming has always been of great value to me.

As long as I can ALSO proudly call my characters half-Orc and half-Elf and have that be canon, then I will remain happy with the changes that EXPAND mixed heritage rather than contract it like some other tRPG is doing.

They cover it here:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1829865557?t=02h28m11s

This is exactly how I feel about it. Paizo is making an effort to allow blended groups of people to work mechanically, and WotC is erasing them from the game. Major props to Paizo!

Will half halflings be quarterlings?

I still firmly believe that Humans are Dire Halflings.

We play in person and still play PF1. My players just finished Book 4 of Mummy's Mask. So far, so good. A lot of character deaths in the dungeon though.

No, what you do, is take it literally. Have the party get to the BBEG and find that he's just some dude with a wooden picket sign that says, "I'm evil!" But the twist is that the sign is intelligent, evil, and took over this guy's will. It's the sign that says "I'm evil" that's been controlling the guy the whole time.

Everyone wins. The GM gets to have an evil villain that literally says they're evil. The players get a twist they don't see coming. The critic gets an unconventional villain with a surprising amount of nuance for such a silly concept.

Obviously, something like this wouldn't work in a serious-toned game. But the concept is sound if you were to use the idea of this twist with some more serious themes. The villain IS more sympathetic; they're under the control of another. This forces the party to make some heavy choices concerning what to do about the one who's been pulling all the strings but turns out to be a puppet themselves.

I would love to learn how to really present a dragon like I imagine they are supposed to be...

Even within the printed Paizo material, I wish I knew how to utilize everything they already have. And I have heard of people that can best party after party using the same old dragon, just using it well.

Dragons do not come of age by being foolish. It is hard to show a thousand years of cunning and guile in an encounter with the party, since wise dragon would likely avoid such an encounter at all costs. Even a hoard can be replaced, so long as the dragon is alive to replace it.

A dragon with specific enough interest in the party to take on a humanoid form to befriend them seems insane, to me. They could either tell a minion they already have to act as an ambassador and go liason with the party, or pay/hire the exact right "person" for the job. Taking on such a risk oneself is a fool's errand. A dragon old enough to perform such tricks theirself would be experienced enough to know that the information one could possibly gain is information you already know... avoid these murderhobos of you want to live.

I would agree with you to a point. True Dragons are hyper-intelligent, highly magical beings. They are wise, clever, and devious (regardless of color and type). I agree that adult and higher-aged dragons would be too smart to get themselves into trouble. Maybe some younger ones would be more reckless as they don't have the experience.

However, one of the reasons why I love running dragon encounters is because I believe dragons have ranges of personalities and desires.

For example, I had a party run into a Cloud Dragon who had a hoard of spoons. Just spoons. All nd of spoons. Fancy spoons, princess spoons, worthless spoons, common everyday spoons. She just loved spoons. She wouldn't let the party move through her domine unless they gave her a spoon. Thankfully, they happened to have one (I think it was made of clay).

As for dragons never putting themselves into a position to interact directly with a party, I must respectfully disagree. I think some might, but not all. I think many dragons, though wise and intelligent, are also arrogant. And let's be honest, who's going to mess with an ancient dragon? Not many people; adventures are crazy, after all. I can easily see a dragon being like, "I'm so powerful, no one would dare piss me off or try to harm me. No one is that suicidal. What do I have to fear from this party and their petty magic and puny weapons?"

Such was the case of an encounter with an ancient silver dragon in a campaign I ran. He was LG and considered the area they were in his domain to protect. He was also very nature-aligned. He didn't want the animals that lived in his territory to be harmed. He considered himself the law of the land, and he (secretly) ruled and protected it. The party ended up finding a roc nest, climbing inside, killing the roc, and taking the egg. The dragon discovered this and visited the party, appearing like an old wizard. He approached them at their campfire. They instantly did not trust him and questioned him, and all they could learn was that he was very magical (they failed their checks to see that he was polymorphed). He asked if he could camp with them and use their fire. They didn’t trust him, but he showed them that he had no weapons and meant no harm. They agreed though they were cautious. He asked them of their adventures, and they brought up the Roc. The following day. He told them that he protected this land and found the dead roc and wanted to know what happened. He was giving them the benefit of the doubt; he is good after all. After the party told him they needed the egg and the roc attacked them. The dragon-in-human-form questioned them and learned that they provoked the roc when they tried to take the egg and defended itself and its young.

He told them that they must make reparations for their crimes. They were to hatch the egg and find someone to care for the baby roc until it could be released into the wild and find someone who knew about rocs to do this. The party was like, “Who are you to order us?” He told them he ruled this land and the creatures were under his protection, and he would allow them to make it right. They threatened him. He told them that he would raze their city to the ground if they did not do as they were told within X amount of time. Then he simply walked away. The Ranger drew his bow and attacked.

This Ranger was optimized up the wazoo but still missed the AC, but I fluffed it that he turned and caught the arrow (despite not having that feat, it was more fluff to show them how powerful he was). He broke the arrow in half and stated their deadline again. Then they were freaked out because they figured his shot should have hit a wizard. The Ranger attacked again. This time he actually hit. After taking damage, the dragon turned and said something along the lines of, “We’ll do this the hard way then,” and transformed, and instantly the party realized their mistake, and by then, it was too late. Now, the ancient silver dragon could have wiped the floor with them, but instead, he killed only the Ranger (I think he flew him up 200 feet and dropped him) and told them that they had a deadline to do as he said, then flew away.

