Gloom's page

Huh... are they not reprinting Inventor, Gunslinger, and Thaumaturge? Or are they planning a Player Core 3?

Still kinda really hoping for Thaumaturge Dedication Errata that adds Esoteric Lore as a part of the Dedication.

That only proves my point further, since 55% is lower than the national percentage of people identified in the US Census as White* (and the numbers you gave overlap so it seems like only 49.9% would be exclusively "white"). I was cutting the number in half since I was discussing white men--the actual number would be a bit off since the ratio of men to women isn't exactly 1:1 and polls estimate nonbinary adults are around ~0.4-0.5% of the population, but it was an approximate number anyway.

Either way, I'm obviously not saying employees have to perfectly match the demographics of the area, but there's a clear imbalance. I get what you're saying about promoting people already in the company to executive roles, but a more varied leadership is still possible even if they limit the choices to current Paizo members.

*around 61-62% if I recall correctly, or 57-58% if you count only non-hispanic white people (and lower still if west Asian or north African descended people were counted as nonwhite, which they should be, but that's neither here nor there)

I think you might be a bit confused here, I was not trying to disprove your point nor was I trying to make a point that there isn't an issue with the diversity of the leadership team at Paizo.

You provided a statistic that was incorrect and I was providing the most accurate and up to date information that I could find.

White men make up roughly 30% of the US population and 40% of Washington state's, both quite a bit less than 6/7. I'm not trying to make any accusations here, but the math does not work out.

While this is an important metric, it's also helpful to be accurate with the population census data.

According to 2021 census data, the population census breakdown by ethnicity in Redmond Washington was:

White 55.00%
Asian 36.44%
Latino 6.80%
Two or More Races 4.68%
Black or African American 1.78%
Native American 0.20%
Pacific Islander 0.20%

I am all for more diversity when it comes to hiring practices for Paizo. If that means that they need to expand their recruiting efforts well beyond Redmond, then they should.

I also firmly believe that they should practice a company culture of promoting from within whenever possible and helping build the careers and experience of the people who have shown loyalty to them over the years. There are exceptions where you need a specific skillset with an established history and track record. But whenever you have the time to build up the people working for you then you should definitely do that.

The only thing that I would ask for is for the policies that guide recruiting, hiring, and promotions to follow more modern standards and for them to make business decisions based around performance and history rather than the gender or ethnicity of the employee.

There are some good examples out there where hiring managers were given resumes without names or any other potential identifying information to make their initial plans for interviews. That should be a bare minimum when attempting to acquire new talent to the company.

When it comes to promoting from within they should make sure that all policies relevant to that strongly encourage picking candidates based on their performance and practical skills for the position they're promoting into.

Still, they can only do so much. As long as they're putting in good faith efforts and can prove it that would be enough for me.

If you develop content or a feature that involves work beyond what was already delivered, you deserve to charge for that content. Just make sure it's representative of the amount of work that has gone into it.

I would MUCH rather pay either a low subscription fee ($3.99/month) to unlock features or a one time payment of like $50 for a software that is regularly updated and simply have any content that I've unlocked through Paizo's site be unlocked automatically.

Purchasing content that is available in a PDF I've already purchased is not something that I'll ever do. It's why I completely opted out of Hero Lab Online.

So long as you develop features that are attractive to me though, I'd consider trying out your software. Just likely won't ever unlock anything else on it if I already own it.

I personally support calls for unionizing. I am however concerned about Paizo's bottom line here. I wouldn't mind paying more for my books to compensate but I'm not sure how tight the margins are at Paizo right now.

This is a great thing so long as it's something that doesn't drive them out of business.

I'll be looking to the future with hope that all of this goes over well both for Paizo and for Paizo's staff.

Cori Marie wrote:

How much "middle management" do you think a company the size of Paizo has? They're a very small company, and there have been times where Lisa helped in the warehouse because they're so small. So yes, I fully believe the executive team would be involved in these decisions.

I agree with this; and even if we accept - for the sake of argument - that this was all about the unsanctioned acts of some minor scapegoat/flunky, that still doesn't let the senior management off the hook. Either they didn't know about it when they should, or they did know about it and did nothing.

Neither of these is acceptable. Paizo doesn't get out of this by shouting "do it to Julia! Do it to Julia!"

(Also, it wasn't a middle-manager who forced the CEO to doxx people - more than once.)

I was pointing out that they may not have any sort of documentation or records of what happened, and could be investigating it on their end before going in and admitting fault for it.

That's a completely reasonable reaction from a company before putting out a statement that admits liability, which is necessary before any sort of accountability can take place.

I was also only referring to the incident with Crystal, so this doesn't apply to any of the other scenarios on the list.

