Vecna

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0's page

624 posts. Alias of Oceanshieldwolf.


RSS

1 to 50 of 624 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My first thought after seeing the headline and reading half the first paragraph: “Ehrmagherd. It’s the 3.5 thing all over again. Cash grab. Post OGL-furore pivot. Cash grab. Ploop.”

After being called away to help pour pumpkin soup into tupperware and coming back to read the rest of the blog: ”Hmm, making it a Core document for 3pps is a good move, removing the OGL creatures is probably overdue, but dang, two player manuals (and possibly more) is very 4e. I wonder if Wayne Reynolds is on board.”

Now, after twenty minutes of research reading on various threads:

* Removal of alignment: about time.

* No monk or babrbarian in PC1? Not a fan.

* No champion until PC2? Not surprised. Given the state…of..the world…it may be a bit tricky.
* Leshy as core race in PC1? Ehrmagherd. And I like vege…folk.

* Witch getting a rework? Overdue, clearly. Hope the alchemist…gets…whatever it needs.

* New dragonological theme? Ok, sounds good,

* Gunslinger, inventor, magus, psychic et al nowhere to be seen for…at least a year and a half? Now that gets into “very badly planned by Paizo” territory. You already have folks grizzled by the lack of core concepts enjoyed by everfans missing classes from PF1 - (in that those concepts were core to their enjoyment), and now you are taking another two (point five) steps back? Gah, glad I’m not one of those folk. I feel for their inexorable wait.

* Wayne Reynolds! I hope he makes sure to add even more straps, buckles, ropes, catches, brooches, buttons, ties, laces, filigree, binding, pouches, hilts, buckles, pockets, straps, belts, buttons, girdles, sashes, scarves, buckles, straps, buttons and belts to….that guy on the cover of the GMC. And more peacock feathers. And straps. And buckles.

But really….


Keith Langley wrote:
There are lots of ways creative gamers turn their creativity into income. Some paint minis, some will draw your character, some write adventures or publish third party supplements, and some perform as gamemasters for hire. All of these are also activities that people do for fun, for free, with friends. And yet when creatives advertise their services, no one jumps on figure painters or illustrators challenging their right to charge for their services when providing them to strangers who want to buy them. That sort of harassment is reserved for the storytellers, actors, professional gamemasters. It's time it stopped. Give performing artists the same grace you give visual artists and content writers.

And I thought about this too, as a peripatetic publisher of third party material. But I would hinge me counterpoint on your final use of “storyteller”. There isn’t one person telling the story, and that is the beauty of RPGs that has truly made them a genre of their own, akin and alongside… theatresports or shared creative writing or performance art or freeform LARPing. Sure, one person is the referee, to guide the plot and adjudicate mechanics and to weave a story that is interesting or compelling or versimilitudinous or funny or dire or sad.

But they don’t, and in fact can’t (unless as I have done once or twice, running a game…for themselves…what? Why else were there random dungeon generators in the back of the 1e ADnD Dungeon Master’s Guide?!?) run it without the input of the players, and “their” (the) game is only improved via “better” (greater/sadder/funnier/moodier/deeper/turtlyer etc etc) input from the other players. Because you are all playing together. At least that’s how I see it.

One can argue that better, higher, greater level/tier/paid GMs have greater skills at eliciting better inputs and their creativity is at a higher level etc etc…but that isn’t them telling a story. That’s them taking part in collective storytelling. No matter who guides/referees/adjudicates it. And as soon as you make that capital-induced divide between some of the storytellers being unpaid you have a division of labor. That I don’t think improves the social milieu of gaming.

Clearly plenty of people disagree. Like a lot of people. Paying for and being paid to game.


Ashbourne wrote:

Paid GMs wouldn't even be an issue to debate or likely even exist if everyone took turns GMing.

This is a good point, and speaks to the interactivity of the game when played by everyone. However it is pretty clear that plenty of folx aren’t up for it, whether through lack of interest, or perceived lack of ability. And I would have to say that is fair enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:
In my experience, it's easier to find players than to find GMs. I've seen players group together and offer to pay a GM because they can't find anyone willing to run their game.

