Crouza's page

A big amount of the issues come from the team having a fundamentally different read on the class when they remastered it. They said curses should be purely negative, but the dual nature of the curses was some of the funnest parts of oracle to play around with. The risk reward of increasing your curse value for bigger buffs felt great to me at least, and removing the positives of the curse is the main reason the class now feels blander. Imo they should have just changed the flavor text of curses to be "drawbacks the oracle has learned to live with and turn into unexpected strengths" so it became about overcoming the bad hand they were dealt with. Then just touch up some of the more troublesome mechanics in certain curses, and it would have been good.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

To be fair, the pre-Remaster oracle had absolutely horrible balance between the mysteries. Much worse than the Remaster oracle; there were literally mysteries that you did not ever want to take because they were so bad.

Ugh, no way. Because the old mysteries had unique benefits as well, even the jankiest mystery (premaster Ancestors) had people willing to try it. Now, though? Nothing except the granted spells and focus spells are unique, and the divine list hardly needs most of them. The bad ones are theoretically less bad but they also are almost strictly worse than just running Cosmos, whereas before they were at least entertainingly bad in a unique way.

I'd rather they staple the 4 slots and the granted spells onto premaster Oracle if they were that rushed.

Arguably, that would have made a better Oracle than the current one we have now.

Given the previews they've shown for dragons thus far, I'm super stoked to see what else they've come up with. Dragons feel way more eldritch and fantastical so stuff like pacts or dragon adjacent class options have me more excited now.

Huh... if the Vorpal Dragon doesn't have a breath weapon, what's gonna be the alternative for any class feature and spell that usually grants one :O ?

Also, why isn't it a Primal Dragon from the Plane of Metal? That would work nicely.

My guess would be because the plane of metal is a recently re-emerged plane, having been able to return after being absorbed by the plane of earth for a while.

Give it a bit of time and I bet we'll see more plane of metal goodness emerge.

Absolute bangers, love just the weirdness that dragons are going with for PF 2e. These designs and flavor for them being way more magically and conceptually influenced make me really excited to run some dragons.

I would shit myself if I saw a despair dragon. My literal reaction was reading the requium dragon's blurb, going "oh that's nice", and scrolling down to get jump scared and actually jump in my seat at this chiansaw man looking freak. 11/10 design honestly, it's neat to see such a extreme departure from classical dragon design.

So if I'm fighting a Rune Dragon, it will open its mouth, nothing will seem to come out, but a glowing symbol will appear on my body and then explode!? Like some Predator targetting laser?

How do you dodge that???

Can't wait for more of these previews!

Dragon using Killer Queen on PCs is going to be a fun encounter to run.

Necromancer hasn't come out yet. Stop using it to rez these threads.

QuidEst wrote:

They're still two different systems.

They're literally not. Like actually and completely the exact same system.

They're foundationally the same but their balance points are intentionally different, as well as sporting a ton of mechanics unique to each other.

The developers have explicitly laid this out, ironically when they were talking about how much more accessible fly was for characters in Starfinder vs Pathfinder and that this is an intentional choice.

I think the things for which a conversion guide will be useful, moreso than ancestries, is classes. A GM can make a quick call based on any ancestry on nothing more than "this isn't really a story featuring people from other planets." But people are going to want to play something like a Mystic in a Pathfinder game and there's no reason this shouldn't work, so some guidance a la "recharge weapon is nonfunctional in Pathfinder so replace the cantrip granted by the Elemental Connection with something else, and you might want to alter Data Bond so you don't give access to Summon Robot in a pathfinder game" would genuinely help people.

Im surprised such a guide is not in the GM Core. Might be a cool book idea to explore in the future. A big old crossover AP with its own player guide and rules on how to convert content for either game.

Please do not force SF 2e and PF 2e to have the exact same balance points. This just leads to nobody winning and a needless edition war to happen for 0 reason.

I find it an amazing indication of how little power creep is in this game if the main example shown is "A person used an ancestry from a different game in pathfinder". And one that specifically tackles the "this is a major divergence from pf 2e" topic that starfinder devs have brought up essentially day 1((ease of access to flight)).