Gloom wrote:

Here's another bit of speculation. It's entirely possible that the people who are in charge of things now are not the same people who were in charge when it happened, or that they simply don't have any records from that time.

They may be working with Crystal and other employees involved at the time to figure out what exactly happened before any sort of accountability can take place.

Changing and committing to policies that would reduce the chances of something similar happening again is one thing. Admitting fault is a completely different beast all together.

It's not different management, or at least not different upper management. Jeff Alvarez has gone from COO to President. Erik Mona is still publisher. Lisa and Vic are still CEO and CTO respectively. The executive team remains unchanged from the time Crystal was there.

What about the middle management that would have actually dealt with what happened? Do you think that the executive team was consulted on a hotel room issue in this case?

Just throwing it out there as a possibility. There are reasons to wait for them to finish what they're doing and get back to us with more.

Here's another bit of speculation. It's entirely possible that the people who are in charge of things now are not the same people who were in charge when it happened, or that they simply don't have any records from that time.

They may be working with Crystal and other employees involved at the time to figure out what exactly happened before any sort of accountability can take place.

Changing and committing to policies that would reduce the chances of something similar happening again is one thing. Admitting fault is a completely different beast all together.

I'm sorry but I don't base my morality on what is/is not legal. Just because nobody is pursuing legal recompense for what Jeff did does not mean he was in the right.

I've also already said that I'm not currently withholding my subs, because I don't want to hurt the people that are working to make this better. That does not mean I'm going to stop posting about it, and I hesitate to say that I've ever been "shouting" as I have done my best to be civil about my concerns, but I guess any request for accountability looks like shouts to those who don't want to be held accountable for anything.

I simply said that people were within their rights to do it, not that you were already doing it. Please don't confuse my statements as any sort of tone policing. Because that's not what it was.

"If it was illegal they should sue!" ignores the fact that most people can't afford a lawyer to do so.

The legal system requires someone to pursue the case whether it's a private attorney, a prosecutor, or someone representing themselves. Unfortunately that is the state of our legal system.

You would probably say that them filing the case and representing themselves would be too much of a burden with the time it takes out of their life and the court fees to file.

Unfortunately when it comes to the police and doxxing they'll typically only pursue it if it's a credible threat to a persons life or health. I've dealt with the police before with someone doxxing me. They shared much more than just my name. Nothing was done about it even though I had screenshots and print outs.

If it was just my name that was shared in a public space without any form of real threat behind it though... I likely wouldn't have even bothered pursuing it. I don't speak for the two victims in Paizo's case though. If one or both of them feel egregiously harmed then they can pursue legal action as they see fit.

You're allowed to be unhappy about something. Your feelings are definitely valid. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that the action you desire is going to be taken by the parties involved.

Usually in those scenarios people just stop giving money to that business. Which is completely valid to do. You're also completely within your rights to sit on their forums shouting for "justice" and "action to be taken" non-stop even if it never happens.

We saw it (abuse of power) twice in-person with an identifiable trail. Right here.

There are further allegations that further abuses of power happened behind closed doors.

In the light of the first, what makes the second *less* believeable?

I didn't say what he did wasn't nor did I say that he didn't do it twice. I simply said that it did not establish a "pattern of behavior". If he had done it more than just the two times or if he had defended his actions and continued to do it, I would definitely agree that it was a pattern of behavior.

But that's not what happened.

As far as what he did being illegal... If it was then the victims should file a lawsuit. Provided that's the justice they're seeking.

I'm not against stricter action being taken against Jeff or for him to write a better and more public facing apology, but personally I feel that the minimum effort has been taken on his behalf to resolve the issue. Provided it doesn't happen again after he's acknowledged that he was wrong to do it and apologized.

I do not know who Jessica is, Jeff on the other hand needs to have some kind of repercussions laid on him for his behavior. Patterns are behavior and behavior is patterns. Non apologies apologies are not apologies and vague, We will do betters are really non committals.

The "pattern of behavior" that you seem to be referring to is the doxxing that happened. It did happen twice, but after it happened Jeff seemed to understand that what he did was wrong. It was very likely someone at Paizo spoke to him about it to help him understand what he did.

His apology wasn't the best, but since it happened I haven't heard of any other reports of Jeff doing it again.

Because of this I would fail to define this as a "pattern of behavior".

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

I was not familiar with the events of almost a year ago where Alvarez thought it appropriate to call a person by their real name and then offer a non-apology apology (behaviors are patterns). In most other lines of work there would be serious ramifications against people who did this.

If a worker, not an exec, did this they would be fired.

Honestly, you'd be really surprised. Mistakes happen and MOST companies give people a little bit of leeway. Provided it was an employee in good standing that had been with the company for a year or more it's very likely they'd just be spoken to to ensure they understand the severity of what they did. They would likely be asked to offer an apology to the person.

