Gloom's page

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.

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".

“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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It's also RAW not to ask for rolls if the results don't matter or if the characters are generally going to succeed the majority of the time, or I believe that was at least the intent of the designers.

I don't remember if it's actually printed in the book or which page it's on but it's been mentioned multiple times.

I already plan to give out free multiclass archetypes for things that invest characters in downtime or story related activities. If several players want to go play Hogwarts at a Wizard School you're darn right I'm going to give them some free feats for doing it!

Pay the tuition and lodging expenses, attend the classes, complete the curriculum and you too can get a free Wizard Dedication or Sorcerer/Wizard Class Feat.

Posted in the Errata: Page 409: In the atone ritual, change the Heightened
entry to “Heightened (+1).”

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgzq?Core-Rulebook-Errata-Round-1

In terms of the overall balance of the game Martial characters with the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Champion at the forefront were raised in relative strength to what they had compared to other characters.

Casters were generally flattened in their growth curve to move more in line with the rest of the characters in the game, but were relegated to a more of a utility/debuff/area damage role.. Though they're capable of doing just fine in other circumstances.

Balance is very different in this game so it will just take some time to get your bearings.

Gloom wrote:

I'd much rather just give them a cool item that did what they were wanting to do than say they have to shift a staff into it in order to accomplish it.

I guess I just don't understand why staying within the rules is "cheesy", while stepping outside the rules to make a new item is "cool".

Gloom wrote:

I don't think anyone actually WANTS to have a shapeshifting staff for the cool factor, more just so they can use whichever weapon they're wanting but with the specific casting properties of the staff.

Why isn't the ability to use the weapon you want while having staff properties part of the cool factor for them? I think shooting fire out of my shield has plenty of cool factor.

At least to me it's much more impressive to have a weapon built that has the properties of a staff as is, rather than having a staff that's just shifted into the form of another weapon.

If I had a player that was playing a Fighter or Wizard with the other dedication that wanted to gish it up, I wouldn't mind at all giving them either a special reward or quest to obtain a weapon that matches their preferred weapon... but had all of the casting properties of a staff.

Strill, what are you trying to gain by intentionally misconstruing the OP's position? You know that's not what they said, I just don't get why you think this helps you or makes the thread better.

Gloom wrote:

DPR is an overrated metric and should not be the only or even primary indicator of balance.

Saying DPR is irrelevant when specifically trying to measure the value of feats that exist to attempt to increase the damage you do and little else is kind of a silly take.

It's a question of whether or not the returns ever match up to the investment. Whether or not it's worth specializing. Because if a character spends a significant number of feats trying to get better at something but they're still better off just using their normal options instead, that's kind of a problem and shows the investment isn't worthwhile. Yes, even if it's about damage.

I said that DPR is an overrated metric that should not be the only or even primary indicator of balance.

I did not say that it was irrelevant.

Do I think that a Martial/Caster Gish should be doing as much or more damage than a pure martial or caster character? No. I do not.

Do I think that they should have more flexibility in their playstyle by allowing them to perform moderately well in those two areas? Yes I do.

When you Gish a Martial/Caster character you aim to get better performance in a straight fight than a Caster but more versatility in magical situations than a Martial.

Gloom wrote:

TL;DR Expert Proficiency is not as bad as people are making it out to be.

Yes it is. Look at Citricking work on average DPR per class. Melee casters have half the DPR of martials, mostly because of this Expert Proficiency (and of course the lack of any class ability increasing damage).

Don't expect to ever get to 2/3rd of a martial efficiency with a caster without some sort of specific combo.
A caster first attack is a martial second attack. A caster second attack is a wasted action. A caster third attack is a good joke.

DPR is an overrated metric and should not be the only or even primary indicator of balance.

Ruzza wrote:

Hey, man, Martialmasters has made it abundantly clear that they were looking for gish builds from people, not a crusade against it. If you feel that strongly that gishes are somehow harmful to the game, go make a thread instead of attacking the OP's.

Martialmasters is the only one who's saying that gishes are harmful to the game.

You're saying, or at least it reads that way to me that a gish that doesn't surpass what a melee is capable of on their own through the use of spells is useless..

I happen to disagree with that pretty heavily and I'm sure Martialmasters does as well.

Gish is a play style ... not a min-maxing exercise.

I love the fact that adding spells to a martial character allows you additional versatility and potential large bits of damage when enemies are clustered for a well placed AoE spell.

Same thing can be said about adding additional martial abilities to a Caster since it tends to give them a lot more flexibility with their action economy.

Have not read the rules in detail but can't you create new formulas with the inventor feat. I know you can invent existing ones with it.

Technically, it's up to the DM whether or not this is something that is possible as the feat specifies you can only invent common blueprints... Which is kind of bleh.

I would have much preferred they leave it open ended beyond common stuff and left it entirely to DM approval.

TBH you're also comparing that cantrip to a bomb that you get at 3rd level. I think that having to wait until 11th level for a better bomb is also pretty rough. That's what admixtures should be for though.

At 11th level Alchemist Fire shoots back up again on effectiveness. Then falls behind again around 15th level.. then picks back up at 17th when you get the upgrade again.