I get that, but setting up a paradigm where people can’t find a game without paying someone for the “trouble” is more a mindset problem than a willingness problem. One of my problems with thenpaid model is that it creates a greater divide between the players and the GM, so that one is no longer playing for the love of it, but being paid to play. Whether or not they also love it, they have been removed from the rest of the players and been given a monetary value that none of the players have.

Dancing Wind wrote:
I don't see any reason that limiting the player base by enforcing some kind of ethics/moral/free labor rule would make the game better.

I don’t see any reason why paying for the game should make the game better either. And I’m not suggesting enforcing anything, more making an observation about the interaction of organised play and paid games, and signalling my personal discontent. I’ve said a bunch of times, I’m obviously not in the majority, and not an organised play member.

Dancing Wind wrote:
As was said above, the current pay scale for paid GMs isn't a living wage. This is an expensive hobby for GMs. I don't think that it's immoral for a GM to get paid for their time and materials so that a group can play their game.

Where the books are expensive, it is expensive for everyone insofar as they don’t use free resources readily made available on the internet, like SRDs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:

What concern are you imagining?

The official Online Org Play lodge is still cost free. Some people prefer an assurance of quality of their experience (especially for non-repeatable scenarios) and are willing to pay for that assurance.

I’m not really sure to be honest. Some posters have detailed possible conflicts of interest, but those don’t seem to be very large conflicts, or of much…interest.

As someone who doesn’t engage with PFS/SFS I’m more of an outside observer, but given the Paizo is pretty consistent with trying to do the right thing I thought I’d check.

From my limited understanding, organised play is (apart from necessarily growing the fan base and being a funnel to increase sales) a venue for players to find games in a fairly open manner. Paying for that seems counterintuitive. To me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
emky wrote:
I can't say I'm a fan of Paizo being so open toward paid GMing. :(
Why?

Personally I find the concept abhorrent. Charging money to play a game with people is crappy. I don’t get very nuanced here, it doesn’t need giant leaps or twists of logic or the lack thereof or investigations of corner cases or similar exchanges. There are enough *other* endeavours and pastimes where there are registration fees, space-hires etc. But for one of the people in the game to charge the others, *personally* to “run” the game is not a…game. But obviously, as I have said above, plenty of people are fine with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex's Personal Opinion wrote:
I've considered paid GMing myself before, as I think I'm a decent GM and my name would have some weight to it. I came down against it because I've spent my whole life in customer-facing jobs, and I feel the relationship between a GM and players changes when there's money changing hands. But it is a skill, preparing games does take time, and I don't think it's morally or ethically wrong to charge for that labor as long as everybody involved is clear on the nature of the relationship.

This is pretty succinct. And hits at the reasons many people dislike the concept. But clearly, if the ubiquity of StartPlaying paid-for games is any indication, not as many as are completely comfortable with it!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
So how does this interact with the Organized Play program?
Game Master's choice. They may choose to run a scenario, home-brew or an Adventure Path. There is a Starfinder Scenario listed there now.

Aaron, I see almost every available game on StartPlaying incurs a cost, presumably paid to the GM running the game, with a slice probably being taken by StartPlaying for the…privilege. Is there an ethical concern for Paizo regarding PFS/SFS GMs charging money to run PFS/SFS games?


AceofMoxen wrote:

I'm happy about this, but it would be nice to have more than a week's notice. I guess there's next month.

Also, will there be society scenarios?

It looks like PF2 games are running all the time, regardless of this “event”.


GM Axolotl wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Looks like you’ve got enough interest. I’ll bow out, have fun all.
Just wanted to say that I like loads of applications, and in any case, this will be 'rolling applications' if people want to come in or leave the game on a scenario by scenario basis.

Noted. Thanks for the heads up.


Looks like you’ve got enough interest. I’ll bow out, have fun all.


I think you had me at “Pathfinder Society rejects”…


I guess I also get confused by “next Summer” which means to me “not this coming Summer but next Summer” which is more than a year away for an announcement for something that is likely 6 or months out from the announcement… I basically zone out of hype because I never really understand the timing.


Mark Moreland wrote:
As excited I am about the next wave of product announcements, it's what's coming after these, next summer, that I'm MOST excited about. Boy howdy are people going to go nuts.

