MadScientistWorking's page

Yep, tone is really hard to read on the internet. And I'd rather that we focused on what unites us in this conversation - the wish for restored stat blocks - rather than focusing on a conflict over communication styles.

I believe that everyone in this thread wants to help their fellow volunteers.

Well to be honest it's primarily because my organized play experience is completely off the wall to the point I am just sitting here going googly eyed. So what is being probably bleeding through is just complete bafflement brought upon due my endless journey to figure out what a "normal" lodge is.

I bought the print and PDF and after looking over the PDF I am underwhelmed. The images are lower resolution that I would expect and it is a really weird adventure. Not bad, but it would have been just cool to have rules to make your own Warframe. It was pretty disappointing, and I honestly regret my purchases.

I mean they were pretty clearly explicit about what the adventure was.

Which is once again though goes back to my question. Very often to get a neurodivergent person to participate and play you have to help them. Not even GM just play.

And if your already helping them then why the hell would you not help them prepare a scenario. Scenario preparation is probably the easiest thing to deal with out of the whole situation.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

<<snip>>

I am confused by your almost hostile approach to people not happy with the change and who are trying to get it reversed.

Please keep the debate friendly, ok?

Thank you

Because without my friends work and their friends work there would be no organized play as you know it and to see someone who has no idea how scenarios are developed or written call their work inferior makes me cranky as all hell.

EDIT
There's also a degree of utmost confusion about the whole situation. Mark was correct but for the wrong reasons. So to have any context about how a lodge normally operates I just kind of interrogate people.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Mark Stratton wrote:

I think it should be noted that what’s being missed is that Paizo shouldn’t be going out if it’s way to make MORE work for it’s unpaid GMs and volunteers, and though that isn’t the purpose of this change, that’s exactly what the effect is.

Others have said the same thing.

Yeah but 10 minutes of work isn't really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things especially if you have venture officers that are competent at their position and actually help the GMs. I know that sounds really blunt but man oooo man the biggest strengths of my lodge is everyone will go out of their way to help one another with prep and running a scenario.

10 minutes for you! As someone who works 3 jobs, any extra time I have to spend in prep beyond what I normally do is really hard to do.

Perhaps you shouldn’t judge other people by your own privilege or ability to spend all that extra time.

But that is my original point. Why are you doing all the work if you work three jobs? You are fundamentally playing a cooperative game with presumably a group of people why can't they help...

I think it should be noted that what’s being missed is that Paizo shouldn’t be going out if it’s way to make MORE work for it’s unpaid GMs and volunteers, and though that isn’t the purpose of this change, that’s exactly what the effect is.

Others have said the same thing.

Yeah but 10 minutes of work isn't really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things especially if you have venture officers that are competent at their position and actually help the GMs. I know that sounds really blunt but man oooo man the biggest strengths of my lodge is everyone will go out of their way to help one another with prep and running a scenario.

Those of you saying “this isn’t a big deal” - it may not be a big deal for YOU. But as someone who organized conventions, sometimes you have to hand a GM a scenario and ask them to run it on the fly. “But, Mark, they can use their phone to get the stat blocks!”. It isn’t that simple. Some convention halls don’t have good cell reception, and most don’t have available wi-fi. I can’t tell you how many times *I* have been asked at a con to run something on the fly.

I will never do it again. Having to go out and search for those stat blocks, and have multiple tabs or whatever, is not only inconvenient, it greatly slows the table down.

Ok I've got to know this but you surely have had to look up stuff haven't you. Spells, monster abilities, subsystems, lore, pictures not included in the scenario, and Im sure more.

But seriously, with respect to PFS course-correcting, let's look at the $9 PFS scenario.

I recently bought Claws of the Tyrant for $20. 128 pages of AAA RPG adventures. Tons of great art, great custom trade dress, great editing. Custom maps. Very often a cool backstory, custom plot hooks, adventure tool box full of supporting material.

