Search Posts
everyone else seems to see things from a player D is right player B is wrong perspective.I think Bluemagetim hit at exactly what bothers me about this whole discussion. The Issue is that players B and D think differently about how a party should be composed. Neither is really right or wrong - each is the good guy in their viewpoint. Seriously, what have non-optimizing players done to you to make you this way?
everyone else seems to see things from a player D is right player B is wrong perspective. I think Bluemagetim hit at exactly what bothers me about this whole discussion. The Issue is that players B and D think differently about how a party should be composed. Neither is really right or wrong - each is the good guy in their viewpoint. I personally agree with both views. I’d like to see fewer “somebody must” situations, but I definitely feel it’s sensible to fill gaps in party roles.
I may be nitpicking here, but “Groups of players often…” is not the same as “Groups of players should (or are recommended to…” The rules don’t say there’s only one way to play. I think players B and D should discuss with each other whether or not they can come to a compromise that works for both of them. It seems some people here are expecting that D would expect each player to optimize their characters for their “roles,” but D could just as readily be looking at a rudimentary coverage of the “basics.” If B is trying to avoid optimization, then, in my opinion, the GM should check with the other party members (seemingly D in particular) if their intent is an optimized party or simply a “well-rounded” party. If an optimized party is what 3/4 players want, then B may be better off in a different party. If not, then this is a smaller issue than it is being made out to be.
I'm not an experience GM - or player, for that matter; the first experience I had was D&D 5E in 2020 - but my playgroup (outside of myself) is very experienced with RPGs. In this case, that experience comes with knowledge of how to "optimize" (but maybe not to the extent that some here have indicated) their character builds. And they have done so. When I tried running Stolen Fate, the encounters were all trivial for them. Ridiculously so. Personally, that drives me nuts. For me (warning: personal opinion) the game is about a collaborative story. "Solving" the best character build isn't what I want - so I freely take liberties with my dice rolls to make it more challenging. I'm not shooting for TPKs or anything, but I don't want every encounter to be a shallow speed bump. This week I ran a PFS scenario (#2-13 A Gilded Test) for a party of three level 4 characters and two level 3 characters. Rolling all dice in the open, each combat was edge-of-your-seat "are we going to win this?" That was my favorite GM experience, and every player responded very positively. I think the challenge of the encounters, rather than the "challenge" of optimizing characters, was the best part of the game. So as far as I'm personally concerned, the best way to build a character is a mix between what is powerful and what is thematic. I ironically just built a fighter and it's fun to role play something different from what I "always" play. I've made some non-optimal choices simply to delve more into the character rather than the metagame, and I couldn't be happier. So is the fighter relatively less powerful than other classes in a certain level range? All I can say is that I don't know (or really want to know) if that's true, or if I'm even on track to be pushing the limits on power (I'm definitely not, I'm sure, even if I tried). Ultimately, I firmly believe the answer to the question posed in this thread is "maybe" or, better yet, "your results may vary." To everything there is a season.
You'll enjoy Player Core 2, which brings the Sorcerer into the Remaster.
Surely this is a GM issue rather than a rules issue. I’m certain that if we encountered this situation with my regular GM, and neither group was trying to get off the road, he would allow the fireball and then have us roll initiative. At worst he’d have a semi-simultaneous spell attack from the opposing party that coincides with the fireball
I had trouble the very first time I tried to order from the website. I emailed customer service. The next day they had processed my payment. Perfect system? Absolutely not. Big deal? Absolutely not. The new store system that DeathQuaker referred to will take care of it. The solution is in the works. Nothing is instantaneous.
I’m standing in my FLGS right now in front of the following:
4x Player Core Special Edition
The owner only ordered the fancy ones. And received them as ordered. It is NOT a Paizo policy, it seems.
If you are playing Pathfinder Society games, you are required to use the Remastered ruleset. If you and your buddies are playing Pathfinder at home, use whatever rules you like. These statements are 100% consistent with the messaging that Paizo has put out about the Remaster.