Let us look at Pf 1e for answers. There were about 40 classes, depending on how you count alternative classes or the Omdura. Each of those a variety of archetypes, some even getting close to 50. So let's be conservative and assume every class had about 20 archetypes.

That's about 800 permutations of classes that existed in PF 1e. So to answer your question, yes. We will be getting more classes. Considering that instead of giving a existing class an archetype that completely alters how it plays, Paizo makes a new class to fullfill that radically different class idea, we will probably see more classes than Pf 1e.

I want dedicated Gish classes for Primal and Occult schools. Magus is magus and cleric now has both war cleirc and battle harbinger to help fill the niche. I would like to see similar for primal magic and occult magic.

That's not my point. What I'm saying is that the GM tends to respect Taunt for both thematic and mechanical reasons.

With this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that expect the GM to try to disrespect Taunt?

There's a high probability that feats like Proud Nail and Ring Their Bell will never be used because the GM can simply make the provoked creatures attack the guardian (what is the main intention of Taunt). Unless there are two guardians in the group, which would effectively make the creature negatively affected by both guardians, these feats would be the only thing preventing it from ignoring them and attacking other PCs, since it will suffer the effects of Taunt anyway.

So, with this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that will never, or almost never, will have its requirements met?

There are tons of feats like that, and the answer is always "It's useless until it isn't." Rogue for example has Nimble Dodge, which went 12 sessions without ever stopping a hit or crit, and then stopped that "crit by 1" strike from downing me. Likewise, Sly Striker is a very niche feat because you can always flank an enemy, and then we fought an enemy who we couldn't easily make off guard and Sly Striker paid its dues adding extra damage on my strikes.

If I am a GM and there is a sorcerer with low hp whose been hitting me with spells vs the guardian in front of me, I don't see why I wouldn't go after the sorcerer to prioritize threat.

If a rogue is flanking the guardian and pounding my butt, I'm going to kill the rogue first to cut off that high damage and then focus down the guardian afterwards.

Maybe GM's will focus on the Guardian most of the time. But there's going to be those cases where they don't, and that's why you take those feats.

You can argue about the GM not doing that, but I find that to be a unfair steelman tbh. Because a GM can be the source of all kinds of problems. It's like "Don't play a caster because the GM can only pick monsters with high saves and low AC's". Or "Don't build for melee because the GM can always use flying enemies or enemies who use ranged attacks and teleports."

Like, you're right. Fair point by the technical merit that it can happen. But that's not a fair position to start the discussion at, imo. After all, you can also just as easily make the case of the GM always ignoring your taunts, and suddenly those feats become goated.

I think Paizo has made the choice of using new classes to explore new mechanical ideas. This is similar to how they used to include new archetypes for existing classes in their previous works.

Instead of a class getting a new archetype that completely changes how they played, or fulfilled a new niche for that class, instead they are taking that idea and turning it into its own bespoke class.

I don't know how I feel about it, personally. Reducing it down to 1 class and creating more options for existing classes could be fun. But at the same time, I feel like Pathfinder would rather you have 50 classes to pick from, and each class is relatively simple to figure out and play, than to have 30 classes, but each one having an alt mode essentially.

Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.

Maybe I'm just MMO brained but I don't see a problem with Taunt being named Taunt as "universal ability that draws aggro to you". Since that is ubiquitously what that kind of ability is called in games.

I haven't seen all of the class but I really like the changes I have seen to Guardian. I'm actually really excited to give it a shot, since I tend to enjoy support characters and, well, they chonk.

Crouza wrote:

The whole region being so far north had me expected it to be cold but it looks like volcanos and geothermal activity are keeping that warmer meditteranian sea feel.

It's to the East of the Isle of Jalmeray, so it's in the tropics. If it was significantly farther South, it would be colder (just with summer and winter seasons occurring at the opposite times as the Northern hemisphere).

I completely misread that map. I thought it was that cluster of islands off the saga lands. My bad lol.