Meanwhile, look at your typical PFS scenario. $9 for ~20 pages. Consistently bad editing. Recycled mediocre trade dress. Probably a flip mat, lots of recycled art. Often a threadbare story. No supporting material.

So you do know Paizo severely undercharges for certain PDFs and quite honestly all you have done is point out that they really should charge more for the $20.00 one.

Like I said before: these decisions and the way you're talking sound a lot like people at big conventions with lots of tables & lots of GMs solving their own problems with zero regard whatsoever for how it's going to impact small groups that don't have those kinds of numbers.

I mean sure but for most of my ten years as a player and organizer I'd often GM at venues where there were two to three players.

That's the fundamental problem. I just don't think people like hearing that the solution to a lot of problems they're having is oOoOO sweet merciful heavens so much work. So much work.

And on top of that don't run a specific scenario if your player base can't play it. I'm not sure how this is a problem that wasn't an issue before this change nor do I wonder why talking to your players wasn't a solution.

FWIW I GM my PF2 Kingmaker campaign on a table but I mostly use my phone to go and get the stats for opponents, rather than peruse the HUGE book. It is pretty feasible IME.

Depends on the area and the reliability. I know in Gencon getting good reception is very hard at times.

And @MadScientistWorking, you say "assuming still four hours", but is that really realistic? You tell people its a 2-3 hour and plenty of people are going to expect it to wrap up by hour 3. Not everyone is there for an hour of RP. This is not a positive every table is going to care about. What tables will care about is if they fire and as has been said ad nauseum, to grow the community we want as many tables to fire, even if there is some problematic elements like the level 4 doing all the work for the level 1s.

Actually the funny and sad part is that despite all the complaining and whining this will actually accomplish its goal as it makes my life easier as an organizer.

And no. Having the level 4's doing the work for level 1s will not grow the community. That is a really stupid mentality and quite honestly I know that has pushed away people from organized play.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Also, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't a problem for people before because truth be told I never scheduled high level content for the same exact reason.

So...if a problem already exists, there is no reason not to make it worse? Respectfully, that doesn't follow.

That said, this entire conversation is moot. If Paizo had been interested in our input, they would have asked for it before announcing the PFS changes.

First of all they did actually listen to us because this is the third time that this actually has changed. As I said earlier very often the previous encounter designs would result in unfun encounters and potential TPKs. And in one case resulted in a scenario I thought my friend was making up as a joke.

Basically my point is that you're swapping out logistical issues and lodge issues for horrible encounter designs.

I am surprised some people don't have an army of pcs waiting to be played. I have come up with so many characters using pathbuilder that my issue will be if I will ever get to play most of them, but it does mean that I can have a character for every season that comes up

Waiting to play is one thing. Having enough games and tables to get them to a high enough level is another thing. Some lodges don't really have the ability to support the amount of games where you can have such a character spread.

For a GM trying to schedule a game, this means we're going to have to know in advance what is being run so we know if it's worth it for them to show up or not, because if they show up and get told they can't play due to levels, they will be extremely unhappy. Neither of them like to learn characters on the fly (an autistic reaction) so pregens are not appealing.

Does your lodge not schedule events in advance? o.O Im only asking this because I've never heard of this and I've been on the organizing side of this for a while now.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

You do know the game doesn't work correctly with the level band system right? I know people are clamoring for it but very often it either results in a wonky cases where either one player is completely dominating the encounters on his own or players are struggling to do anything.

Whereas now those tables -- not to mention many others -- won't be legal, and thus simply won't happen at all.

This does not feel like an improvement.

I don't know as Xathos said the imbalance of Pathfinder Society tables can often be kind of not satisfying so its six and one half dozen of the other.

Also, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't a problem for people before because truth be told I never scheduled high level content for the same exact reason.

2. Keep challenge points and multiple level bands. As everyone on the ground is telling you, both are absolutely necessary to actually make legal tables go off.