Then they tried to find ways to kill the dragon but eventually decided just to comply; it would be cheaper and better than the alternative.

It was a fun encounter. They later made amends with the dragon, and though never fully friends, they became allies.

So, in conclusion, I think it depends on the dragon and the situation on whether or not they would disguise themselves and walk among the adventurers. But yeah, I like running dragon encounters.

I can recall running a game long ago where I felt bad about the amount of treasure (or lack thereof) that I had given out in an earlier session. So I placed a large gem (a ruby) in the hall for the players to find. Simple enough, they'd get instant cash to cover what I had shorted them before. For in game rational, I reasoned that another adventuring party (they knew there were others exploring the same ruins they were) had dropped it as they left - and had not noticed it fall out of their bag.

So, as the heroes approached a intersection they caught sight of a "red twinkle" on the floor ahead. Out came the detect spells, the rogue checking for traps, Paladin doing Detect Evil, the works. Ultimately, even discovering that it was a valuable gem, they elected to bypass that section of tunnel to avoid approaching it. They could come up with NO REASON FOR IT TO BE THERE. It HAD to be a trap, and one they couldn't figure out, so it was best to bust a hole in a couple stone walls to bypass the intersection entirely... leaving that ruby on the ground.

Months later, they would still point out how they could sometimes "foil my evil plans" by "avoiding the bait"...

Haha! I've had players bypass treasure because they didn't trust it either! Classic!

@Derklord - ABP would never fly with me and the people I game with. It takes the fun out of some elements of the game. We enjoy seeing if we have enough money to buy the things we need (the Big 6) and the other things we may want and choosing between them. ABP just gives it to you. You need to suspend your disbelief, as you say, but for me, it's suspending it a little too far. And the magic is not enchanted on the weapon, it's attuned to it and can be moved around at the PC's leisure.

For example, let's say you're in a fight, and your weapon was taken from you, and the villain escapes with it. In a typical game, this hurts; you put a lot of money you worked hard for into that weapon. But in an ABP game, it's no big deal; just switch the attunement to your backup weapon tomorrow. Or if your armor gets sundered or your cloak is stolen. No actual harm or foul.

If it works for your group, that's fine, but it's not a great system for all people and play styles, and I think that's what @Kasoh is talking about. It's not a bad system; it's just not for everyone.

And yes, it does take some work, despite what you claim, as you have to recalculate prices of weapons with non-enhancement magic on them (Such as Bane, Holy, etc.). It can be a hassle to some GMs who don't want to deal with that level of minutia.

As for @Calybos1's original question, what I find works the easiest is taking some of the treasure they would get from an encounter they bypassed and placing it elsewhere in the adventure as loot in chests or hidden compartments.

I don't recommend transferring unique items if they bypass an encounter.

E.g., The party talks their way out of an encounter that they would have dropped a cool dagger made of cold iron. That happens to be the only cold iron drop in the adventure game, and cold iron is needed to kill a nasty monster later that will not die unless dealt a killing blow from a cold iron weapon (I'm looking at you, RotR). (This wasn't my exact experience with this AP, but it's similar enough to use it as an example here.)

Well, in the context of the story, they either missed their opportunity to get that item, OR they need to rethink how to get that item. If it's a MUST HAVE campaign item required to complete the mission, and the party bypasses it, the GM will need to reroute them back to it. I've had to do this before because a party ignored information they received, used social skills to bypass an encounter, and missed picking up an essential item they needed. They realized they messed up and had to double back and steal it, which they did successfully.

The point I'm making, though, is that with only a little effort on your part, you can supply them with items they would get as murderhobo loot simply by including it elsewhere. And if that doesn't work, as others have pointed out, have the loot be rewards for their good deeds from people who what to help and contribute to the cause or whatnot.

I would want an updated Ultimate Equipment, or Ultimate Equipment 2.

It’s out for a few days: https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6shr4?Class-Is-in-Session-Strength -of-Thousands#discuss

Awesome! Thank you!

Hey! Does anyone know when the Strength of Thousands Player's Guide will be available?

Thanks!

In a homebrewed system I created (based on d20), I had a minor artifact that the party stumbled upon called the Ring of Bags. It was super lame, and I expected them to sell it, but they found it enjoyable and hung onto it.

All it did was when you slipped it on an empty non-magical bag of random material, size, and design would appear in your hand. When you let go of it, it remained, but a new one would poof into your hand. It was essentially infinite bags. They kept it, and any time they wanted or needed a bag or sack, they used the ring. It was not game-breaking, but kind of funny how much use they had for it.

Consequently, same game, same party, they found a creepy shop that they went into. The shopkeeper asked them if they wanted to buy an eyeball, and he kept hounding them about it. It was a human eyeball that was magically preserved. Just to get him to stop asking about it, one of them bought it. As soon as he left the shop, he threw it away (it only cost him 1 gold). An hour later, he found it again in his pocket. He tossed it away again, and it reappeared an hour later. He smashed it, the same thing. He tried giving it away, and it would be back in his pocket. He had it for most of the campaign before he figured out the trick. He had to SELL it to be able to get rid of it; then the eyeball would be someone else's problem.