As long as nobody kills any random sheeps or cows than things should be a breeze. Loving Iblydos amd I can't wait to dig in to the city states. The whole region being so far north had me expected it to be cold but it looks like volcanos and geothermal activity are keeping that warmer meditteranian sea feel.

Grimmyr is such a Deku and I really like them for it. The fact he always takes notes of the non-combatants first is such a great detail for him.

Something that also might be a factor in this is that, frankly, the engagement I've seen on Pathfinder 2e videos is awful.

Almost every single video I've seen about 2e has had comments that ignore 99% of everything OP is saying, in order to nitpick them misreading or misremembering how a feat works.

And yeah, of course that's going to happen, Pathfinder 2e is a game that specifically rewards the kind of people with brains who latch onto those tiny details. (Y'know. Us. The kind of people who care enough to post on Paizo forums. We're not the normal ones)

But it also means that these comments are being made instead of, say "That's a fascinating point you made OP! Let me address and engage with it". Or even a comment like "Hey, I liked the video! Keep up the good work!".

If you don't believe me, check out ThrabenU_Gaming. Amongst a sea of dry, poorly made videos where people just read feats at a camera, Phil stands above the rest. His videos are in-depth, unique, and fun- and every single comment will pick ONE thing they felt that he did wrong and focus solely on that.

I guess if you don't have completely encyclopedic system mastery, you just shouldn't talk at all? (And if you don't believe me- he tries posting on these very forums, and everyone here just complained that the videos were too long!)

Ok, so if you ignore videos ABOUT Pathfinder 2e, what about actual plays using Pathfinder 2e?

...Why on earth would you ever use Pathfinder 2e for an actual play? Everything about PF2E that makes it more fun to PLAY kind of makes for terrible radio- from the modular characters building (that the audience doesn't engage with) to be map-focused tactical combat (that the audience doesn't see or play).

Narrative Declaration is a gem to watch and i don't care who i need to fist fight in the parking lot to say it.

I take back everything I complained about in the other thread. Ulka is an absolute gem and I absolutely love her. Might be a bit of a pull for those here, but she's like an Orc version of Ciaphus Cain, and that's a major compliment.

I'm not personally surprised, for many of the reasons others have already brought up. But also, you really can't discount the effect of star power when it comes to getting eyes on a product.

Critical Role is a massive influence on many people, and it's theater kid style approach to dnd is what set a new standard for how many people approach ttrpgs. Pathfinder doesn't really do that, and that isn't really something it demonstrates. Pathfinder loves the mechanics first, builds and number crunching, abilities defining your character approach to ttrpg playing, and the community for a very long time earlier, and even a sizeable chunk now, play that way.

But a lot of the content creators who play dnd and specifically make youtube videos on it, they all rose up on the critical role style of playing ttrpgs. Whether as a show they liked to watch or a game they directly took inspiration from, the influence critical role holds is powerful. So when Critical Role, not WOTC, says they're doing their own TTRPG system, that makes people a lot more willing to put eyes on them than pathfinder, a game they may have 0 emotional attachment to and who feel it plays opposite to their style of imrpov heavy, winging the rules, narrative before mechanics style of play.

For just getting into ttrpgs without any idea of how they work? Yeah this approach you did was good, in my opinion. It's improve with paper rules and there's a lot of people who need to relearn how to essentially play pretend, so giving them an example to work as a primer that's straight to the point is good.

It was a totally different designer. In fact, most of the lead designers at Paizo had changed by the time the Remaster occured. I think everyone but Adam and Jason left. Lyz Liddel wrote the OG Oracle and left Paizo shortly after the APG was published.

As to why they remastered it this way, here is the blog post that shows their reasoning.

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6v7rn?Player-Core-2-Preview-The-Or acle-Remastered

Tridus: I just want to note saying they didn't succeed at their stated goal doesn't quite track, because of this line: "Now, oracle players who want to opt into this complexity can do so, and oracles who want more straightforward benefits can keep it simple."