As a person in the southern hemisphere (where Summer ended yesterday) can someone illuminate me as to what this means in terms of months and year. This year? Next year?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Is there a reason for this message? I’m confused as to why it is in the blog. Presaging some announcement for the next Adventure Path? Some other release?

:Hmm waves to OceanShieldWolpf.:

Hey OSW!

I noticed you don't have any Organized Play Characters, so it's a good bet that you haven't been playing Pathfinder Society Season Four. During the ongoing storyline of that Season, we've been having some issues with Aslynn the hag.

This trash-talking blog is here to help us anticipate the opportunity to kick her hag butt later this season.

I hope that helps!

Hmm

Your research is stellar as ever HMM. And thanks for the heads up!


Is there a reason for this message? I’m confused as to why it is in the blog. Presaging some announcement for the next Adventure Path? Some other release?


Understood, thanks for the heads up, and appreciate the quick answers.


Hey GM. Just a few questions for you.

How are you running maps?

What are your posting expectations?

Are there any additional rules like Free Archetype in play?

What sources are available: races, classes etc…


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Definitely up in the top corner of the wall right now. I think the most annoying thing for me is the concept that just somehow, you all got together and hey, look at that, we have somehow magically and spontaneously covered every base and are just hey-ho, built for synergy.

It breaks the verisimilitude. Now I’ve railed against RPGs being a team-game* in the past, but I realise that PF2 is built for it, and I’m definitely up for it. What I want to do however is turn up with what I want to play, and everyone else does too, whatever that may be and then we work out how to synergise with what we have. It actually becomes way more interesting to me to find obscure and unlooked for, heretofore unknown synergies and tactics/strategies.

* this doesn’t mean characters are played to work actively against each other, just not a “team sport”

Verisimilitude is one of the worst things to come to gaming up until micro transactions.

And I can at least ignore micro transactions

Ouch! Heh, I get it. [Puts on most am-dram stentorian tone]. “Ahem. [clears throat] How deah yoo breng mai twee elf-gaym unto desrahpyoot! Choose yoah wepin sah, duel et dawhn! On mai honna!

So I guess there are only so many conceits I can bear. Like I said, it’s a playstyle and preference thing. And I can see, that at a remove one can accept, the planned-for-synergy party is great fun!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Definitely up in the top corner of the wall right now. I think the most annoying thing for me is the concept that just somehow, you all got together and hey, look at that, we have somehow magically and spontaneously covered every base and are just hey-ho, built for synergy.

It breaks the verisimilitude.

Personally, this makes more sense to me. The characters stay together because their odds of survival are higher with that synergy. Characters that don't compliment each other wouldn't adventure together for long.
There's a reason everybody in the Ocean's 11 heist crew has a different skill set. Adventuring's the same way!

Sure, characters who neither compliment nor complement each other won’t last long. But that is a very different thing to how they start. And it doesn’t make any sense to me that every group just happens to be perfectly matched. It’s a little forced for my taste.

And as for Ocean’s Eleven, the analogy doesn’t work for me at all for two reasons: firstly not every adventuring party is gathered in such a way, nor is every adventure made up of firstly putting the band together and then the next part watching as the ultimate experts don’t significantly put a foot wrong while montaging to funky music. Adventuring isn’t like that, always.

Ultimately we have here a tension based on playstyle and preference. I see the reason why people do Session 0, and in certain ways. It isn’t something I look for nor particularly enjoy, but I defend unto 0 HP people’s right to do it that way!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having said all that, I’m really enjoying this discussion and all of the advice (and HMM’s help to Ramlatus) so maybe we should move “teamwork building in Session 0” conversations elsewhere…


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definitely up in the top corner of the wall right now. I think the most annoying thing for me is the concept that just somehow, you all got together and hey, look at that, we have somehow magically and spontaneously covered every base and are just hey-ho, built for synergy.

It breaks the verisimilitude. Now I’ve railed against RPGs being a team-game* in the past, but I realise that PF2 is built for it, and I’m definitely up for it. What I want to do however is turn up with what I want to play, and everyone else does too, whatever that may be and then we work out how to synergise with what we have. It actually becomes way more interesting to me to find obscure and unlooked for, heretofore unknown synergies and tactics/strategies.