That homebrew system was fun! Haha.

Mudfoot wrote:

But as you can pass through an ally's space, crashes would be reduced substantially as long as you're on good terms with other road users.

No road user is on good terms with other road users. :D

Fact!

It doesn't need to make sense, it's TTRPG ;p

Exactly! The OP isn't asking about all PF mechanics in the real world, they're asking about what are the real world consequences that would exist for PF mechanics. I wasn't thinking that all mechanics apply at the same time. I was isolating specific mechanics and trying to figure out what consequences there would be for them.

If ALL mechanics applied, it would just be an RPG, and this thread would be moot.

So my argument for teleport replacing most commercial air travel was just about teleport, not all PF's mechanics.

I don't think PF's WBL for players or NPCs would work in a real economy, so I didn't factor it in. I was factoring in mostly a real world-like economy, in which I still think if magical teleportation existed, commercial air travel would be less of a thing.

Besides, as a GM, I hardly ever look at the NPC WBL. An NPC is as wealthy as I need them to be for the situation. But I DO admit, @Carrauntoohil, that if WBL were a factor involved, yes, teleport would be much harder to pull off.

My whole argument makes some assumptions (Magical study leading to more accessible magic, real world economics, etc.). Still, in my opinion, real world teleportation would highly reduce the need for commercial air travel.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Suddenly I have this vision that the result of "Fix whatever is wrong inside this person" would depend very much upon point of view, so you'd better be REALLY careful about your choice of care provider.

:D :D :D

Weeeeeeeellll, quality of healthcare can be pretty variable even now. This just makes it even more fun.

Erastil: "This guy definitely needs antlers.

Bahahaha! I could SO see this happening! Depending on the hospital and the faith of the one healing you, all kinds of great stuff would happen! :-D God forbid you get a cleric of Lamashtu to heal you up that day.

This made my day!

KingGramJohnson, what was your version of mas combat like?

My major issue with mass combat (as written) is that it's a slog, and it's boring.  I did not have fun doing it as a player, and I did not enjoy running it as a GM.  Overall, I found it to be disappointing, so I altered Mass Combat to function in three parts:

Army vs. army
Party vs. captains/generals
Complete objectives

Army vs. Army

This functioned similarly to mass combat army builds, but with reduced rules so it's a simple three-round fight that takes an arbitrary about of time (depending on the situation).  This was a simple best two out of three.  This would determine how many casualties on a mass scale there were for one side or the other.

Party vs. Captains/Generals

I describe this part of my version of mass combat as while the armies are battling, we "zoom in" to where the PCs are in the heat of battle (but for simplicity reasons) unaffected by the army around them, and there they face down the leaders of the opposing armies.  I treat this like a boss battle.  There is the general(s) (the boss(es), and the captains (the powerful minions of the general(s)).  This is fought like any other straight fight like you would run in a dungeon boss room.

Complete Objectives

This part of my version of mass combat provides something else to accomplish while fighting the captains/generals.  The party is given several objectives that they need to complete to prevent the opposing army from advancing/breaching the city/gaining a foothold, etc.  There is often a time limit or some similar factor involved here.

For example, in one fight, while in the boss battle, the party may have five rounds to close the city gate's portcullis.  And while they fight, they need to try to save as many civilians as they can from dying (if too many die, it will count as a failure), depending on why the reason for the battle and the location, these objectives will change.

Like with the army vs. army part, mass combat is best two out of three.  So if the party defeats the bosses and their army wins but loses the objectives, they still "win" the mass combat.  

Admittedly, this is stacked in favor of the party, BUT I think that's okay for mass combat.  When we ran it this way, my players liked it a lot better.

It's not perfect, but it works for us, and it's a heck of a lot more fun than the RAW mass combat rules.  

I did enjoy Kingmaker, though still not a fan of the mass combat stuff.

I highly disliked mass combat when I played through Kingmaker, so I altered the way it worked when I had GMed it.

Some of my favorite APs are Kingmaker, Rise of the Runelords, and Mummy's Mask.

I've never played any of the published modules.

I ran a homebrew campaign that I wrote myself (inspired by some of my own ideas mixed with some ideas I found here on Paizo's forums) called "The Godkiller". It dealt with the question of what happened to Aroden. It was well-liked by the people I ran it for.

I know this is a fairly significant thread necro...but I'm curious about further developments now that there has been 7 or 8 months worth of gaming to develop them.

I'm sorry, I didn't see this until just now. Thank you for the curiosity about it. We finished that homebrewed campaign just before Christmas of 2019. We intended on taking a break for the holidays and starting an AP. But shortly before COIVID-19, one of the players bowed out, and we decided to end the group for the time being (I have another group I play with, so it wasn't that bad for me.)

The campaign ended well. One of the corrupted time traveler players had to leave the group due to school scheduling conflicts, but the others who remained had to deal with the corruption for the remainder of the campaign. They did eventually hire their guide and made it through the Underdark to the Vaults of Orv, and found what they were looking for, freeing a slave along the way.