You do know the game doesn't work correctly with the level band system right? I know people are clamoring for it but very often it either results in a wonky cases where either one player is completely dominating the encounters on his own or players are struggling to do anything.

I've just realized that, as written, the Shobhad Longrifle does not have the Analog or Tech traits, which means it's technically Not A Gun, and therefore doesn't apply to Operative's better proficiency, or the Sniper Shobhad's free arm-swap, which seems like the whole point of the latter. Easy typo to make, thing's got too many traits already.

The reason why the typo exists is because the Shobhad Longrifle is a Pathfinder weapon upscale and converted into a Starfinder weapon.

So wait sure strike got rightfully changed but not its higher level counter part that does the same thing? o.O

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squark wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squark wrote:

The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current ruling

You do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?

No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.

Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "

Not as simple as you make it out to be as all wizards got their spells force updated.

I'm confused. I don't see how you can compare the mild inconvenience of temporarily switching AoN to legacy mode to look up what spell school a spell used to be with the barely playable mess of a fraken class trying to play an unremastered oracle forced to use the new versions of the mysteries.

Because legacy electric arc is remaster electric arc. If you can't even get that correct then it's a hell of a lot more complicated than you think.

And yes before you try and say it isn't there was erratta the day of Player Core 1 that eliminated ability modifiers from spells like EA.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squark wrote:

The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current ruling

You do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?

No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.

Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "

Not as simple as you make it out to be as all wizards got their spells force updated.

The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current ruling

You do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right? Also anyone who had half a brain knew the Alchemist was getting a complete rewrite. The class was a mess to the point where the amount of effort to get it to work was just too much.

I'll reserve judgement for when the books comes out, as obviously we're working with limited data. So far though what I'm seeing doesn't look like it will get me what I want out of Mythic; that is, the ability to take on and fight mythic level threats such as the Archdemons of 1e. Narrative power is great, but I want mechanical power too, and what effectively amounts as a +2 a limited amount of times at level 20 doesn't look like it'll help you take out a level 29 foe. Unless they print the demigods at lower level and give them mythic power to compensate, which honestly would feel lame.

Point is, my point of view is that if Treerazer is the expected ceiling of regular adventurers, that ceiling for Mythic adventurers should be Cyth V'Sug. Until I see more, this doesn't feel like what I'm hoping for.

Desril wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the previous level 26-30 creatures were re-balanced to be level 21-25 but with many new Mythic abilities put onto them. Their increased threat level would still exist, but it'd exist under the framework on the PF2E system instead of what they were in PF1E.

Yeah as someone who wanted 2e mythic to have 26-30 foes i'm kinda waiting to see what the if "level 21-25 mythics" truly feel like equivalent or not :O (because it does feel kinda weird if CR 26 demon lord would be level 21 mythic in 2e and lose in fight to CR 25 Treerazer who is still level 25 in 2e)

(and if CR 26-30 ALL are level 25 mythic.. Well that its own source of confusion)

I'm just surprised because canon products refer to level 26+ creatures. For instance, Osoyo the Blackfrost Whale is explicitly level 27

This is why I'm worried. They've kept most things level equal to their old CR intentionally, and there have been a couple of explicit examples of things in that range that were stated to be the appropriate level and just weren't given statblocks because they're too much (the Lantern King being 29 is another example).

So if that's the route they're going, they're retconning things, but I don't think that makes sense and I doubt it's what they're doing. But from what we have seen, mythic isn't going to let us fight those creatures either, which is a failure. I'm just hoping I'm wrong, and glad I've got Sparking Zero and Metaphor to keep me distracted until I can read the rules myself with context.

Honestly the Cyth V'Sug being mythic 25 makes me pretty certain they ARE retconning. Since we know he was previously CR 26+ (as a full demon lord).

Which for the record is totally okay, but makes it weird and obnoxious because now there's a separate power scale. Is Treerazer weaker than Cyth V'Sug? Probably. But is he weaker than a mythic balor or vrolikai? I have no idea.