* this doesn’t mean characters are played to work actively against each other, just not a “team sport”


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reaper Miniatures: Pathfinder in the Paizo Store

Miniatures in General in the Paizo Store.


I played the first book of Kingmaker as a Woodborn Seer ( fate/diceroll modifying class from Kyoudai Games) here on the PbP boards in PF1, so a nature-centric approach is nice to see. And Kobold Press’ Courts of the Shadowfey has been a pretty popular campaign, with its internecine factions of fey politics and court intrigue is definitely reminiscent of this approach.

I’m not really up for Kingmaker in any form any more, and the fey stuff isn’t really my cup of tea, but I do like to see the twist from the GM side for a less “command and conquer nation builder”. There are definitely a bunch of Kingmaker campaigns that are gentler and nature focused from the player’s side…

Just a note for the GM, have you considered giving a few different secret charters from various fey factions to a few different players to increase the tension? I get that you want a co-operative game, but having slightly different motivations (or political motivators) could add some nuance to “fey-treehuggers establish ecotopia”. Just a thought.


aobst128 wrote:
Is this something I can't appreciate on mobile? Or am I just missing something?

On the top right there is a theme button (Dark, Light, Theme of the Dead, Lavender) and now…Orc! I had to turn my mobile sideways to get landscape version of the site to access the Themes button…


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Was Clark the Frog God guy? I haven’t seen him post for a long time. Then I again, I might have just missed it…

Necromancer Games. I went back and looked. And found I had even posted in the thread. My memory…terrible.


I want to get this. I have physical copies of most of the first tier, but not really any of the rest. I really hope the fact that 6,000 of these have been sold doesn’t mean issues with redeeming them… ;)

[EDIT]Ok, seems like over 14,000 now…[/EDIT]


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I also just wanted to say one lil thing. I absolutely loved the action economy in PF1e when playing the odd inquisitor. Through slightly clever use of Swift, Standard and Move actions (because I’m not really smart enough nor have system mastery to optimise/copy paste munchkin builds) the narrative power was incredibly fun. It felt tactical, dynamic, strategic and active. There was considered choice and there was informed change. It wasn’t particularly impressive from a DPR perspective. It wasn’t masterful battlefield control. It did engage with the other players and was wrapped in narrative and descriptive flourishes. Admittedly it was mostly low-level and was basically effective but it was engaging.

I do see that the three action economy from Unchained has been polished, however I read a lot of posts saying that in principle it is a great idea, but in practice it has been hobbled. I am yet to play enough PF2e to have a grasp of this. I hope that I can at the very least do as much as I did, at times in PF1e.

I understand Freehold DM’s lament. I want to love PF2, but after the engagement of PF1, however unbalanced and broken it might have been I am left hoping for the same engagement with PF2e.

To be honest, the amount of leaps and bounds required to do certain things completely put me off. I have to do what with a shield to get what? And then the shield…whats? Explain that again?!!

I was late to 3.0/3.5. (I started with Basic and ADnD. Left not long after ADnD2e) But it made a while lot of internally consistent sense to me. Missing the odd Key Term or two (*cough OSW cough*) didn’t harm me. PF1 made the same sense. PF2 really doesn’t. Yet. I don’t understand magic items and runes at all, though I haven’t really looked at them. I see bunches of posts telling people their players should have x this and x that that I at this stage basically don’t understand. I have no local group to play with, played in one PF2e PbP where my beloved Hobgoblin Druid basically felt like the Druid in one of the two early 5e games I played. Same zappy spell, every time. Jab with spear and miss. Try the hell to understand what the paladin just did with their retroactive thingummy that PbP really gels terribly with. Blah blah blah.

So my point is, rambling aside is that I am a classic PF1 exile who did enjoy it, could completely understand the problems with it and agreed with most of them, and has no horse in any race and just wants to have fun. And all that pitiful PF1 mastery I didn’t even have is still enough to bork any understanding of PF2 becoz “old assumptions”. I dearly want someone to make a top down play through of PF2 combats that doesn’t take a million years of pointless exposition and simply explains some basic combat tenets.