If it happened again after it's been addressed the first time... That's when people would likely be fired for something. Or at the very least put on some sort of improvement plan or write up.

The only people that get fired from their job for mistakes like this are those who are new and don't have an established rapport with the company and those who are already in some sort of hot water and people are looking for an excuse to get rid of them.

Source: I've been working in customer service for the better part of two decades in both an employee and management capacity.

I'm frankly confused why people seem to think that degree of accountability is somehow excessive? It's...common practice for this sort of security breach?

I haven't seen too many people claim that level of accountability is excessive. There have been a few but the majority are just fence sitters not sure what they're asking for.

Personally, I just want to know what people actually want here rather than throwing out vague calls for 'accountability'. I'm fine with a simple apology as long as it doesn't happen again. That's my absolute minimum and he has already met it. But, if Jeff resigns or is removed from his position due to his actions that's also a fine and viable response to what happened.

“It's a fairly weak form of it but it definitely is.”

You defeat your own rebuttal.

“He was likely spoken to by several people high up in Paizo”

He is the “people high up in Paizo”.

“I'm pretty sure he learned his lesson over it.”

And you’re allowed to tell yourself that, sure.

I do not defeat my own rebuttal by saying it's a weak form of accountability. It probably just doesn't rise to the standards of what you would ask for. It does however rise to my standards of a minimum.

Regarding the second point, even the President of a company is consulted and reprimanded by people under them including by leadership for HR, Legal, PR, and Support departments. Just because he is at the top doesn't mean that he isn't held accountable for his actions by the people under him.

If I shatter someone's kneecap and say "whoops, my bad" I have also apologized.

We don't want an apology we want accountability.

Acknowledgement that it was wrong and apologizing is accountability. It's a fairly weak form of it but it definitely is. What are you asking for here? Do you want him to step down for his mistake? Do you want him to give himself a pay cut? Are you asking for something else?

He was wrong and made a mistake. He was likely spoken to by several people high up in Paizo about his mistake and understands that it was not appropriate in the slightest. I'm pretty sure he learned his lesson over it.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

I have two trans godchildren out of five, one I just officiated his marriage last summer and the other, a minor, just announced her new name last week. So, I'd like think, I get it.

Personally, while I understand the emotional and intellectual tension of this ambiguous state, I think it is better for the company to talk to the staff, and third party experts, to take the time to get it right. That is what I see happening from my limited work-from-home vantage point.

My job is half Marketing and half PR. I love the opportunity to work with influencers and interview the staff. So I...

Aaron, unless there is *some* acknowledgement and response to the company's President publicly and on the record exposing a (okay, two) community member's(') identities in order to "underscore how seriously he takes things" on top of the trans-discrimination issues, there will be questions about how trustworthy Paizo can be about data (mis)management. There is using information for a specific purpose, and then there's that purpose being to win forum arguments.

Jeff publicly apologized in the thread where this happened for his behavior. It was definitely not the best apology but it was indeed an acknowledgement that he was wrong and an apology for what he did.

He may speak on it again or write up a more formal apology for it but as far as whether or not he has apologized for it.. He has.

Gloom wrote:

Bill Dunn wrote:

Gloom wrote:

Conventions aren't a 'perk of the job' that you get sent to in order to have fun. They're sending you to work.

They're a bit of both, actually. You're there to work, but you also get to network and meet people - which helps you develop professionally and personally. You also get to participate in the community you support in your job in a way you may not be able to from the offices.

So, yeah, there really is an issue here of "who has to do this" vs "who gets to do this".

I mean, sure? But attendance at a convention isn't a guarantee for every employee. If you absolutely want to go to network then use your vacation time and purchase a ticket to go on your own. That's the only way to guarantee that you'll be able to go.

I used to do conventions for my employer and while there was some flexibility with who did or didn't go it was entirely on an as needed basis and once they filled all of the needed slots then no one else was going.

It's fine to not have every employee have the opportunity to attend, they absolutely should consider how many slots they have and choose the people who have the relevant skills and relevant role related to the project to fill those slots.

It's not fine for the reason that an employee doesn't get the opportunity to attend to be because of their gender identity.

It's also not fine to have a structural thing designed around fear of trans people (whether it is fear of us or fear of some perceived drama related to us) shape the policy that determines how many people get the opportunity to attend.

Gender identity should never play into anything related to the selection process they use for whoever is attending a convention. I don't disagree with you there.

I may be a bit out of the loop on this, but my understanding was that the claim was that Crystal wasn't able to attend because they would not put her in the same room as another employee and another room wasn't available.

This could have been due to any number of factors, including factors outside of the control of the company. The specifics have not been shared so I would rather not attempt to speculate on the reasoning behind their decision. Especially since they made changes after this happened to have only one employee per hotel room effectively negating this exact scenario from happening in the future.