In PF...

I mean technically speaking there's already an AP where you take on multiple mythic tier threats, meet an NPC who was started out with mythic tiers, and more or less become successors to one of greatest legends in Golarion. It's already very confusing.

Azothath wrote:

Currently 'lodges' keep a paperwork trail of complaints. All they can do is not accept volunteers for conventions or local hosted venues. Banning someone from PFS would be rather extreme and with email sock puppets it is going to be hard to enforce.

TBH it's volunteer run and the process to talk to people about complaints and the target of said complaints is unprofessional and just done by your local VC & RVC. It is fair? well - they create a record after the fact. Everyone is just a volunteer and doing what they know/can and it's a mix of RL experience, politics, fandom, etc.

I would just push back slightly on "unprofessional" in the sense that, while the process is run by volunteers, there is still a formal process for dealing with issues. It's fairly robust since a couple of years ago, there was a big conversation and project to improve the process.

Link to the relevant section in the venture officer handbook

I mean you have to remember the person in charge above the RVCs didn't particularly care about managing the communities. It was a stark contrast between how things were handled when Alex Spiedel became in charge.

If someone ends the scenario afflicted by Putrid Plague/Zombie Rot/Corrupting Spite: Handwave the consequences.

Ok. I gotta know. Since the rules clearly spelled this out in the first place since I dunno season 2(?) to do this how is this any different that it became a question?

Sigh. I hoped there would be a school in New Thassilon or Xin-Edasseril in this book.

Is the University of Lepidstadt a magic school? I have always thought it is a normal school, albeit very knowledgeable about the Elder Mythos and undead.

It seems that among the six schools in this book, none are from Absalom, Cheliax, or Varisia. This is quite strange, considering that Cheliax is the most powerful country in the world, and I have always thought that Varisia and Absalom are two centers of attention for Paizo developers. Does this mean that the Arcanamirium, the Egorian Academy of the Magical Arts, the Acadamae, the Order of Cyphers, and the Twilight Academy are not as prestigious as those included in this book? I'm also surprised to learn that there is no magical school in Magnimar at all.

It is confirmed that the remastered runelord archetype will appear in this book. But I heard that the ancient Thassilonian wizards actually didn't use the runelord archetype and they instead used the Thassilonian specialist archetype. Will the Thassilonian specialist archetype appear as well?

You do know the one school mentioned in this book deleted an entire army off the bat so badly that the remains are a distorted mess, went toe to toe with an actual God

Cheliax all things considered is pretty weak.

So with one of those schools having an entire AP dedicated to it will we find out what happens after it's events?

It's been a while since this thread was last updated, so I wanted to recap the progress of these predictions and what each story means.

Sky King Tomb: I think it has to do with the line "Great legacies reclaimed when they were thought lost", given the ending of this story.

Season of Ghosts: definitely "A humble village grows where there was nothing before", there are very few alternatives.

Seven Dooms of Sandpoint: no alternatives "An immense red bird rains fire on a small town"

Wardens of Wildwood: it's hard for me to pinpoint exactly what line is hinting at these events. Maybe "The return of great evils thought lost to time"?

Curtain Call: in the case of this story, I think the correct comparison would be "Beloved mortal entertainers make some deities laugh with delight, but others consume them and choke them with cruelty". Fits the operatic theme and direct involvement with the gods very well.

Triumph of the Tusk: It's hard to pin down given how little we know about these events. Maybe "Old gods fall and new gods rise in their place" or "Ultimate power within the grasp of almost countless hands" given the general events of the War of the Immortals that will be touched upon here?

Spore War: No guesswork here, it's definitely "A pale cataclysm ravages the lands, leaving corruption and tangled thorns in its wake".

Shades of Blood: Even given how little we know right now, this is an easy guess. "New lands rise from the ashes of ancient civilizations".