They were able to make it to the antagonist godess realm and defeat her (imprisoning her in a prison similar to Rovagug's). They were working with other gods to accomplish this goal (this was a divine quest).

They succeeded and were highly blessed by the gods, and received boons and the removal of their corruptions, and were granted the blessing of being offered heroldship when they died if they desired it.

Overall it was a fun campaign, and the players enjoyed it, including the way it all ended.

It's funny how a random encounter with a dragon would alter their plans so much, but it did. They felt the weight of that for the rest of the campaign.

Thank you for asking. :-D

Hello everyone! I wanted to submit an update. I was able to make a baller map, and my players were surprised and enjoyed the encounter on it. Because you all helped me with ideas on how to make it for cheap, I wanted to share the final result.

This is the map I made.

Thanks!

I also hate it when people just touch my dice. I don't mind them borrowing them if they ask. And so help me if they roll my d20 without permission!

As for other RPG quirks I have:

Before the game starts (both as a player and as a GM), I roll my d20 once (and only once) to "fire it up".

I tend to always roll bad on initiative regardless of character build or what my initiative bonus actually is. Occasionally I'll roll well on initiative and I'm surprised. Funny enough, this does not apply when I GM. I tend to roll well for the enemies' initiatives.

I don't HAVE to play with a complete set of matching dice...but I prefer it.

My GM dice usually have to be black, and I dare not use them as a player, bad things happen when I do.

I use a notebook when I play and I record my HP, money, and daily powers and abilities/spell slots on there so this way I don't have to wear my character sheet out. I'll update the character sheet itself at the end of the session on some things, and on other things I wait for a level up. I try to encourage others to do this as much as I can, but a lot of people I play with don't care enough. I like my character sheets to stay readable!

Bonus fact: I know a guy who washes his dice before every session.

Update:

Well...they did it. They traveled through time to prevent themselves from fighting the dragon in the first place.

I attacked them almost right away with some Hounds of Tindalos, like
Reksew_Trebla suggested (thank you).

Other consequences they'll need to deal with are as follows:

- The three of them who traveled though time have corruptions that will begin to manifest shortly.

- A Bythos aeon has them on it's radar (they're too low level to deal with it at the moment).

- A time dragon may eventually show up and read them the riot act.

- The main villain of the story (who happens to also be a goddess) is now aware of the party and is watching them (it'll take too long to explain, but this goddess was unaware of the party and their movements against her, but now their time travel caught her attention. This could be campaign ending bad for them).

Thank you everyone for the help and advice on the fight with the red dragon. This was a wild ride for the last several weeks taking turns I never thought it would.

Long story ahead as an update on how things went with my party and their attack on the dragon's lair. Things went bottom up, but not how I, as the GM, expected.

TL:DR: They thought things were going well until suddenly they weren't. People died, more people may still die, revenge may be had, and now they want to use a wish spell to fix it all, which may or may not include time travel.

So, yeah, they're going to inform me of their final decision on what they want to do to fix things. So yes, this spiraled downward faster and in ways I never considered. This will be fun to deal with.

I love RPGs!

General Tips; A Well-Played Dragon . . .

ALWAYS looks out for number one and
NEVER loses a game of chess.
ALWAYS uses the home field advantage and
NEVER knowingly shows weakness.
ALWAYS acts like royalty and
NEVER wastes its breath weapon.
ALWAYS has an ace up its sleeve and
NEVER makes stupid decisions.
ALWAYS speaks many languages and
NEVER trusts anyone.
ALWAYS uses its wings and
NEVER forgets a slight.
ALWAYS looks for the hidden meaning and
NEVER acts predictably.
ALWAYS overestimates itself and
NEVER fears a human threat.
ALWAYS has an escape route and
NEVER takes meaningless tasks.
ALWAYS is awesome to behold and
NEVER acts on a whim.

I love this!

To start off, I just wanted to share my own experience with RPGs for the sake of context. I have over 14 years of RPG experience both as a player and as GM. I have experience in playing many published systems and many homebrewed systems, and have even homebrewed a few of my own systems. I play or GM quite regularly with several different groups, all of which have differing playing styles. At the moment, I’m playing mostly Pathfinder and D&D 5e, and one of my groups agreed to do the playtest of 2e with me. The group I am running the test with are all people with player and GM experience equal to or greater than my own; a great group to test with, in my opinion.

I would also like to be completely open with this community and admit that upon reading many of the preview blogs as well as the core book when it was released, I did not like a lot of what I read (though some of the changes seemed promising). However, I wanted to keep an open mind, and see the game played as a whole rather than just judging the individual elements of it. Our GM for the playtest likes most of what he read in the core book. Everyone else is somewhere in between.

After playing the first part of Doomsday Dawn, I have reversed some of my opinions on some of the things I disliked. Seeing it as a whole made me see how well it worked with the new system. But I do believe there are some things that can be adjusted and fixed.

With all that said, I will try to keep things concise and brief.

The Party:
• Gnome Rogue (me)
• Half-Orc Barbarian
• Halfling Fighter
• Dwarf Druid
• Goblin Alchemist
• Elf Sorcerer

A six person party, but our GM was able to use the adjustment rules in the core rulebook to adjust the encounters to fit our party size. And it was brutal! We had 9 times that someone was knocked to 0 HP, my character being 2 of those times. We almost had a TPK with the fight in the cave with the goblins (the trap room). It was only luck that kept us alive.

