Oceanshieldwolf's page

I really liked the description of pacing and forcing pauses to help players soak in the wonder of the environment.

One small thing - although there is a tag at the top saying “Videogames” there isn’t a tacit indication that this is the AV Videogame, or who is writing it/who it is from. So from the landing page, it took a while to grok.

Please bring back the Search bar. I can’t find it anywhere.

Absent anywhere else to post this, I’ll leave it here. On my phone, the “Paizo” logo in the top left of the screen that acts as a Home page link is….invisible. In that it is there, because if I press where it should be I get taken to the Home page. But it isn’t *visible*. Just a strip of black. This is not on the Store pages, as I have not been brave enough to go there yet. Seems similar to Ectar’s post on same/similar issue.

Also, I would say that yes, being unable to comment on the blog is super strange, and having two passwords for the one site is making me feel uncomfortable.

Finally, as much as this is a much vaunted “new look, new store” losing any functionality seems perverse. And that not all 3PP products that were hosted formerly will be added back seems sad.

I’m waiting to get a new computer, so I’m much too afraid to wrassle with the Store from my phone at all to a) try to get though to my digital assets (partly because I’m not sure I *have* bought anything since 2020) as most of it would be 3PP stuff and years since I bought it; or b) see if my consignment portal as a publisher is in any way better than the old system - which I gotta say was truly horrific.

Still, on the upside, I’m glad to see more payment methods have been accepted!!!

3 minutes must be a record for a “necro”…

Apparently the site isn’t going to go down today…

For literally decades we've been able to write reviews of PFS scenarios and adventures we played, or bought as physical product in a game shop with no clear attribution to a Paizo user account. These are important reviews. We write them because we want to help other customers, and be helped by them. But also because it's the blessed path for saying which adventures we liked and why, and which ones were disappointing and why. We're trying to help Paizo make more of the products we love.

Now because you don't want people cheesing the point system by spamming reviews, you're about to choke off a lot of reviews (as well as throwing away the valuable content of the past). Authentic content is worth more and more as the internet decays so this seems like a really bad decision to me.

Just wanted to repeat Ascalaphus very well written post. And to emphasise what I think is being lost/discarded. If Paizo can’t see that their community is a resource of non-immediately-recognisable-economically-tangible facility, then they haven’t been looking.

Funnily enough, I’m poring through my PH1, 2 and 3 to find more exciting and cinematic “powers” to add to my (heavily) homebrewed PF2 campaign and characters, and definitely from level 1. And this isn’t because I want a more “heroic” game as I can reskin the powers (I prefer grittier), but I do want somethings that are a bit more…flashy…mechanically. I find a lot of “feats” (even class feats) in PF2 are just…options that most adventurers should be able to do.

I also really like the Bloodied functionality. It is an awesome narrative tool and opens up all kinds of modularity, excitement and even surprises throughout battles.

Thanks again Jim. I’ll wait and see how it all pans out.

Thanks for your quick and considered response Jim.

I take your first response to mean that the forums *aren’t* changing when the new commerce store opens? Or do you mean that the new store will open without forums?

As for paid games, consider this poster as someone for whom paid games is definitely anathematic.

While Start Playing and similar hosting sites might bring new people into the hobby, there is absolutely zero *requirement* for that process to involve a commercial aspect. And an “experienced GM” is also not the same as a “paid GM”.

I get your general point however, and if people wish to pay a GM then they might get what they pay for. Then again, they might not.

@Jim Butler, I have three questions for you:

* How much do your tech folks think there will impacts to Community Forums? Will there still be avatars, “favorited posts”, quoting capabilities etc, or are we looking at a whole new system?

When Kobold Press changed from its forums to a Google Community, the entirety of their forums were essentially lost to the old forumites. Just trying to assess how much this incredible community resource will be affected.

* One thing that was feted many years ago was a change to the “alias” fields under each avatar, to improve Play by Post functionality - will any of those improvements be implemented as part of this change?

* Maya Coleman has stated that “Pay to Play” options will be hosted on the new website - is that still the case? Will Paizo essentially be instituting its own version of Start Playing to cash in on/take a cut of “paid GMs”?

As for maps, I'm lazy and I use google sheets. You can see the map, and edit for movement et al. Initiative, I roll and then you do. I used to have people roll, but its slows things down. But, I will interpret your actions the best I can. I am merciful and want you to win!

I don’t see using google sheets as “lazy”. If anything it makes it easier for those of us who post from phones/tablets and for whom VTT-style maps are mostly unusable.

As for Initiative, I have found that the GM rolling everyones’ Initiative (foes and PCs) dramatically increases the speed of the game, and reduces the amount of time players are waiting. Reducing player wait-times are the single most effective way to keep momentum in PbP.

Would be great if each author’s Year of Immortal Influence scenario was also linked. I had a lot of fun following Hmm’s links to the two “choose you own adventure” scenarios from PF1 (Beyond the Halflight Path and From the Tome of Righteous Repose) but had no link to her Silver Bark, Golden Blades

The biggest change from my perspective is that it *appears* as if each product no longer has a forum thread attached to it - is this the case? Currently each product has both a Product Discussion thread and a Reviews section.