The best that I would hope for from them on a company level is that they are dedicated to nondiscrimination and that ethnicity, gender identity, nor sexual orientation will be factors when determining anything to do with their selection process for who is attending a convention.

Gloom wrote:

Conventions aren't a 'perk of the job' that you get sent to in order to have fun. They're sending you to work.

They're a bit of both, actually. You're there to work, but you also get to network and meet people - which helps you develop professionally and personally. You also get to participate in the community you support in your job in a way you may not be able to from the offices.

So, yeah, there really is an issue here of "who has to do this" vs "who gets to do this".

I mean, sure? But attendance at a convention isn't a guarantee for every employee. If you absolutely want to go to network then use your vacation time and purchase a ticket to go on your own. That's the only way to guarantee that you'll be able to go.

I used to do conventions for my employer and while there was some flexibility with who did or didn't go it was entirely on an as needed basis and once they filled all of the needed slots then no one else was going.

Dug around and found this post by Liz that got missed (by me)

Link to Post

Damn Paizo. Pay your people. Here I thought you may not be able to afford it but Liz points to you than you can. This seems to line up with what Lulu, Sean and others have been posting.

This could be the easiest fix too. Share the pie. Come up with a plan that is palatable to consumers and make it happen. Not later. Now. Why now? Because you obliviously been kicking the can down the road. Or being greedy.

You have lost some of the best talent in the industry. Hell losing Amanda was a flag to me as a consumer. What happens when you burn thru everyone?

Yeah, I completely missed this post and I appreciate you sharing it. It points to an all too common issue in ANY creative employment space. Companies will always pay something close to the rate that the market assigns to an employee. There is some deviation based around unique circumstances but by in large it's pretty consistent.

Creatives are typically 'valued' for their passion. This passion however has ALWAYS been exploited by employers. They tend to expect longer hours (sometimes unpaid) and willingness to accept a lower salary because they 'get to work on something they love'... It's really sickening.

With that said though it's a negative trait of MOST creative jobs. I used to work for an employer that paid junior programmers close to minimum wage.. for a chance to build up their portfolio and 'get professional experience' working in the industry. There were also designers that got drastically underpaid because they were passionate about their work. HR recruiting typically asked for things like 'Self Starters' and 'Rockstars'.. Usually seeking people that will take it onto themselves to do free or reduced pay overtime and who are willing to accept a much lower wage.

Video Game industry work is PLAGUED by this issue and I can easily see that expanding over to the tabletop game industry.

Because of this I firmly support employees that are wanting to unionize for better bargaining power as well as raising the minimum wage to force employers to pay a living wage to their employees. Without that being done though I don't think it fair to expect an employer to do what some might consider 'morally right' and pay over the market rate on an employees wage. Doing that would require adjustments to their business model and put them at an unfair competitive stance with similar companies in the industry not being held to the same standard.

Again, I doubt the fors and againsts will see eye to eye on this. People don't quit in solidarity for unjustified firings.

As I've mentioned before, they most definitely do. I've seen it happen. I've DONE it. You might not agree with me on that and that's fine. But that doesn't make you right here.

Justification and Legal Justification are two different things, I agree but they're not really that far apart. Justification requires some sort of qualifier to state what is being justified.

When used in the case of a firing like this, asking if the firing was justified would typically point to a legal and corporate standard. That is the standard that I'm applying here.

Asking whether or not it was justified on a moral standard is very shaky ground as you'll have to define which set of morals you're going to apply and it's not something that people should ever really get involved in outside of philosophical debates.

Actually, they do.

When your boss you love is fired by a boss you don't and you look at the road ahead and all you see is discomfort and pain, quitting is a solid solution.

Regarding the "in protest" portion, Diego may feel that the firing was unwarranted. He may feel that the person doing the firing is unqualified for the job they were given. He may feel like Sara M and her crew were doing everything humanly possible to handle whatever the issues were that led up to the termination. He also, like us, may not have all the facts.

None of that means the firing was unjustified.

150% agree with Reckless here. In fact, I've seen this exact scenario play out more than once.

People don’t resign in protest over justified firings.

They most definitely do. I've done it before. Here's an example..

You get a new boss. You don't agree with the way that they're handling things and think that it might add more stress onto your team during a time where morale is already terrible. You bring up your concerns with new management and while they may take your concerns into consideration it doesn't change the decisions that are being made. You can either ignore or completely disobey those orders or you could criticize new management to your direct reports.. That would be a firing for insubordination.

If you've been with a company for a long time and people like you and also don't agree with new management they could very easily quit out of protest or support for you.