I’m not complaining about the difficulty, I like games to have some challenge to it. But it felt like a beat down. We had no money to buy potions with; we eventually had to go back to town and rest for several days until we could go back in and deal with the boss.

Overall the first part of the adventure it was fun and we enjoyed ourselves.

Things I like about Pathfinder 2e:

• Action Economy: This is good. It’s easy, it’s simple, and you don’t have a million types of actions. I think this was a great change and it offers some variety to what you can do in battle. I feel like it’s better than 5e’s action system.

• Silver Standard: I thought this was a good idea the moment I read about it. It puts more value on gold and silver in general. Also, I joked about this on the forums, but I love the fact that a spyglass doesn’t break the bank. Not much else to say about it. I think this is great.

• Weapons: Weapons feel different from each other with their new qualities. I love this! I want to implement this into 1e! This makes every weapon do different things and nothing is chosen for a fluff reason, really. I really, really like this. Though, a bastard sword really should be listed as a slashing weapon, not piercing.

• Character Creation: This wasn’t too bad. Pretty clear and easy, I’m not a fan of the attribute cap, but I can get used to it. The only suggestion I can make here is really clarify were features can be found in the book so that CC can be smoother.

Things I dislike about Pathfinder 2e:

• Resonance: I feel like resonance as it is written now is like cutting off a hand can calling it a fix. I understand the purpose of resonance, and I don’t hate resonance as a whole, but the way it is now is just not good. Say you have a character that is out of resonance, he drops to 0 HP, and a buddy throws a potion down his throat to save his life. The player rolls against overuse of resonance, critically fails, he now can no longer drink potions. He dies because of this. This did not happen in our game, but it can happen. A magic restriction mechanic should not have the chance of killing a character, in my opinion. I suggest resonance being there, because as a whole, it’s not a bad idea, but remove it from consumables like potions and scrolls. I also suggest removing charges from wands and adding a per day limit or have it operate only on resonance to eliminate CLW spamming. I think if resonance was dialed back a little, it can work. But as it is now is a deal breaker for me.

• Crit System: Oh boy, I was not a fan of this. I’m sorry to say, but it’s not intuitive and easy, not even that fun. It sounds simple on paper, but in practice, it’s not. Its mechanic is easy: 10 greater or lesser than DC and it’s a critical success or failure. What’s not intuitive is that it’s there are four degrees of success, but it’s not universal. Some things have all four degrees; other things only have three or two. Different things happen on a crit with some weapons or spells, but not others. It bogs down battle when you have to look up several different effects based on a crit. It was not a fun element to the game. I did enjoy the chance to critically fail skills, but I’m not a fan of the degrees of success. It got confusing almost every time there was a Nat 20 or some other kind of crit.

• Death too complicated: I went down twice in the first part of Doomsday Dawn, some other members of the party did as well. It’s confusing how the DC of what downed you was figured out, and it was a constant question. Also, I don’t like that your place on the initiative tick moves. I get the purpose of it, to allow you a full round for people to help you, which is a good idea, but then it takes even longer to get back to your turn, and you sit around with nothing to do for a while. It just got a little boring for me waiting for my turn to come around when I would have been next, I now had to wait another whole round before I got to see if I stabilized.

• Layout of the core rulebook: Yeah, I know Paizo is aware of this, and are probably already working on the layout. It’s a bit of a mess here and there and just needs to be better. Also, some of the wording is hard to read even for experienced players, I feel bad for new players who don’t know much about RPGs in general.

• Character Sheet: The same can be said about the character sheet. AC needs to be more visible and bigger on the page. There were some things that I felt should be on there, like your dying status (similar to how 5e has it would be nice). A horizontal sheet didn’t bother me in the least, but a few of the others didn’t like it very much.

• Half-Elf/Half-Orc/Goblin: Goblins have been made core, and Half-Elf and Half-Orc have become feats added to Human, it felt like a demotion. I do not like this at all. Half-Elf and Half-Orc tend to be popular choices and to make it so that it’s simply a feat added to Human seems cheap to me. I feel like they don’t get enough features to make the feat required to be one is worth building one. And I’m not 100% anti-Goblin. But I don’t think they should be core. Based on the history already established in Pathfinder, they are not welcome to have around due to the violent and chaotic nature. I feel like they should be moved to 2e’s APG (if there will be one), and Half-Elf/Hlaf-Orc be made full ancestries.

• Lock Picking: Three successes to pick a lock. With numbers at low level and the crit system, the chances of succeeding are too small. I played a Rogue, with a +5 in Thievery, and I was unable to open the lock because I critically failed my second attempt at success. Please reconsider this.

Things I’m on the fence on about:

• Magic: I’m a little on the fence about magic. I love cantrips being able to scale and do damage! But I’m not sure about Sorcerer not getting an auto heightening like some of the other classes get. I’m also not sure if I like the crit system with magic (again because it’s too complicated and may nerf magic too much). However, we didn’t get to test the full capability of magic just yet due to low levels. We’ll see in the next few parts.