This leaves me with a few questions. Where do Rusthenge, Prey for Death, and the new Gravelands adventure fit into this paradigm? Anyone have any clues?

And of course, we still have a few phrases that I didn't connect to anything:

1) Two great powers declare war, and many neighbors have to pick sides
2) The sun destroyed
3) They see countless spirits shrieking in agony
4) A crowned phoenix with a peacock tail, whose return heralds vengeance upon the world

I'm most interested in events 1 and 4, to be honest. I like big wars...

Two is the new orc deities.

Thank you for running it was very entertaining and yeah even if it was short I did have fun.

pauljathome wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Like for example they completely overhauled the archetype subsystem in a way certain builds may stop working.

I must have missed something. What changed here?

Archetypes still work in general the same way. (Although I think the rules about needing 3 feats before taking a new archetype moved to general rules from being in each archetype, which is a problem for Flexible Spellcaster)

Champion dedication now gives you scaling armor proficiency, but only heavy if you already had light and medium.

Psychics that were relying on bumping unarmed to heavy armor to make use of say Imaginary Weapon (high damage melee focus spell) face significant build difficulties. (Other light/cloth casters as well)

Monk archetype Flurry now has a 1d4 round cooldown. Since Flurry never scaled it it became a problem for monk identity at levels 10+ that other martials could make significantly stronger use of flurry than a monk. So it's a sensible change for the system, but feels real bad if you had a character relying on it.

I think those are the big ones.

I was referring to how weapon proficiency is granted in archetypes which means Singular Expertise the mechanic is pointless.

It's something I caught but something I didn't realize the implications of until Sayre pointed it out.

And I think they overhauled how lore skills are given in archetypes which is a good thing.

Given the extreme overhaul to Oracle, unseen back in November 2023, and that not rebuilding an Oracle results in a non-functioning pile of mechanics, would it be the worst thing in the world to take a moment to consider and confer within the OP team whether allowing all Oracles created before August 12 wouldn’t be a good thing?

Where would you actually stop though? The only reason why we are talking about Oracles and Alchemist is the because the community is kind of loud about it.

Like for example they completely overhauled the archetype subsystem in a way certain builds may stop working. And then there's eratta to Monk and Champion Dedications. Feats that may do things completely different from how they used to work.

It's just so convoluted and it's not even done yet.

Captain Morgan wrote:

??? No, Chiurgeons did not spend actions on Draw. The elixir healing is so far behind spells that would kill the class if they had the same action cost.

For the first 5 turns at minimum, I can use items for 1A completely RaW.

As you guessed, I'll hold a generic buff in-hand. I'm the designated melee distraction, so that's Numbing/Soothing.

Independent familiar is there to hand off 2 items before they need to reload, and 1 item in a Retrieval Belt gives the familiar a turn to grab an item with no slowdown on the 1A usage. 1:Hand + 1:Belt + 3:Familiar. A pause in item use during that 5-combo will also let the familiar reload.

So... I have not really needed to draw items/elixirs in quite a while. Even before the Belt, it was once in a blue moon I ever used more than 3, and this 5 turn thing is overkill.

Quote:

I'll gladly take the various new ways to heal allies at a distance instead, and having more replenishing out of combat healing to the point you could skip treat wounds.

Man, I just disagree like crazy with that. Chiurgeons not only had enough healing at range, but this Remaster nerfs what would otherwise be their best tool for that, Healing Bomb. The old Healing Bomb healed full on a miss, and the Level 5 elixir is 3d6+6. Literally twice the healing of the FV at level 10.

The new Healing Bomb heals a pittance of splash on miss now, and needing to hit your ally's AC to heal them makes it outright unusable as a healing tool, which needs to be predictable/dependable.

At Level 10, even if it's 20ft, the new Chiurgeon FV that heals 2d6 for 2 Actions is genuinely a "useless token" that attempts to lampshade/hide the nerf from those who don't know the class or think about the numbers.