Will Product Discussion threads disappear?

EDIT: Aso, the landing page pictured (“Welcome Adventurers”) doesn’t appear to have a tab for “Community”…

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Teridax wrote:

I think you might be attaching too much importance to the power of arguing until the cows come home.

That might as well be the official tagline of this forum.

Yeah, I try to disengage from people that get into a debate about a debate about a debate, though I'm human like anyone else. If you personally don't see the value in a conversion guide, fine, but I don't think much can be usefully said to convince someone else to stop wanting it. "But it would take effort" applies to literally every single thing Paizo has ever put out and I just don't think it's worth anyone's energy to argue about whether someone at Paizo has the energy to put out a conversion guide.

Yes, I have to agree. I see this a lot from people that just want to shut down calls for solutions to problems they don’t think are true problems, and decide on Paizo’s behalf where the budgetary constraints are.

I must be fair, and say equally, I never condone a reduction to base capital as a successful argument for anything. Either you make and do business with the best of intentions and righteous conduct; or you cry foul that the munny ran out. That latter option is *not* ethical. If you can’t make a good game (or a game well), or a free game, don’t make a game. Don’t forget, it’s a game of enjoyment, fun and fulfillment. If the bean counters stop you, as Jordan Peel said: Get Out.

I’m weirded out by the concept that an official guide would lead to people arguing that because Paizo says they can do something, then they…can. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t that the entire point of all the Rule…books?

Why would an Official Paizonian Conversion guide giving…guidance…be any more contentious or argument forming than an Official Paizonian Rulebook with…rules? Is there a function of guidance that is less (or more?) compelling to be argumentagious*?

And if it *is* “guidance” that is the problem, then call it a Conversion Rules document. I see a lot of narrative around the rules being mere suggestions anyway, and that DM/GM/Referees can chop and change the system to suit their (and their players’) style. Which people already do.

However it seems that what (some) people are asking for is that the devs, who ostensibly should be at the top of their game and understand the rules interactions, take a look at a bunch of issues, and make some judgments. Sure the community *can* make and has created a cavalcade of supporting material, guides, homebrew etc. But for a system that claims 100% compatibility, a professionally produced guide on how the “balance points” differ, by the company that made the 100% compatibility claim feels warranted to ensure a professionally produced…product.

(And no, slapping Rarity tags to “balance” an option is not a path we want to go down again.)

*argumentagious: whereby arguments are contagious; see also: politics, religion and, equally, farts.

Regardless of the hysterical nature of the Thread title, having a pretty solid critique of the PFS/dragonkin ancestry inclusion is the perfect way to help Paizo understand possible errors or problems.

I don’t think using words like scolded or chastised are merited every time a forum poster decides there is a problem mechanic.

If the devs are reading the forums, and this thread in particular, they’ll now know that there is a subset of folks, however small, that think the “Dragonkin Affair”is problematic for PF2R, and that it should be looked at carefully moving forward; and that it might not be a bad idea to expand on the “advice” given for “compatibility” in a useful “conversion” document, either as a PDF or some other form. Not bad ideas, and seemingly an attempt to forestall, or futureproof the game/s we love.

Also, there is definitely a group, however small, that are*done* with encumbrance, bulk, weight etc, and if a new edition occurs (*shock* *horror*) then some of these functions, mostly removed from….ahem…some other, newer, flashier kids on the block, might be viewed as not only vestigial, but anathematic to cinematic, narrative storytelling.

@Xathos: I think there is a wide difference between James responding only about APs and also reiterating that he isn’t responding specifically to PFS decisions and “Paizo has responded to negative critique”.

If, as bugleyman asserts you are a venture captain, it does seem really odd that you are seeming to say Paizo, or PFS leadership for that matter, have responded. I don’t see any response here or on the blog to negative critiques of changes to PFS from Paizo of PFS leadership.

I think the much more Impossible wait is the much vaunted, unclearly timed and likely highly-structural change to the Paizo website…

It does something strange to my brain to think of folk playing DnD using Golarion as the setting, given how baked into PF2 Golarion is. How many people are playing DnD using Golarion as their campaign setting? I know you can just move Otari and AV into your own (or a published) campaign setting, but I’d still be interested to know if people are playing in Golarion using DnD (or Savage Worlds)…

Having watched as much of the Pathfinder Quest recorded live play session as I could (not really a fan of the format) I am definitely even more of a fan of Maya than I was previously.

I do have to say that having James and Jim come in and target-answer specific questions while a whole barrage of fairly well posed and thought out critiques of changes to PFS go completely unanswered is nothing new from Paizo.

@Jim/James: please ask Maya to ask someone who might be useful to address the fairly consistent negative drove of comments regarding the changes to PFS. Or ask them yourself. It really does seem as if these changes are extremely unpopular, and possibly likely to undermine the point of PFS in the first place. At least according to these PFS folk/customers.