• Secret Rolls: I don’t have an issue with secret rolls in general, but I felt like almost half the rolls made in the first part of the adventure were secret. Every time I looked around or sneaked around, I didn’t get to roll. I like rolling dice. Let me roll dice. But again, I think we’ll have to wait to decide until I see this in action a little more.

Those are my thoughts; I’ve been enjoying the playtest so far.

I hope this feedback was clear and concise and didn’t sound angry or hateful, because that is not how I wanted it to sound. So, forgive me if it did.

Thanks for reading.

I got my books in the mail! Thanks again, Steve! I'm excited about the next wave.

I would rule that yes, you're allowed to ignore the battle, but then you're also not going to get the XP for said battle because you did nothing to help the party. If there's story leveling instead of XP, then you have to deal with angry party members for not helping (if they're angry about it).

Though, I've always ruled that if a battle wakes everyone up, they just sleep longer the next day so they still get their dailies and rest.

I do like the idea with someone having a flaw that caused deep sleep and was always a problem for them, not just when they wanted it. That might be kind of a neat flaw to explore.

I played one. They can do a lot of damage even without getting a flank for snake attack. They also have some utility.

Snake attacks are my favorite kind of attacks. ;-)

From the name, I was expecting a map of Golarion, not just the Inner Sea Region.

A whole map of Golarion at this quality would be amazing!

We accidentally talked our way out of a massive boss battle.

The party consists of a slayer (me), a synthesis summoner, a rogue, and a paladin. I'm playing an Aasimar with an 11 in CHA and little to no social skills (he's pretty because of his angel blood, but not good at talking to people), I am in no way the face of our group, but I have a knack for talking people into or out of things, and that's been pretty consistent throughout the game.

Our group has been playing for over 2 years in a homebrewed campaign. From early levels (we were level 11 when this happened), there was this wizard/vampire who has caused us problems. He enthralled our paladin's girlfriend, and he's been trying to get her back since the beginning of the game. We finally tracked him down and were going after him. hopefully for the last time. We literally spent five sessions tracking him down and looking for him, going through layers of ancient dwarven ruins inside an active volcano, where his fortress was, we nearly died several times.

We finally found him and fought our way to him, got into the room were he and his minions were, it looked like an epic boss battle that would truly test our party's strength. When we entered, the wizard/vampire said, "Why are you breaking into my home? Just leave me alone." Then the GM asked us to roll initiative. As we rolled, I had my character say, "Look, we just want to get his girlfriend back, tell us how to reverse her enthrallment and we'll leave." I mostly said it as a joke, knowing he wouldn't go for it. The GM just paused for a moment and said, "Okay, okay, I'll do it."

The party could not believe it. I asked the paladin if that's what he wanted to do, he said yes. The vamp gave us what we needed to save his girl, and we were true to our word and left. The GM gave us the XP for the encounter and our next level and told us he didn't expect that, and that the vamp did just want to be left alone.

So, we avoided a big boss battle just because I said something off the cuff, it was kind of crazy.

Hello everyone!

I'm running a custom campaign in the standard Pathfinder setting, and there is a chance that the party may get captured and imprisoned in a silver mine where slaves mine the silver ore. I'm planning on a drow fighter/rogue to be the warden of the mine, I already have him statted out. However, I've used a lot of humanoids thus far in my campaign and I would like to throw something unusual/fun at my players. So I was thinking that maybe the slavers in this mine are some kind of monstrous creature (besides goblins or kobolds) that you wouldn't normally see guarding a mine.

I'm having trouble thinking of good monsters to use for this situation. What kind of monster would be comfortable in a silver mine, be intelligent enough to take orders, brutish enough to keep the slaves in check, and yet not too tough for the party when they make their escape?

I would appreciate any ideas.

The party is level 7 and consists of a paladin, a barbarian, a gunslinger, an oracle, and a ranger, by the way. If they get captured, they will lose all of their equipment and will have to find it in the mine.

Thank you!

Cheap whiskey and a brick to the face.

I'm not going to lie, I feared this blog post. Paladin is my favorite class in Pathfinder, and so I was worried about changes to the class. I'm not talking about alignment stuff. Honestly, I'm okay with different alignment typed paladins. But I'm liking what I'm reading here. I think I'm going to like 2e paladins.

Awesome. Thank you for the info.

Stone Dog wrote:

I like the reminder up thread that "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose."

To pull another Star Trek reference, there is a podcast of the new Star Trek Adventures RPG that I saw a couple of episodes of. In that game the helmsman rolled results that, in other games, would be critical failures. In that game though, rolls on the extreme end of the failure side (20s in this case. weird, I know.) could simply indicate misfortune. The helmsman didn't fail the piloting task, but the ship was hit by ion discharges.

Maybe the degrees of success work out like that for some things?

Failures and Critical failures could be set up as no particular mistakes made, but still something didn't go quite right.

This is how I tend to roll with higher level characters, myself! If someone with a high skill bonus fails a non-opposed check due to simple bad luck on the dice, it's not so much that the character failed but rather that there was bad luck in-game. Maybe that surface they're climbing on is just soft and crumbly and part of it falls away, maybe the actions you were taking to try to calm a wild animal were ones that a hunter previously used to try to trick and kill it so now it has a bad reaction to them.