The thing about companies is that they're giant slow moving machines that are stubborn and sometimes need to work plans out and have them fail in order to course correct. If you go against that machine then you're going to be held responsible for it, whether you agree with the decision or not.

To all the "They can't respond because legally..." comments, they really, really can. It begins with two words. "We're sorry."

"We're sorry so many people have cause to feel we haven't lived up to the standards we aim for, sorry that we may have lost your trust through our actions or inactions, sorry that we didn't do better."

Thats how you start, no legalese or concerns about contracts or employee firings. Just ownership, acceptance that you need to do better, followed by actual actions over time proving your commitment to it.

Ownership of what? Say sorry for what? I don't want an apology for something as inane as "We're sorry this made you feel bad." because that's a non-apology. Currently, we have no idea why Sara was fired. There's no guarantee it was a wrongful termination... Hell, it's not even likely that it's a wrongful termination.

At this point people are basically just screaming for blood and unreasonable action taken by Paizo and I feel bad for people working there.

Addressing specific concerns that were brought up as soon as he is able is commendable by Jeff. MANY of the concerns that were mentioned were brought up here showing the specific things that were done to address the original complaints. MANY of them were addressed years prior around the time that those issues were brought up. To that it sounds to me like Paizo is honestly listening to their employees and doing what they can. That's all I would really ask of an employer.

Regarding Sara's firing... It very likely was justified. With all of the commotion brought up about it I can almost guarantee that there will be a review with MANY additional eyes on it. If an issue is identified by those people reviewing it then they may take additional action to prevent that same issue from occurring again, up to and including offering her job back IF it is warranted. It is however unlikely that Paizo was in the wrong here.

Regarding Transparency in the firing... We are not going to get answers on this. It might be frustrating to some people but Paizo is LEGALLY REQUIRED to not discuss anything about this with the public. The best that you might get, and that's only IF the internal review identifies an issue is for a promise that changes were made to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

Regarding Wages... So long as the company is meeting or beating state and federal minimum wages they are in the clear here. While it would be AMAZING for them to give raises to all of their employees that are below a certain standard it is not required. It's also extremely likely that they as a company are unable to do this with their budget. Publishing companies are notoriously tight margins and unless Paizo is reporting "Record returns year over year" and pocketing billions or more in profit then they should have no real requirement to make any real adjustments.

Regarding Unionization... People have been shouting about this like it's some sort of miracle cure to everyone's issues. I have zero issues with Paizo employees if they want to unionize and so long as Paizo doesn't interfere with the employees as required by state and federal laws (Which, I'm sure that they aren't, or we would see some lawsuits about it already).. I don't have an issue with Paizo on this either.

I'm really hoping for:

* Customizable Airships, Wagons, and other Vehicles.
* Repeating Crossbows.
* Construct Creation Rules.
* Crafting Feats and Actions and expansion of what characters can invent.

Super looking forward to this!

So far, one of my favorite things to have crafted was a water boiler/chiller out of Hot and Cold Siccatite, Fire-Forged and Frost-Forged Steel, and a magical steel plate enchanted with create water to keep the system properly filled.

Can accomplish similar results with elementals and other fun stuff but I'm hoping there will be a ton of special materials and rules for crafting all manner of fun devices!

Guessing it'll probably be a custom set of dice for specific mechanics in the game rather than faces with numbers. Like, rolling up loot or encounters.

But I could also go for a high quality set of Pathfinder themed dice. We'll see what happens. :D

It's still a little confusing the way that it was written. I think it might have been clearer to update the wording to:

"A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, which typically equals the highest-level of <Classname> spell slot you have."

They could have set that wording anywhere that cantrip scaling was placed just to make it more clear.

I know that they're limited on print space though.

Just completed my survey.

Basic Summery,

Magus: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) and needs spellstrike to instead add a free strike action to the spell casting and tie the effect of the spell attack to the effect of the weapon attack.

Summoner: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) along with having the eidolon have it's own pool of Hit Points. Also suggested a Summoning focus power along the lines of Summon Monster specialized to each magic tradition.

I argued that having more options doesn't make either class more powerful then any other due to the Action Economy. And the slower Proficiency progression makes them balanced compared to their more specialized peers.
The Magus should feel like a more desirable option to the Wizard/Fighter Multiclass and the Summoner especially for a Sakorian Godcaller should feel more like a full caster at the side of their deity or friend then heavily reliant on the eidolon being present to even be effective in any way.

I disagree with you here on this. Magus does need some more spell slots, but they do not need full casting. If they get full casting then they'll need to drop down to Expert proficiency on both Weapons and Armor. They'll basically just be an Arcane version of a Warpriest. I'm not really against this as an option but I've always pictured Magus as more of a Martial character than a Caster and doing this will deny them a decent bit of martial ability.