Keeping some curse bound feats which improve based on the state of your curse is pretty consistent with this bit. Opt in complexity is one of the biggest design philosophies of PF2. Unfortunately, they didn't succeed in the opt in complexity being nearly as satisfying as the old class.

Probably not what they meant but you can also opt into the complexity by playing the premaster oracle.

For me it reminds me of when gunslinger was first coming out. The write up for the playtest feedback posed an interesting design philosophy, that being that the class could lose its direct power of higher proficency and have that power shifted to feats, or it could keep its direct power but gain less impactful features as a cost.

It sticks with me because I can't help but feel that's exactly what happened to oracle. It gained direct forward power in becoming a 4 slot castsr, and so lost power in its quirky features which meant they needed to become less defining for the class compared to the premaster.

I like her storyline, but it seems too much for an iconic. She's a renowned mercenary who's hung out with high profile plot significant NPCs and groups, leads her own mercenary group, has "proven herself over and over" in countless battles and made untold riches for herself.

That's a lot of baggage for a character someone might start playing at level 1.

I could see an argument that level 1 Ulka is just after paragraph 7, right after fleeing her post... but that leaves a lot of predestined backstory build into her narrative.

Feels kind of awkward to me. Contrast with Grimmyr who also has a lot going on but his accomplishments and progress are a lot more vague. He has a goal, but there's no inherent sense of establishment.

... Speaking of Grimmyr. A lot has been said about her art, but I'm not a fan of Paizo deciding to make both Battlecry iconics rock the huge arms tiny head thick neck ultra short legs look. Book art has a lot of variety, but I feel like key art sometimes has a problem of centralizing body types.

I've got the opposite take tbh. Her backstory is the kind i've seen from far more level 1 characters than one that's well rounded and reasonable. Also, it's not like other iconics don't have similar deals with them.

Oscar Isaac as Valeros would be a good match imo.

Laurence Fishburne or Ewan Mcgregor as Ezran would probably be matches made in heaven honestly.

Now for an off the wall one, Steven Yeun as Korakai. I was very impressed with his voice work, and I think he matches the kind of younger sounding voice I imagine Korakai to have.

It's probably not as popular but I'd personally love something less grandiose but more stylistic for Pathfinder video games. Something like a more 2d turn based rpg or maybe something akin to FF tactics.

So guns and Gears got remastered, right? In what ways were those classes affected post remaster? Given we haven't heard much from Paizo regarding remastering the classes, just like with Gunslinger and Inventor, it is likely however much they were changed will be in line with how much the Psychic and Thaumaturge will change.

Both Inventor and Gunslinger got some very good quality of life buffs and some fundamental reworks to their class features. I wouldn't be surprised if we see similar changes to the thaumaturge and psychic.

I'm not gonna sugar coat it.

No. Just plain and simply, No. BG3 cost a ton of money and licensing to get a big studio to work on it. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that at least double Paizo's entire yearly income was spent just on the initial development of BG3.

A Pathfinder game works best in the same way pathfinder does, as a indie scene darling that isn't as big as its mainstream peers but does enough to make a good earning and good quality.

I don't know if the lore was already established for these guys or not, but I love the jouton coming from a dimension between the mortal and etheral world, and that our massive guy was basically a farmer answering a heroes call.

Some people just want to find something to complain about. She has the same proportions as the male Orc from Player Core! Her design doesn't specifically match up with trolls in this game, or several others that spring to mind, she just has more prominent tusks than in a lot of other art. And the Mignola-shoulders are actually pretty consistent across Wayne Reynolds' Orcs and Half-Orcs, look at Droven! Or 1e Oloch!

It's a unique silhouette whose inhuman proportions distinctly identify the character as the first iconic Orc, rather than just another Half-Orc, and play to Reynolds' stylistic strengths wonderfully.

I don't think there should be 1 set look for orcs tbh. I think that adds a bit for like, the heritages that the more human orcs and the less human orcs are all orcs. Like, even with me not liking the particular art piece it's literally not as important as the actual body of text said picture is attached to. So for me at least, I don't get why the art is as big a deal as it is in the discussion tbh.