All this requires is a little willingness to improv on the GM's part. I hope this is explicitly described in the published rules.

And outside of encounter time, it wouldn't even be a concern anyway due to taking 10, unless the player is voluntarily rolling to try to get a higher degree of success.

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Why are they adding the 1 20 Auto-Fail/Success mechanic to skill checks?

Why, when it is not the rule in PF1, Not in 5e, specifically called out in the rules of 3.5 as not the way skill checks work, are they putting this into the PF2 playtest?

I think it's because they pay attention to how people play. You listen to D&D podcasts? Most of them do it. Most game groups do it. It even happens, INCORRECTLY, at

...

My issue is not really with the <10> system. Yes, people can add ten, no problem. It's with the complication with the levels of success. Four levels of success, but only sometimes. Different things have different levels of success. It is NOT intuitive. It may work on paper, but I know for a fact many groups will say, "screw it, let's use the old system."

MMCJawa wrote:

KingGramJohnson wrote:

BryonD wrote:

KingGramJohnson wrote:

Mathfinder 2e, now with even more math!

Please make the crit system intuitive!

Really? They need to assume the players can't handle +10 and -10?

Expecting that makes it "Mathfinder"?

That was more of a joke. But my point still stands. I feel like this is too complicated for a crit system.

The advantage to it however is that they will be using the same system for skills and saves. It's more complicated but at the same time it will apply more broadly across the game, so in the end will require less time to learn, especially for new players who are not working through the baggage of multiple rule systems being in there head and the associated assumptions.

1 is bad, 20 is good, with GM having final say in what happens. Short sweet to the point and is usually the accepted rule across games(roll lowest = bad, roll highest = good. Unless it's a system you want to roll under then reverse this).

Now? Rolling 1 is bad, missing by 10 is really bad, 20 is good, beating by 10 is really good. And do bonuses count for this, and what about this floating number and what happens if I don't make it, what do you mean lose a turn anyway? Etc etc.

Really I see this causing more arguments down the line.

Exactly! This is going to cause so many headaches.

Edit: I see that I was wrong with my next statement, so I removed it.

But I still think this will cause more problems than it solves.

KingGramJohnson wrote:

Mathfinder 2e, now with even more math!

Please make the crit system intuitive!

Really? They need to assume the players can't handle +10 and -10?

Expecting that makes it "Mathfinder"?

That was more of a joke. But my point still stands. I feel like this is too complicated for a crit system.

Okay, am I the only one who instantly sees the issue with this new crit system? It's not intuitive. There's already dozens of questions on how it works, in what circumstances it works, and what scenarios change things. Crits are going from simple to confusing very quickly.

Pathfinder First Edition:
- Nat 20: Auto hit and possible crit threat
- Beat DC again: Critical!
- Nat 1: Auto fail
(This applies to attacks, saves, and a few other things. No auto success and failure on skills and other related checks.)

I've never been a fan of crit confirm in Pathfinder, but I always understood why it was there and have used it because it made sense and was simple.

I do love the idea of critical failure and success on skills and things like that, but I feel like it needs to be simpler.

In PF 2e though, now there's four levels of success, but only sometimes. And a Nat 20 always hits but only sometimes crits. Nat 1s are always a fail but only sometimes a critical fail. Different things will have different levels of success. It's already confusing, and it'll only get worse as more rules are released and more classes/abilities/spells are published, unless it's simplified just a little.

I'm not asking for something so simple like 5e. I don't want 5e. But I would like to to be intuitive so you don't slow down game time trying to figure out how far above and below the DC the check was, and which level of success that is. As written now, after every nat 1 and 20 the game will come to a halt and rules looked up depending on the spell, skill, attack, or situation. A lot more math involved. Mathfinder 2e, now with even more math!

Please make the crit system intuitive!

I actually disagree. I find the act of rolling initiative builds suspense, especially when you have no idea why you're rolling it, or you don't know what the monster is yet. There's a tense moment and the GM says, "roll initiative" and I get excited or fearful of the battle to come, depending on the situation.

And several times (as a GM and as a player), I've seen battle be calmed down out of battle rounds by one player trying to talk to the aggressors. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does. Not everything that starts as a fight has to end as a fight.

I think all GMs have had someone like this at their table at some point.

Honestly, the best thing to do is to pull him aside privately and discuss this with him. Tell him how you feel about his play style. Let him know that it's not fair to the other players when he doesn't write down something as basic as his saves, or takes too long to make up his mind during battle. Ask him if he's invested in the game and if he really wants to play, because if he does, he'll have to start putting in some effort. That's not too much for a GM to ask of his players.

In game, during battle, try letting who's next in the initiative tick know that they're on deck, and they can be thinking about what they will do before their turn starts. That helps a lot sometimes with slower players. If he's still taking too long, start putting a time limit on it. Tell him he has 1 or 2 minutes to decide what he wants to do otherwise his turn is skipped.

If this person continues to give you problems, or doesn't want to discuss things, consider cutting him from the table for a while. Find someone who will be invested in the game and will consider everyone else at the table.

Resonance is like cutting off a hand and calling it a fix. I like the item slot system. It's intuitive, it works, and out of anything in PF it has common sense. Want magic boots? You already have magic boots, pick the ones you want to use more.