If your argument is that you should feel like a Fighter with MC Wizard, but with full spellcasting capability, no feat sinks, and action economy boosts to make it so that you get a free attack whenever you cast a spell.... Then I'm going to have to 100% disagree with you on that. You'd be better off playing in a Dual-Class game as a Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorcerer at that rate. You'll get more of the feeling that you're looking for without making the Magus the obvious superior choice to most other classes.

@Gloom, I agree that I kind of wish they just gave Thief Rogues either a different set of conditions that they could get sneak attack, or even just a flat damage, or an extra sneak attack die, rather than adding dex to damage. That way dex to damage could die.

I mean, strength/dex really only represent 4 to 7 damage on your attack. If they'd simply gave the theif rogue an extra damage die on sneak attack it would work out about the same. Or said that the first attack made in a round always causes sneak attack damage.

There are options.

And it's not that bad that only Thief Rogues get dex to damage, as long as it stays that way.

Definitely agree here. My issue is that it kind of set a precedent and inflates the value of Dexterity making people think it's an all-powerful attribute and they devalue Strength because in that one scenario Dexterity can take the place of it.

Every one of my characters that makes attack rolls has a combination of Dexterity and Strength and there is a negligible difference of 1-3 points of damage. It's not a huge issue in the slightest.

It does however matter a lot more for attack rolls.

HumbleGamer wrote:

I am fine with specific maneuvers which can be performed with dex instead of str, but that should just be exceptions.

To imagine that anybody bare handed could be able to do with dex any of the athletics maneuvers, which are str related ( apart from stuff like wolf stance or whip's trip attack, and I guess something else ), it would mean that Str is meaningless.

Strength isn't meaningless in this edition, even if you get to use dex to attack rolls everyone but thieving rogues uses strength to damage. Something I expect to be (mostly) maintained throughout this edition. While there might be a few specific class options that get dex to damage, I highly doubt it will be possible for virtually anyone to obtain.

Strength maintains its importance as the damage stat.

Definitely agree here. I honestly prefer the way they went about giving damage bonuses to classes that were supposed to be more focused on precision. Swashbuckler looks like it's going to be a pretty great standard for that, and Rogue's Sneak Attack is always great to apply in a fight.

I'd go as far as saying I kind of wish they left "Dex to Damage" off of the Thief Racket and compensated with easier sneak attack damage, bonus damage, or bigger sneak attack dice.

I'd still like to hear what the official response from Paizo is on this. Because to me it still seems a bit nebulous.

Any roll you make as part of an action with the "attack" trait is an attack roll. Finesse weapons let you substitute your Dexterity for your Strength when you make an attack roll using them. Honestly, I don't see how this really needs any clarification, unless it's to state it is in fact the intent. You can substitute your Strength for Dexterity on Athletics check to trip when using a whip, for example.

The only *real* question regarding RAW is whether you are "using" the weapon to trip when using it with the trip trait: "You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand." This seems pretty cut-and-dry to me though.

I'll grant you, the way to figure this out is convoluted, but once you do, I think it's pretty clear RAW.

EDIT: I guess what I'm asking is by what interpretation of the rules is the above *not* true?

I'm not disputing the first part of the question, just confirming that it is in fact the way it's supposed to function. And if it is, the second part of my question asks whether or not it functions the same way for someone who is unarmed. The reason for my concern here is that I don't think they'd put Trip, Shove, or any of the other traits for those combat actions on Fists because it's already possible to do with an open hand. It's assumed that you can already perform those actions when you're using your hands.

That's why I'm asking for an official clarification from someone at Paizo on this, because I think it's a little unclear as to whether or not it should function like that. Personally, I'm hoping it does because it makes more sense to me.

Regular unarmed strikes I don't believe would allow you to use the finesse quality because regular unarmed strikes don't also have the traits for maneuvers.

However, I believe if you weapon has the finesse trait and a maneuver trait you could make your athletics check with your dex bonus instead of your strength bonus.

The sickle is an example of a weapon that has the finesse and trip traits.

The problem that I have with this is that technically you don't need a a trait like Trip on your Fists because by default you are able to trip with an open hand. It's pretty much assumed that it's possible.

CrystalSeas wrote:

There is no Combat Maneuver Trait for weapons. Nor is there a Combat Maneuver trait for anything else in PF2

They're talking about traits like Trip, Grapple, Disarm, and Shove.

As for the OP, we haven't received any official clarification about those traits, to my knowledge, since the days of the playtest. However, I can definitely say that you can't use Fist's agile trait for those maneuvers because Fist doesn't have the appropriate traits. There's no hidden rule that equates Fist to open hand, as "Fist" is just a generic Unarmed Attack.

Is there a reason to assume that "Open Hands" do not have the Finesse trait while "Fists" do?