My main takeaway from this thread is that I should start introducing more quirks and cursed items to my parties that don't come from trusted sources. That’s a pretty cool idea, frankly. My takeaway from this thread is that some players give RPG economics lots of thought (and are willing to defend their positions when pressed) while some (myself included) have no issues with the rules as written. Additionally, some people seem to lose the role-playing aspect of this TTRPG and like the min/max approach to character building. Every table is different, and the best way (as I see it) to find the right balance is to talk to your GM. The GM is in full control of the economy, etc., and can run the game as they see fit - rules as written or otherwise.
As far as I can see, the Lost Omens books have focused thus far on the Inner Sea region, limited to southwestern Avistan and northern Garund. I know that 2024 will bring us new books for Tian Xia. Will more about the other continents be revealed in the near future? Are those intended to be left for GMs/players to have wiggle room? I'm trying to understand the world starting, effectively, from scratch, so as much as I can gather (having started Pathfinder about a year ago) would be very helpful.
The most recent announcement that I've seen simply says 2024. Thanks for this - and that’s a recent announcement, too. I still want it now, though.
As a player who is relatively new to RPGs (only since the summer of Covid) and is even newer to Pathfinder, I am interested in GMing and have already mentioned it to the local Ventureperson (I don’t know her rank offhand). My biggest concern is exactly the concern I had when I first GMed for my kids, and later my friends. As a brand new GM, I felt that the adventure was vague in ways that forced some degree of adlibbing and/or improvisation. Not knowing the world or all the rules, that’s intimidating. I’m also an engineer, whereas my friend who is our regular GM was an English major and he has done this for years. I would *love* to see some adventures written with a lot of handholding for new GMs. Even giving guidance and/or examples of how to deal with players not following the script the GM is reading would be an immense help. I don’t know how practical it would be, but it would definitely make it easier to onboard potential GMs who share my fears/concerns.
I know the ancestry and background I picked for my bard don't directly help with being a bard. Both were purely for flavor, as I fell in love with the description of the gnolls' culture as folks who do what makes sense to them and come across as monstrous, while actually being big puppy dogs when you get to know them. And I don't exactly want to min-max either. My GM feels we have to, and I kinda posted this mostly to figure out who is right. I want to do what makes a good story, not just make Spreadsheet Joe who's just a collection of numbers to throw at enemies. This paragraph makes me delightfully happy! I'm new to PF2 myself, having come from D&D (amongst tastes of a variety of other systems). Sadly my playgroup ends up closer to the Spreadsheet Joe end of the spectrum, but I LOVE the approach you're talking about. It's more in line with how I build my characters as well (but also I'm too lazy to look for "best" options and just follow the Rule of Cool instead).
Maybe just issue a single erratum (yes, there's a singular form of the word "errata"): All discrepancies between core rules and specific rules should be resolved by enforcing both effects. This will require the Game Master to create two parallel universes for the game. This erratum applies to all existing Paizo products and all future publications.
I’ve been GMing this campaign for a few sessions now (I alternate weeks with our regular DM, who is running the Abomination Vaults) and it’s going fine (I think - I’m not an experienced GM). I keep checking the forums but seeing no activity for this AP. I’d love to hear that others have taken the plunge, at least!
I'm not comfortable with the unknown, so I end up just ignoring the items behind the glass. In future, maybe I'll remember that the employees are willing to play ball - we shall see.
Last time I checked if a store has something locked up, you can ask a store employee to let you get a closer look at it. If you can't, don't shop there. I don't like the idea of dragging an employee over and then realizing I don't want it. It's not something I'm particularly comfortable with. #introvertProblems
While helpful, most book spines also don't have that. I think the only ones I have seen have that are medical books. Most books (typically including medical texts) don’t have “compatibility” issues from edition to edition. The Pathfinder books, however, are incompatible across editions due to the vast differences between 1st and 2nd in terms of gameplay. Any time I see a Bestiary in the store I wonder whether or not it applies to 2e and I can’t find out without seeing the cover. Some stores (e.g., Half Price Books) keep a number of RPG books in locked cabinets, so all you can see is the spine.
As for the names, they are meh. They should had just called them Core Rulebooks and made the fact its Pathfinder 2e more prominent than a tiny blue mark on the side saying "2nd edition". Don't get me wrong the fact its out of the way is great for the art. But that should be front and center for rulebooks so that people don't get confused, not off to the side. I’m curious why there is no 2E indicator on the books’ spines. That would be very helpful to shoppers, I expect. |
