GameMaster Since 1st Ed's page

Rysky wrote:

Chakat Firepaw wrote:

As a note on this point: Just continuing subscriptions on into PF2 is going to come across as something like negative-option billing for people who have decided PF2 isn't for them. So you probably want to be a bit proactive in asking people and perhaps assuming "yes" isn't the best choice.

Uh, that's really on the subscriber to check on in on their subscription to see what they're paying to get.

One: They did, they subscribed to something that said it was for PF1 products and that's what they were paying to get.

Two: The cable companies around here made the _exact same argument_ when they were trying to keep negative-option billing from being banned. Note that those arguments failed.

Rysky wrote:

I don't doubt they won't send emails though beforehand.

It would be just as easy to send emails that, instead of requiring those who don't want PF2 stuff to take properly timed action, offer a quick way of subscribing to the PF2 stuff that matches the existing PF1 subscriptions.

Looking at it from a customer goodwill perspective:

Requiring people say no to not get something they don't want comes across as wanting to grab some money from people who don't want it. IOW, you will have people who see it as 'picking their pocket'.

Requiring people to say yes to get the new line of products proactively says to people "we want to do this the right way" and only creates a very mild inconvenience.

I agree, this is being handled with only Paizo's interests in mind.

I have already started the process of cancelling my subscriptions and have already had problems. I agree that this looks like an attempt to stick people with products they don't want - they have a PF 2E Adventure Path that appears to be shipping at the same time the last issue of the final 1E Adventure Path releases so if you want the last one with the Pathfinder Advantage benefit, you have to take both of them. Total cash grab.

I hope Paizo are going to do the rest of the Adventure Path's in this form as I will buy the all of them

I will as well. Even some of the later APs that I was not able to get, it would be great to have in a bound edition. I hope they keep this up.

Gilarius wrote:

As it stands, there isn't an explicit rule that states whether or not time spent undead counts in this way. It's implicit that it does so most posters here will say it does, but a GM can overrule that if it suits him/her.

I don't want to make an arbitrary ruling, I want to make the most correct ruling.

Alas, this seems to fall between the cracks of the rules. I may just split the difference and say "that will take a Wish". Wish is where rules go to die.

I have a house rule that creatures raised as undead cannot be raised or resurrected by anybody...makes a necromancer bad-guy very scary. Making a Wish (full, not limited) the only way to bring someone back could be a way to get around even my house rule.

I love it. Nerf everything. I love the whining and hate the powergamers. The onslaught of complaints shows that too many powergamers have no concept of actual roleplay.

I also find it interesting that a glance through the forum archives reveals the endless complaints that Paizo doesn't care about game balance.

Now low and behold - they care "too much" about balance.

What a world. What a world. Goldilocks can't find a bed to sleep in.

I couldn't agree more Brother Fen! Nerf-away! The main reason I like Pathfinder is because they work to maintain game balance. I reward players who don't power-game.