They even went out of their way to make that ranged heal an Interact just to block the tiny heal from being Quick Bomber compatible. If the new FV was a genuine 1A activity at range, giving it a new niche as a 3rd action heal...

Have you read the class or are you napkin matching this based off of incomplete information?

Did I screw up filling up your sheet? I haven't gotten the email yet.
EDIT:
My email had a typo in it. D:

Dooot doot doot doot! I found the answer when I asked the same question two years ago.

IIRC consulting with experts in the lore from those cultures.

Why are there so many weird errata for grenades? Like Im only saying this because why was their an FAQ about reusing grenades?

Honestly, the argument of "Casters are good, you're just playing them wrong," only really highlights that Casters aren't a class that gives you much build versatility, and supports the "One True Build" idealism that PF2 has tried to go out of its way to demolish by enabling a lot of ways to build a character.

I don't think that argument is arguing that you don't have a variety in builds but more you need inherently need to use tactics to play a spellcaster whereas you can sort of brute force martials.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Samir Sardinha wrote:

Nice try with Twirling Throw, but the critical failure clause destroyed the feat.

Let's hope that finisher removed the precision trait from the damage

It really doesn't destroy the feat, not only do you have assorted reroll mechanics like hero points to prevent it (which also applies to the attack itself, for big finisher damage), and need to crit fail in the first place, you could easily have a back-up weapon and grab your other weapon later. This feat is excellent for a mixed ranged/melee swash.

Crit failing an attack roll isn't that hard, especially against severe/extreme threat enemies, and even more so if its not your first attack this turn.

So this is setup such that you want it to be your first attack after you get panache and you also have a weapon to throw that you'll be okay with losing. This seems like if you take it you're also going to need a throwers bandolier so that you aren't throwing your runes away and having them clang on the floor across the room. In that specific setup it seems pretty good, but you're building around this feat at that point.

I mean it's the second feat in a chain. Of course your building around it....

Squiggit wrote:

Almost complete replacing the need for a returning rune but adding in a small chance to lose your weapon on any given attack feels like it could be very frustrating in actual play in non-ABP Games.

Honestly, I feel the opposite. A returning rune is 55 gold, and that's an entire class feat. Sure, this works for all thrown weapons and ignores some range penalties for weapons with very short range increments, but there's also the thrower's bandolier that can gather your stuff back up, and can have a returning rune put on it. So for 115 gold, you have this feat minus the range increment caveats.

Well also remember that feat is a finisher so who knows what that will mean.

I'm not sure where you are finding volatility. Any confusion can be cleared up by clearly documenting changes across versions in a way the most people can access.

This is the third iteration of the conversation Ive seen. Also, technically speaking at least one of the changes looks more like someone accidentally misread a stat block and the error wasn't caught.

That's why I'm a little hesitant to just jump on the assumption that they are fixing the scenarios full stop.

Hi there,

The concern is not a "conspiracy"; Drental commented about "Paizo internal people collaborating with contracted people" to vet Foundry modules.

In other words, Paizo people are spending work time fixing issues in one version and not another. That's great, but seems to be creating different branches of content because those changes aren't being broadcast to the community.

Whatever the case here, I do hope Paizo can leverage the effort used to create high quality Foundry modules find a way to keep things in stride for the whole community.

Right but the weirdest part out of all of this is they didn't fix all the issues. The changes in 5-16 are apparently missing an equally important change which maybe was deliberate but also looks like they just were listed in alphabetical order. But maybe they were changed but who knows????

That's why I'm on the wait and see boat because even if they are doing the changes it seems weirdly haphazard.

Also, sorry this is such a bizarrely volatile subject for people and its so confusing.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Doug Hahn wrote:

Guess it's about where the $$ is though and who can blame Paizo.

Where is this stupid conspiracy coming from?