Even then my complaints are mostly about clarity of themes. The story itself is good, and I like the Ulka as a orc subverts the expectations of a prime and proper commander for a grizzled veteran warrior instead.

Alchemist and Witch have been the worst for me, and they're entirely arbitrary reasons.

Alchemist I want to love, but every item list they can pick formula's from is dense. Between Bombs, Elixirs, Poisons, Foods, Normal Alchemical Items, etc, it feels like if I made a caster who can draw from all 4 spell lists at once, and it's constantly filling me with choice paralysis and 2nd guesses.

Witch is just basic, I'm not a fan of familiars. I just don't really care for the "just a little guy" kinda mechanic. Purely it is a personal preference, but familiars and familair rules just aren't really my cup of tea.

I think what they were going for is that she protects the helpless against hostile aggressors. But, she knows said aggressors are still people with friends and family of their own who will suffer from their deaths. However I agree the wording is muddled and confusing.

That'd be a cool angle to see. The curse of being aware enough to know that every person slain is a tragedy, enemy or ally.

The story feels a bit like it loses itself at the end, I'm going to fully admit. Ulka's story seems to be one where everyone around Ulka has always been controlling her. From her adoptive family to her mentor figure and death itself, all seem to meddle with her life and she seeks to buck that trend.

Her leaving life for that of a mercenary seems to be one of seeking freedom and control. That no matter how bloody or high the cost, she will strive to live her life as she wants, on her terms. Not tradition, not the expectations of other orcs, and not concepts of right and wrong, honor or dishonor, etc.

It even seems like she's doing so as a direct challenge to death, to chase it and refuse to passively wait for death to come, but instead force it to confront her in the fires and ashes of war.

Maybe the intent of her orders being more viscous was at her men to act more moral. But the way it's written it seems like she orders them to commit atrocities harder and leave more orphaned children in the world, and then wants to protect the weak and defenseless? She also seems to just hate those she's commanding or just doesn't care if they live or die, which seems weird to care about life while being so flippant about the deaths that war brings?

I'm just not sure if the intent was for her to be a glaring flawed character whose too blinded by their own pain, goals, and trauma, to see what they're actually doing, or if I'm just misunderstanding the story. Is Ulka supposed to be a flawed and tragic figure or is this a case of misreading what her story is supposed to be and coming to the wrong conclusions?

What did everyone expect in a gish class?

Im confused by all this expectation a gish class wouldnt have bounded casting.

People mad at getting exactly what they described they wanted, "A wave casting divine caster all about using weapons against enemies".

Sometimes I wonder if a +1 is really going to make any difference for casters, or if it will just end up being one of those endless shifting goalposts situations. Where like, we start with +1 to hit, then it becomes wanting +1 to DCs, then the demand for a striking equivalent, and then a greater potency version, etc etc, while casters still feel as if they were behind their non-caster brethren.

I don't know if its just fatigue for this topic or what, but I feel like at this point, the only thing that will make people feel satisfied is something massively game-changing for casters. Something crazy like removing incap from like, 1/2 the spells in the game or something like that. I don't know anyone who complains about casters are is like "a small boost to attack spell accuracy solves my complaints", it's always about just feel and vibes of not being stronger, so it feels like this only stops being a recurring issue when casters get broken again by removing their save or suck limiters.

It's annoying to see the conversation go from "We should come up with more interesting things for the wizard to do" to "Just make wizard busted again because that's the only way it'll feel good to play". This happens every time the wizard is talked about.

SuperBidi wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

since simplicity has intrinsic value

It's more complicated than that: Simplicity has a player-dependent (and also community-dependent) intrinsic value. Players with high tactical acumen will find low value in simplicity when players with low tactical acumen will find a lot of value in it. As such, there's no way to balance a simple and a complex class all across the board. The point of balance of PF2, which is on players with high tactical value, is a valid one. Even if I agree with you this is a rather elitist point of balance.

I disagree that you can't balance complexity versus reward, but I will agree that it is much harder or practically impossible to do in this system without breaking the game, simply because the basics already are pushing the balance of power as it is. It is not like being more complex means you get access to a new tier of proficiency, or that you get more proficiencies than other classes by being more complex, either.