As someone upthread said, PF2 is what Paizo is making now. I made a conscious decision to leave PF1e behind for now because PF2 is the new game. I like the concepts. I think it has a lot going for it. I think it has some strange, not rough edges. I do think the basic math is elegant, but that is a belief and gut feeling, not experiential/lived. And it is its own thing, just as able to tell any kind of story as any other system in the hands of particular referees/groups. So to Freehold I say: I hear you, but I’m going to play it anyway. Well, run it more likely.

If anyone made it to the end of this, my apologies and sincerest thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
@magnuskn: Check out this post by breithauptclan that addresses some of the design paradigms that might be preventing some of that bloat…

I'm not sure how the post addresses the issue of bloat in any form. Bloat happens by new options (classes, feat, magic items, etc.) being released constantly, until newer players are overwhelmed by the amount of rules available and often perceived as necessary to fully enjoy the system. I myself am starting to play Anno 1800, a city building PC game with a ton of DLC, so I can currently relate very well to the feeling.

Paizo has already released eight new classes in the last about four years, is about to release its ninth and presumably also released a ton of feats, spells and new game systems to boot. I am not saying the system is bloated yet, but the fond wishes of some people during the playtest that Paizo would slow down on their systemic expansion with 2E seem to not have borne themselves out.

Just to reply, my error, I did conflate Power Creep and Bloat-which-leads-to-decision-paralysis-and-possibly-trap/crap-options. I’ve never had much of a problem with Bloat in terms of decision paralysis, though trap options could be a thing.

Personally I’m not sure any reasonable player who likes options would be concerned about 9 new classes in almost four years.

Given PF1e had a bunch of classes at its finish, and I still wanted moar and it has taken this long, so far to still not have the same amount while still not really presenting anything particularly “new” apart from the Inventor and Thaumaturge (both only just) I feel quite the opposite of seeing “Bloat”. I can’t imagine what folx who want an Inquisitor must be feeling. The rate is glacial just to get to where PF1e was, and the threat of yet another edition to reset the Core and build up from that is maddening. To me.


magnuskn wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

While they could have tweaked 1e math, I don't think you could have fixed more inherent problems in 1e with just tweaking though.

That and I don't like idea of "let's reset edition every ten year with minor changes just so there is less content to confuse people"

Well, now we got a new edition with big changes which put a good number of older fans, who went to Paizo because they wanted to continue playing an actively supported 3E-like system, out of buying new stuff from them. Of course it also got new players to support the system, too.

But 2E also is starting to get into the bloat problem, as far as I can see. Paizo certainly isn't releasing any less stuff than under 1E, which some people seemed to think would be the case when 2E was new.

@magnuskn: Check out this post by breithauptclan that addresses some of the design paradigms that might be preventing some of that bloat…


breithauptclan wrote:
TheRabidOgre wrote:
Does this ever happen to anyone else?

Yes.

I believe that the rules for PF2 were written with the intent to provide solid boundaries so that the game balance is easier to be kept in check.

The core proficiencies of each character provide minimum bonus values, and the prevention of stacking bonuses and the lack of feats giving numerical bonus boosts limit maximum bonus values. Which means that challenges can be written with the expectation of the characters bonus values falling into a fairly narrow range.

Similar idea with feats and actions and traits. There are boundaries built in to the core system to prevent a lot of interactions. Flourish trait to prevent really powerful actions from being stacked into one super powerful turn. Subordinate Actions and not being able to replace parts of a composite action to prevent unbounded action chaining.

Multiclass Archetypes not giving all of the class features of their base class - which allows base classes to put a bunch of class features and abilities given up front at level 1 without worrying about multiclass character abuse grabbing powerful abilities from several different classes with one level dips.

Another result of all of this restrictive design is that the system will prevent things that would be fine and probably should be allowed. One that a group I was in ran into was with Gunslinger and Way of the Drifter. Drifter's Juke isn't compatible with Reloading Strike. The Subordinate Actions rule prevents the melee strike in Drifter's Juke from being replaced with Reloading Strike.

So our GM got to feel like an ally of the party by granting an exception and allowing the replacement. And I think that is a good and healthy thing for a gaming group to have - these opportunities for all of the people at the table to realize that they are in fact all on the same side even though one of them has to play all of the...