So, I have a two-part question regarding combat maneuvers.

There was an interpretation of the rules posted a while back staging weapons that possess the Combat Maneuver Trait such as Trip in addition to the Finesse Trait allows you to use your Dexterity Modifier for the check rather than your Strength Modifier.

Is that correct?

Part two to that question, are you able to do this with a free hand as well since fists/unarmed attacks are also a Finesse Weapon and you're able to perform combat maneuvers with a free hand without needing any additional traits?

Would love to get an official response on this one so I can settle it in my interpretation of these rules. Thanks!!

Personally, I would much rather them have left Dex to Damage out entirely so it didn't come up as a possible comparison. And I'm a person who typically plays a Thief Racket Rogue.

The amount of damage gain that you get out of Dex instead of Strength is negligible as you get higher in levels. The only time where it really makes sense is from level 1-4. Once you get Weapon Specialization and you start using a striking weapon the amount of damage that you gain from your Dexterity being a couple points higher than your Strength doesn't seem to really matter much anymore.

It would have been better off just being left out entirely and compensating damage in another way similar to what Swashbuckler got.

The Vigilante Archetype is coming with the Advanced Players Guide later this year. I'd imagine that will have some really great Batman themed options. Outside of that I'd probably suggest a Monk of some kind.

All of the goblin PCs I have seen so far were largely playing against type- erudite, charming, polite, bookish, etc.

Same, it's also the type that I typically go with when playing a Goblin too. The way I figure it, most of the "intelligent" goblins wouldn't really fit in with the stereotypical roles that they used to fill. Becoming an adventurer or scholar is par for course for them at that point.

My favorite Goblin trope to reference is their fear of reading and writing. Though I tend to scoff at it being a result of a misunderstanding of how writing works. If putting my thoughts onto paper steals them from my head then obviously I just need to read it all to steal them right back, can steal them from everything else he reads too! He keeps an extensive collection of journals cataloging all of his travels.

I just hope that the system starts allowing for those sorts of options through official support in their ancestry feat options at some point. Closest they have right now is Junk Tinker.

Would love to have a straight-up engineer/tinker Goblin. :D

Gloom wrote:

All I know is that my mother would have had a hell of a hard time if she had to cook soup one bowl at a time rather than just making a pot big enough to feed everyone at the table.

That's pretty much what it seems like with potions and other cheaper consumables half of the time.

While I don't agree that soup is a good stand in example for literal magic potions, did your mother remember to cook in batches of four?

She cooked in batches of about 12. :P

All I know is that my mother would have had a hell of a hard time if she had to cook soup one bowl at a time rather than just making a pot big enough to feed everyone at the table.

That's pretty much what it seems like with potions and other cheaper consumables half of the time.

I put this in your duplicate post hours ago, but:

You can perform only one exploration activity unless you have an ability that states it can be done at the same time as other activities. Once the investigator comes in then it will technically be possible to maintain 4 exploration activities at once.

Avoid Notice - Legendary Sneak
Investigate - Ongoing Investigation
Search - Trapfinder

You also have your normal exploration activity that you can perform with that.

You can perform only one exploration activity unless you have an ability that states it can be done at the same time as other activities. Once the investigator comes in then it will technically be possible to maintain 4 exploration activities at once.

Avoid Notice - Legendary Sneak
Investigate - Ongoing Investigation
Search - Trapfinder

You also have your normal exploration activity that you can perform with that.

I kind of do. Because the Crafter's Paradise isn't just about changing your game, it's about changing the underlying macroeconomic climate for everyone who plays Pathfinder.

I can't bring my sorcerer, who sings in a tavern for a living, to a game with your alchemist who's been allowed to craft a truckload of potions that I can't even buy. It doesn't make reality-sense, but it makes game-sense, and that's the balance in Pathfinder.

I'm more than happy to play Crafter's Paradise. I just need to know up front so I don't pick a background or class that can't Craft.

The thing is though, you can. You can perform in that same tavern or in a theater in town to earn a living taking the same or less time than my alchemist would to craft those potions ... then simply walk to the local alchemist and purchase the same amount of potions.

This isn't adding to WBL any more than performing downtime tasks to Earn a Living do.

Am I the only one who is truly grateful that they did away with all the exploitative WBL abuse that was involved with Crafting over the last 20 years? I cannot possibly be the only person who saw first hand the disruptive nature of letting people make all of their own custom magic items to spec themselves to suit one broken combo or min/max nonsense. Half-Price Magic Items was never EVER healthy for a real, non-theory-crafting game with actual players, all it did was bend the CR and WBL guidelines and put more work on the GM to challenge the party.