It isn't elitist, though. The design principle of PF2 is literally "The simplest classes push the math to its limits, adding complexity does not and cannot change this." So again, if complexity is not rewarded through power, it needs to be rewarded in some other fashion, otherwise it lacks an incentive to play it.

And the thing is, the other options it can be rewarding for (flavor, efficiency, etc.) are not present or can simply be waved away, leaving the only other option (self-imposed challenge) as valid.

What's wrong with that? What makes that an issue?

Crouza wrote:

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

Being rewarded doesn't necessarily mean being rewarded with more power, at least not vertical power.

I personally have no problem with the Wizard being more complicated than other classes on a matter of principle. I consider myself to have a high level of system mastery, so its not a impediment to me. That said, I also don't personally feel like the Wizard is a particularly difficult class.

It's the reason that people consider the Wizard more complicated to play that is the my general issue. The Wizard is often considered harder to play right mainly because they have less than other classes. The Wizard is just a standard prepared caster really. It's casting is no more of less complex or difficult than other prepared casters. The reason the Wizard has a higher curve is that it lacks the same sort of safety-nets that other prepared casters tend to have for when preparation goes wrong, and so the classes ability to function well in its role can live and die on the value of that spell selection alone.

It's not a satisfying sort of problem.

A class can have of complicated mechanics, where its payoffs happen when you really utilise them and their timing really well. That can feel satisfying in itself because pulling off your synergies and combos is difficult to do. But that isn't the sort of thing we have here.

You bring up an interesting point that I think I can agree with. I do not have problems with Wizard in it's current iteration, but I can see what you're getting at where a reward for complexity/system mastery could be made to be easier to obtain on the wizard by giving it a few more mechanics to reward that effort.

Not so much power but perhaps in flexibility. The common idea of giving Spell Substitution and Spell Blending as class features instead of thesis's could, for example, give you those aforementioned safety nets as well as give it a horizontal increase to its power via flexibility.

Controversial as it may sound, I enjoy the school colleges. But I also love flavorful options, even if they're weak, and like working with my GM's to achieve that flavor. Perhaps a focus on further refining the schools with more spell options at the different ranks could be nice, or give each school its own version of Spell Blending where they can sacrifice a school spell slot to cast unique spells to the wizards. A kind of psudo-focus spell on top of other focus spells and pools.

Crouza wrote:

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

So then why have complicated classes versus uncomplicated ones if the only fundamental difference is that one just requires more effort for the same effect?

Thanks for proving what makes the Wizard an obsolete class with that post. Why play a Wizard when a Sorcerer does the same thing except better and simpler? Unless you want to actually handicap yourself as some sort of self-imposed challenge, it makes no sense to do so.

Because people want different things in order to enjoy the game? Some people enjoy really simplistic and straight forward gameplay, while others enjoy having more complexity to juggle while playing. That's not really been an unknown in TTRPGs, and as part of the whole "We're going to make the classes balanced and not have the tier system for class power" thing that everyone loves in PF 2e, that necessitates that all the classes have close to the same power levels as one another?

"Why have complicated classes" is the same question as someone asking "why have uncomplicated classes". It comes down to a purely preferential choice. Sometimes I really like playing a barbarian who attacks twice in their turn and doesn't need to think of anything beyond that. Other times I prefer to have to strategize my spell selections as a druid to try and gauge what we'll be facing that day. It's fun, and some people need that simplicity or that complexity in order to find a class fun.

And if being stronger is what makes you feel good while playing, it's literally right there for you in the more simplistic classes. PF 2e caters to a wide array of playstyles, without punishing you for choosing a playstyle the game devs decided was incorrect, IE martials vs casters from PF 1e and how the more complex you went, the objectively stronger you got.

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

This games visuals reminds me of Moonbreaker. And that's good, because Moonbreaker is amazing.

All I ask is to please, PLEASE, let us go into a little menu in the character customization to paint our characters like they're real minis.