Thanks breithauptclan - this both explains a couple of things AND reinforced my feeing that I do want to run/play PF2e more and more, and that yes, there are definitely things I will be changing, allowing, eliding and removing.


Can someone explain to me how niche protection works, and why it is a good idea?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I took Lord Fyre’s “class balance” to mean not that classes were balanced in PF1e but the change from the popular conception (misguided or not) of the balance or imbalance between classes i.e. the change from PF1’s “caster/martial disparity” or “linear fighter quadratic wizard” to whatever PF2 has.


Going to drop from this. I think you are in good hands with DM Doctor Evil, enjoy.


DM DoctorEvil wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

@DM Doctor Evil: my First Printing CRB lists the Adventurer's pack costing 7 sp, 2 bulk and contains:

backpack , bedroll, two belt pouches, 10 pieces of chalk, flint and steel, 50 feet of rope, 2 weeks' rations, soap, 5 torches, and a waterskin.

Archives of Nethys entry lists same as 1 gp 5 sp, 1 bulk and contains:

backpack, bedroll, 10 pieces of chalk, flint and steel, 50 feet of rope, 2 weeks' rations, soap, 5 torches, and a waterskin.

Which would you like to go with?!?

I wonder it is in the errata somewhere. My version of Hero Lab agrees with the AON listing/weight/cost. So let's say the 15sp (1.5gp) version is what we will be using.

The AoN has superscript to say it is from the 4th printing, so I’d say yes, errata’d.


Billi Hardstone wrote:

Thanks for the campaign backgrounds. Investigating the death of my parents Billi got addicted!! Easy to see one causing the other, but I like the addict line.

Anyone knows if anyone can cold turkey shrug off any drug addiction, it would be a dwarf!! War axe is sharpened and ready to go. I looked into multiclassing to cleric, but don't see it happening. But PF 2E lets a fighter be fairly well trained in medicine!!

Battle Medicine is, from my reading of the boards, an extremely useful combat skill for groups both with and without magical healing. Sadly, fighters get very few skills, and it didn’t make sense for my character’s background. Or…it would have…but given that paucity it was too far down the list of those that did.


Ezekieru wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...
OMG does it.

I was literally just posting about this elsewhere on the boards today. The page flipping is endless.

And, pretty please, can someone please direct me to the exact text that explicitly states that monsters/NPCs get three actions? I mean I think I know they do, but where is it actually stated? I’ve looked in the CRB, the Bestiary and the GMG, but I can’t find the actual text anywhere.

Encounters, Core Rulebook pg. 10:

"The players and GM roll initiative to determine who acts in what order. The encounter occurs over a number of rounds, each of which is equal to about 6 seconds of time in the world of the game. During a round, each participant takes a turn. When it’s your turn to act, you can use up to three actions."

Turn, Core Rulebook pg. 13

"During the course of a round, each creature takes a single turn according to initiative. A creature can typically use up to three actions during its turn."

Aaaahhhhh!!! Thank you Ezekeriu!!! In the sections on Playing the Game, and Key Terms. Which I clearly never bothered to read.


I realised too late to edit my post above, but you can’t actually replicate my dice roll by Replying, but using the “How to format” your text should be the most helpful.

Essentially, a Recruitment thread is where you pitch a character to the GM, Discussion threads are for out of character discussions with the group and Gameplay is where the magic happens. Unless it is a game without magic.

Some GMs use Roll 20/Foundry/ VTT for maps, some use Google slides and some just use “theater of the mind”.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...
OMG does it.

I was literally just posting about this elsewhere on the boards today. The page flipping is endless.

And, pretty please, can someone please direct me to the exact text that explicitly states that monsters/NPCs get three actions? I mean I think I know they do, but where is it actually stated? I’ve looked in the CRB, the Bestiary and the GMG, but I can’t find the actual text anywhere.


@DM Doctor Evil: my First Printing CRB lists the Adventurer's pack costing 7 sp, 2 bulk and contains:

backpack , bedroll, two belt pouches, 10 pieces of chalk, flint and steel, 50 feet of rope, 2 weeks' rations, soap, 5 torches, and a waterskin.