Crafting as a downtime activity that keeps more or less on par with other income generation systems makes perfect sense and if someone really wants crafting to be a core part of their Character they should work with tier party/GM in order to help feed that into the game itself as a reason to go adventuring or weave it into the basic assumptions of the game.

Honestly, I'd mind the changes to the cost of crafted items a lot less if they sold for 100% of their value. As it is right now if you're not using the "Earn an Income" downtime action to make money you pretty much end up losing half of your investment whenever you end up selling an item that you've made.

Gloom wrote:

Not everyone likes the same things and there are a lot of people that don't want to have to get into too much detail with economics or the more mundane things in the world. That's perfectly fine. But you really don't have to try to tell people who do enjoy that kind of stuff that the system doesn't provide any sort of options for them and they're better off going somewhere else or changing the game they want to play.

But he's not saying, "You can't Craft in this game," because you absolutely can. The Downtime system is in place in such a way that you can do exactly that. The OP (and Samurai, to some extent) are looking to get ahead in WBL through Crafting. That you can't do.

If I had a group that wanted to do a more heavily downtime-laden game, that's very possible in the rules.

WBL is more of a suggestion when you have ability to earn an income through lore or other downtime methods. For me it's less about wanting to abuse WBL and more about acknowledging and addressing some strange and unwieldy aspects of the craft downtime action.

Here are two of those items just as an example.

1) Removing the 4 day wind-up.
2) Allowing batches of items to be created if you can create more value than one of them in a day.

As it is right now, it's typically more effective to just work a day job and then buy the items that you're wanting from existing vendors.

I invite you all to playtest my new RPG, Crafter's Paradise. It's just like Pathfinder, except Crafting is now so profitable that everyone just Crafts insteads of adventuring. I mean, who really wants to go slay dragons or get poisoned, when you can Craft an assembly line to manufacture alchemist's fire on scale?

I don't have the math down quite yet, but I do have the theme song, so this is definitely thought through.

As I walk through the valley of shadow of death
I take a look at my life and realize I got no materials left
I've been Crafting and Skill checking so long
Even my momma thinks my mind is gone

But I ain't ever discounted items that didn't deserve it
Me taking things out to adventure, that's unheard of
You better be watching where you're walking and where you're talking
Or you and your party might be lined in chalk

Been spending all my life
Living in a Crafter's Paradise
Been spending all my life
Living in a Crafter's Paradise

See, I know you're joking but I would totally play a game based heavily around crafting and building up a base of operations.

My most memorable character is a crafter that adventured mainly for fun, though often times he did have some specific goals such as finding a famed crafter that could teach him new techniques or to acquire a rare material of some sort that isn't available on the market.

I'd say about 40% of the game was downtime and I had a real blast with it.

Not everyone likes the same things and there are a lot of people that don't want to have to get into too much detail with economics or the more mundane things in the world. That's perfectly fine. But you really don't have to try to tell people who do enjoy that kind of stuff that the system doesn't provide any sort of options for them and they're better off going somewhere else or changing the game they want to play.

That just tells me that a lot of people want more of a "Fantasy Life Simulator w/ Adventure." that includes everything you might want to roleplay someone living in that fantasy world.

While a lot of people might not delve too heavily into the more mundane aspects of that fantasy world there are quire a few that not only enjoy it but prefer it over the adventuring aspects of the game.

If you're asking about house rules, which I was assuming you weren't since this is the advice forum and not the house rule forum... My preferred house rules involve the following.

1. Items cannot be completed by paying off the remaining balance of the cost. Instead you must provide half of the cost of the item in labor.

2. There is no "wind-up" period to begin crafting.

3. There is no specific "wind-up" period to day-jobs, though it does still take some time to find good work.

4. The "Inventor" skill feat allows for the invention of Uncommon, Rare, and even Unique formulas but only with the express permission of the DM. Crafting items and formulas may require additional materials or resources that will involve an adventure of their own.

5. Legendary Professional, Experienced Professional, and other feats that affect the "Earn an Income" action also affect other skills that can be used when earning an income. This covers crafting, medicine, thievery (pickpocket), etc.

6. The "Unmistakable Lore" feat also functions for other skills that can be used for the purposes of Recall Knowledge.

7. "Batching" is possible when making multiples of the same item provided you can complete the cost of all the items. For example, if you can complete 40 gold worth of items in one day and you are making an item that costs 4 gold to complete, you can make 10 of them at one time to complete them in that day worth of time.

Currently, you actually take a loss most of the time by trying to gain a discount when crafting. You're usually better off money wise to simply buy the item and work for a number of days using your lore skill.

Where crafting comes in very useful is transferring runes on items and crafting things that are either hard to find on the market or crafting gear that you find formulas for while adventuring. Keep in mind though you will need to spend time getting the formulas that you need in order to craft.

It does not function anything like the crafting in PF1E.