I don't think a conspiracy wasn't necessarily implied there. In a world where Paizo's resources are limited and there's a high-priced, high-quality product they want to deliver, it's possible for entirely non-conspiratorial reasons that they would focus on one instead of the other.

Right but what makes you think that Foundry is the priority? We don't know what the priority is. It's just rampant speculation that just comes off as a passive aggressive attack.

One piece of paid software taking up resources to the detriment of other resources (publicly accessible forums, other VTTs) is almost never a good recipe for the community. Guess it's about where the $$ is though and who can blame Paizo.

While I operated my own Foundry server for quite a long time I do miss the days when we could find scrappy simple PFS games on Google Slides and it's one of the reasons I stopped playing online.

Where is this stupid conspiracy coming from? In my ten years of Organized Play Paizo was never the best at communicating information.

This is a minor roadbump in what I've seen.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

kaid wrote:

On the that's crazy side of the kineticist side while a single usage of their crazy anime attacks are less potent than a level 10 spell they can keep doing them ALL DAY LONG. Just power level over 9000 nonsense all day every day. Even their lower level powers are hilarious. Imma block your attack by suddenly sprouting a tree to block it. Most magic users leave devastation after a fight where a wood kineticist leaves reforestation behind to the point druids have to be big fans of a guy who can beat the baddies and grow a forest at the same time.

Yeah... Timber Sentinel in particular can just trivialize certain kinds of fights. Sure, there are ways to work around it, but when the GM has to meta against a lvl 1 feat, that's a thing.

Yeah I'm baffled this doesn't even have Overflow or something on it. Just "I can spam this spell infinitely with it auto-heightening" vs how limited it is for an actual spellcaster trying to use it.

It's utility drops in a wide variety of situations and quite honestly your losing what makes the class unique spamming it.

I always was kind of confused by how little chaos War for the Crown had. It should have been more like this

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Also, I do hope we get a lot more detail about the Alchemist if/when we get a blog about them! We were left with a lot more questions than answers from the Remaster panel at PaizoCon, so I hope Logan, or whoever they get to write the blog on the Alchemist, will give us a lot of detail about the class's changes in the coming weeks!

Shhh... Let them cook.

The book has to already be printing it is already as cooked as it is going to be for the moment.

I meant let them cook the advertising.

Also, I do hope we get a lot more detail about the Alchemist if/when we get a blog about them! We were left with a lot more questions than answers from the Remaster panel at PaizoCon, so I hope Logan, or whoever they get to write the blog on the Alchemist, will give us a lot of detail about the class's changes in the coming weeks!

Shhh... Let them cook.

Ok I got to know is the pun intentional? Dae is a solarian. In effect they are Sun-Dae.

Their tactic would be to go find the God who fought treerazor before and ask her for help and advice.

The one thing I will say in the defense of people critical of the decision, classes receiving extensive changes based on feedback without the chance for the new mechanics to be re-analyzed externally are the conditions under which we got the APG Witch, Investigator, and the CRB Alchemist itself.

So it's not like the trepidation is entirely out of the blue or unfounded, even if I think some of the cynicism is a bit too much. Paizo is great at making tuning passes around feedback, but sometimes when dev cycles don't have that feedback layer the results are a bit less steady.

Right but the developers didn't exactly have a good handle of how the game itself works and plays at the time which is why the Alchemist seemed so conservative by comparison.

Also no. The wonkiest of those three was Alchemist and even that wasn't an unplayable mess.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Power Creep only matters in the context of the game as a whole. Treasure Vault giving the Alchemist good enough support that struggling through your bad build no longer felt worth it isn't power creep.

Yes, it's a form of power creep. The new options are better than the old ones so playing the old ones feel worse than before. Even if in my case it was just a nail in the coffin, I was dissatisfied with my build already.

No. They compliment the new options not completely supplant them. One of the biggest problems of the Alchemist was for a class built around versatility they had none to little of it

Yeah I'm good with the expectations too. I'll get my character profile ready in a few minutes.