Comes down to there not being as smooth of a progression of heightend cantrips.

Personally I'd love to have seen a repeatable bomb mechanic for Alchemists. Something like being able to toss bombs 4 or possibly more levels below their advanced alchemy level without any real limit.

The issues that I've seen is that a Bomber alchemist can really burn through all of their prepared bombs in the day and then they're resolved back to shooting a crossbow. Which is what they tried to get away from in the first place.

Fighters can gain a bonus reaction for Attack of Opportunity, Shield Block, and their normal reaction. They can also use things like Shield Warden and Improved Reflexive Shield to block damage to allies with the Shield Block reaction.

Reactive Shield + Quick Shield Block gives a bonus reaction that can only be used to Shield Block.

Combat Reflexes gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Attack of Opportunity.

Dueling Riposte + Improved Dueling Riposte gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Dueling Riposte.

Twin Riposte + Improved Twin Riposte gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Twin Riposte.

Boundless Reprisals gives you an additional reaction for each of your enemies turns.

Paragon's Guard allows you to enter a stance as a fighter that pretty much means you ALWAYS have your shield raised so long as you meet the requirements to do so. It's a great source of bonus action efficiency.

Fighters can use their shield or a secondary weapon to great bonus efficiency to allow them to take advantage of the combat and defend both themselves and their allies.

Fighters and Barbarians can be decent tanks, depending on what they're doing. Fighter can get a TON of reactions for free usage of shields and attacks of opportunity.

Classes are much more balanced with each other than previous editions of the game. There really isn't that kind of a "tier list" anymore. Though if you're looking at performing very specific tasks some will pull ahead more than others such as a Rogue being the best at the Stealth skill.

Depends on the level of the enemy you're fighting. Against even level stuff it works wonders. Against higher level stuff, it's still effective.

Fear effects have been some of the most helpful spells for our group. It shifts the difficulty of an encounter drastically in favor of the party.

Stunned and Slowed are also extremely useful status effects as denying an enemy of actions can prevent it from being able to act or use a special multi-action ability. GREAT for a boss-killer and Monks can apply it with Stunning Fist every round if they land both of their flurry attacks.

SO I MISSED THE*CASTER IS UNDERPOWERED NOW* DEBATES...

You didn't miss anything of value. This is an old and tired debate that has people divided into two camps. For the most part however, anyone I've played with who has played a caster in a game for a reasonable amount of time has enjoyed it.

Also, I figured I'd toss this out there. Don't act like everything is a call-out post of your behavior. If you've got unresolved issues with the way that your party or DM treated you then you might want to bring it up with them rather than trying to derail a thread.

This rule exist for balance reasons; it's one of the rules ensuring crafting is never profitable.

Crafting should be at least as profitable as working to earn an income using a lore skill. It shouldn't be less profitable simply because you're choosing to make something specific.

Saying that crafting should NEVER be profitable is just asinine.

If you want to address your specific example I'd be happy to break it down for you. You used the example of a 10th level character encountering a troll and suggested that their experience as an adventurer should not be ignored.

I 100% agree here.

1) If your character has encountered a Troll in the past and discovered that Fire is their weakness or if they have been told or read this somewhere during their adventures they could apply that knowledge without having to make any additional checks.

2) If your character has never discovered that Fire is the weakness of a Troll they will still have to make a Recall Knowledge attempt to do so. That would take them a single action to do and a successful Recall Knowledge check to gain the information.

Because a 10th level character has a vast amount of experience they can make their check using the Nature or possibly even the Society skill. If they are trained in either of those skills they would add their Wis or Int Modifier and their Proficiency Bonus which includes their level to represent their adventuring experience.

Assuming a mediocre 14 in their attribute and only having the skill at "Trained" Proficiency they would have a check of +14. Given that a Troll is a common enemy to encounter the DC for the Recall Knowledge check is 18 as it is a "CREATURE 5" and is common. If they are rather notorious in the area and the knowledge is even more common the DC could be as low as 15.

That means at the cost of an action you would succeed on the knowledge check by rolling a 4 or higher... or in an area that they are especially notorious you might even automatically succeed at the check.

Well if one is saying any kind of metagaming is in bad faith then not providing any examples of what kind of metagaming is truly acting in bad faith then to me it is pretty much ignoring what practical knowledge and experience one has acquired over their years of adventuring.

No one who works at a job approaches every day their work as it being the first day on the job. Why should advenuturers act like every encounter is like their first encounter.

Metagaming for me at least is when a player no matter the level and never having encountered a creature, trap or spell acts like they know 1000% of the information. It is entirely appropriate for say an 10th level character digging into his pack to throw some kind of alchmeical substance at a creature. Not say fire towards a Troll yet why would anyone buy such items to keep them like trading cards. They do not go up in value like such cards.

I on't live my life outside of gaming being completely clueless I don;t see why my characters have to be either.

Honestly, it seems like you skimmed through this thread if you can say that. Solid examples of metagaming have been shared. The specific example you shared about a player using the past experiences of their character to solve their problem again was specifically called out as an example that is NOT metagaming.