Archives of Nethys entry lists same as 1 gp 5 sp, 1 bulk and contains:

backpack, bedroll, 10 pieces of chalk, flint and steel, 50 feet of rope, 2 weeks' rations, soap, 5 torches, and a waterskin.

So the original is heavier, cheaper and comes with two extra belt pouches.

Which would you like to go with?!?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

And for those of you who haven't seen them before:

PbP Guides:
Doomed Hero’s Guide to Play by Post Gaming

Building a Better Doomed Hero: Painlord’s Guide to Advanced PbP play

Doomed Hero’s Guide to PbP GMing


CthosEris wrote:
Hi! I am completely new to this, and I want to make sure I'm understanding the format correctly-- we would be playing by text?

Yes, play by post on this forum. This is the Recruitment thread. HERE is a link to a Gameplay thread chosen at random.

In each post you can describe your character's actions and randomly generate dic rolls using the conventions found below each post box below: "How to Format your text".

I can make a dice roll thus:

1d6 ⇒ 3 Which is written {dice}1d6{/dice} with "[" and "]" replacing the { and }, because every time I try to write it correctly it will generate a dice roll. You can hit Reply on my post to see how I did it and then just cancel...


hustonj wrote:
Smiles-a-lot wrote:
Right now I’m thinking about a varisian fortuneteller/harrow reader. Looking for something gish like with some personality.
Thaumaturge, perhaps?

Great advice hustonj! I’m not sure you can get any more personality than a Thaumaturge. Given all the roleplaying fodder in the class mechanics and given Smile-a-lots’ idea, being able to wrap a harrow-deck theme around literally everything it is a great pool of potential.

Thaumaturge is absolutely my favorite class in PF2e, but I really need to focus on the basics at this stage so chose Fighter…


@Lia: I’m not sure of I understand you completely by “character sheet”, but here goes.

Click on the My Account section at the top right of the screen.
Then click Account Settings (which may necessitate signing in/password again).

In your account setting you can make a new alias on the left side of the screen.

Your current alias has no information, but if you click on an alias that is yours you can edit it and populate it with character sheet information. Dorian Grey has linked one upthread I think.

Happy to answer more questions or clarify anything if you need it…and apologies if I got you completely wrong!


Hi Doctor Evil, looking to submit a Human Fighter (from the Shingles) as I want to understand PF2 mechanics from a simple starting point! Even some of the 1st level feats have me asking questions…

As for a background, I was looking at the Framed background from the original Player’s Guide. Would it be permissible to have the framed friend actually dead, hanged by Zenobia “the Hanging Judge” Zenderholm - my character’s motivation would then be more revenge than clearing my friend’s name.


Is there a PF2e actual play that dispenses with the roleplay and just presents the adventure with mechanics for beginners to learn the system? My two major problems with actual play are a)the players/GM and b) the lack of clearly indicated use of the game rules.

I know that isn’t exactly “actual play” as largely presented, but it would be an awesome resource. Most videos I have seen take multiple minutes to explain one mechanic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you Paizo. Will check it out.


I am interested. Played only a little PF2e here on the boards (a few encounter of Fall of Plaguestone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Apparently the page for cancelling subscriptions went down from sheer traffic. You love to see it.

Checking Ginny Di’s Twitter linked from Linda Codega’s article linked above shows a lot of people have their hearts in the right place. Cancellation after cancellation, many of them truly wrenched by giving up a tool they use regularly and love. If you know anyone who uses DnDB, let them know cancelling is giving Wizard$ and Ha$nobros a major headache.

A PR nightmare. Really interesting to see this happen in 2023 - it is true that bosses and shareholders will literally shoot themselves in the foot to try to make maw cashola, don’t understand people and care not a jot for anything except that cashola stuff.


Has anyone taken the time to quantitatively assess the options - feats, talents, suites etc available to every class and work out which ones are “bursting with enough options we would love more but don’t need them” and which ones are “please, sir, cood oi av an option?” And then ask Paizo to make a book with options for the latter. Because one of the many refrains I see that rubs shoulders with FAQ is making the game solid and giving support to last year’s shiny, instead of just all the oo new shiny that is upcoming in next week’s blog, is all the rage of elements until rage of elements comes out and then goes in the dustbin of witchstory.

1 to 50 of 624 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>