No. No, no, no! Please no resonance! This is just not a good idea.

Ooooooo! If we're chanting, do we get to hit our foreheads with boards too?

My question is: will the 10th level spells be what the 9th level spell are now, or are they adding a whole new level of power beyond wish and and all the other 9th levels?

I've had things like that happen. Believe me I know how tough it can be. My best advice is to find a way to have the events shape the world. It might not match where you wanted to go, but it does make the world feel a little more alive, and that the players can affect it. The world shouldn't exist in a vacuum. When the players aren't around, it's still moving and working, and they're actions can have positive or negative effects on it.

For example. I was GMing a homebrewed game (not Pathfinder, my own system, based on the d20 system. Fantasy setting). In it the characters play people in a special order. There are codes they live by. The adventure I was running involved the party finding and dealing with a dragon god who had a cult surrounding him. In order to take him out, they needed a special spell, in order to get that, they had to speak to a specific dragon, and in order to do that, they had to traverse an area called the Draconic Expanse, which is dragon territory.

They were stopped by a dragon who threatened to kill them unless they amused him. He split the party into two groups and commanded that one group preform an act of great good in one nearby village, and the other group to commit an act of great evil in another village. He kept one more party member as a hostage to ensure they did as they were told.

Make a long story short, one of the PCs did not like the situation they were in, so they used a mcguffin to stop time and learn all magic and master it all (something very few could do). As the GM I was under the impression that he was going to fight the dragon. That is not what he did with his new found power. destroyed the village, completely. No survivors. He did it so that the rest of the party wouldn't have to, they're hands could be clean. Once he was sure the dragon was satisfied, he committed suicide and rolled up a new character.

No one, including myself saw this coming. This shook up the players and characters alike. They discussed what this meant for the Arckon Order. Was his act, though evil, good for the sake of the greater good, or was it still wrong?

This one act broke my world, and it broke my order. I decided to roll with it. I had it become a very real problem. My next campaign using this game setting will involve an Arckon civil war, those who agreed with the PC who did it, and those who don't. This war will affect the world in a very real way as the Arckon are powerful and influential.

Needless to say, sometimes it's more fun to roll with a broken world, because it can add tension to the game. However, I see your point about not wanting to continue because you see your brother in everything now. Maybe try to work his betrayal into the story, you might come up with some fun situations.

I have an issue with the ''You already lose your character and to be punished more is rough'' argument.

I lose my level 6 ranger, I am going to make the exact same thing. Don't even have to change my sheet.

This is a cheap move, most good players will value their character more than just to clone them.

I, personally, have only done this once. It wasn't Pathfinder but in a different published game. In that game, paladins cannot run from battle, period. Our GM purposefully set a hard fight we couldn't win and we would have to run away. Well, my character, being a paladin, didn't run and fought. The gryphon killed me outright. Me, and the rest of the players, were angry. The GM said, "You could have run away."

I said, "No, paladins don't run." I opened the book and showed him where it said that.

"He was like. Oh, sorry." He basically screwed me over and didn't care that much. So I took my character sheet, erased the name, put a new one on there and said, "It's his identical twin brother, who is also a paladin." The GM relented saying that was fair because he screwed me over.

That is the one and only time I pulled that move. I would never do that again as it puts less value on the character.

Maybe just tell your players that if they die they have to play a different build, or at the very least, a different style of the same class (an archetype or something).

KingGramJohnson wrote:

I know this one will be unpopular, but I ignore the 5', 10' 5', 10' rule for moving diagonally when I GM. I find it annoying to deal with as a player and as a GM. It's just 5' for each square.

I find it's easier to just count squares instead of feet. Diagonal movements are 1.5 squares instead of 1, and you always round down. That makes it much easier to do than trying to remember how many diagonals you've moved along the way.

Easier, maybe, but no less annoying. I just don't like the rules for moving diagonally. I house rule it to 5' each square.

I know this one will be unpopular, but I ignore the 5', 10' 5', 10' rule for moving diagonally when I GM. I find it annoying to deal with as a player and as a GM. It's just 5' for each square.

KingGramJohnson wrote:

This sword is most definitely an artifact. I was just curious of the pricing on it. I'm not going to sell it, I'm going to use it. Not bad for a level 10 character. ;-)

WOW. Considering that is at least 4 times the typical wealth by level it must be a very high-powerful campaign

Very much so. We're planning on going to level 20 and into mythic. We've been teased with this sword for a few months, and when we found the person using it, it wasn't in time to stop him from completing the ritual with it, but we were able to get the sword afterwards. So, now our characters have a reason to go into mythic levels, as we now have to face a demigod.

Athaleon wrote:

You can change someone's alignment by strapping them to a chair and repeatedly casting Protection from ____________ on them.

Alignment shifts in general. Never seen an alignment change happen once that wasn't a result of some screwball curse or stupid magic item.

I have. In a campaign I was running. The group got a hold of 30+ soul jars and decided to sell them all to a very shady buyer. The moment that money changed hands, they both dropped from CN to CE. They consciously and willingly sold human souls for the sole purpose of profit rather than releasing the souls from the jars. I felt that deserved a shift into the evil side of things. They figured it might happen, and were fine with it.