Also, I’m not sure why either of you, as participants in the thread haven’t at least already said “I hear you, and although not my sphere of influence I’ll let the appropriate people know to look in….”

I have to say, from a Comms/Marketing perspective, combining these two changes (hardcover APs; PFS scenario format changes) into one blog post is a misstep.

Personally I don’t engage with PFS at all, so the comments about the changes don’t resonate with me. It does seem like you’ve made very unpopular changes.

As for the change to hardcovers, I….actually couldn’t see any problems with that, apart from above-mentioned comments about the burden of an upfront cost vs. smaller incremental costs monthly. I would hope that an omnibus approach would improve quality and cohesion.

I must admit, as someone who has been buying “modules” for over 40 years, there’s definitely a disconnect when holding a big “hardcover” “path”.

My only real issue is that I have absolutely zero interest in Hellbreakers or Hell…whatever the other one is. Hoping for something really interesting and inspiring down the track.

So if you want all of the scenarios as they are published, and assuming you have enough gold, you're either going to be (a) paying a little out of pocket each month, (b) wasting a bunch of gold, or (c) busting out your old linear programming textbook to determine the best mix of scenarios to buy to minimize the wasted gold and out-of-pocket expense.

The answer to (c) is:

- on months 2, 4, and 6, spend 200 gold to get four SF scenarios and three PF scenarios (missing one PF scenario each time)
- on month 8, spend 350 gold + 55 cents to get four SF scenarios and seven PF scenarios (catching up on PF)
- The cycle repeats on month 10.
If my math is right (or if my maths are right), then over the course of a year that equals an average of 1425 gold, minus 25 for birthday and at 1.5 gold per dollar spent is $933/year. That's more than I'm spending now.

Edited to add: Those figures assume 2 scenarios per system every month. If a season is 20 scenarios plus two specials, then the minimum legendary spending + birthday bonus + writing five reviews earns just enough gold for all the non-special scenarios.

See? Simple! Gotta love streamlining for access and availability while delivering savings!!!

Hey Steve. By “professional” do you mean you are paid money to run games? If you *are* a “paid” professional, then I suggest you take the time to spell Golarion correctly.

I played a Thaumaturge and ultimately found that the “fun”…wasn’t. Sure, you can get pretty creative with just how you flavor your offense schtick with the nigh-endless pockets of just-what-will-work, but ultimately it was the same thing over and over.

I’m not really into Lore and skills, so that was wasted on me; and because I chose the Weapon Implement I…never used the Implement - it literally never came up.

Of course this was only from levels 2 to 4, but even still I was amazed at how the “interesting” premise washed out fairly quickly. Maybe I would have had more fun with a more combat-tactical Implement like the Mirror.

*********

As for the Animist, I have no experience of it, but weirdly it does have some strange overlap with 1e Occultists, particularly the Haunt Collector archetype. I’ve seen one of these *absolutely* make almost an entire party vestigial, covering scouting, traps, combat (with attendant spirit companions) and more. Personally I’ve never really been one for being upset at classes “stepping on other classes’ toes” but when one character is literally stomping on errybody’s feetsies it is kinda rough.

For me, yes, the Animist is waaaaay too complicated for me to even bother with - I don’t play casters and the idea of having/being able to rechoose a loadout every morning wasn’t just option paralysis as option fatigue. It also felt a little gamist to be able to choose “just what might work” from a convenient array of adventure-useful spirits from the “other side”.

********

As for Michael Sayre’s design chops, given he wrote a lot of the incredibly well-received Akashic classes for Dreamscarred Press which were all incredibly versatile, and then other fun things like Drop Dead Studios Luchador base class (and special mention: Amora Games’ Battle Lord base class, an early iteration of the PF2e Commander) I feel his system mastery is/was high. I don’t think his exit from Paizo can be linked tangibly to any “quality” issues with his writing/designing, but I do think the Animist was designed to be *incredibly* versatile, and perhaps too much so.

On paper, Teridax’s Animist data looks convincing for at least a label of “high powered” in a way that the Thaumaturge is not, and across more faculties/modes. But Deriven’s central tenet that action economy is the fiery crucible in which great heroes are forged and kept balanced also seems pertinent.

I feel that table variation will be high as expressed by the relative system mastery of the Animist player. Played intelligently, and highly optimised I can see an Animist causing problems/succeeding at many things. Certainly the 1e Haunt Collector Occultist I saw played was highly…successful. At many things. I’m not sure a Thaumaturge will be the same, even played intelligently and highly optimised.

Inexorable Magus: every thread will, ultimately, become a discussion about Magus.

Which, while not “huge”, is still a…problem. Unless you are playing a Dhampir or a Borai. Then it might indeed be “huge”.

And yet weird that Paizo haven’t mentioned anything about this…once.

Only if it ties into locations such as Phobos and Deimos and the first adventure is called “Knee Deep in the Dead”.

As someone who hasn’t played much Starfinder, the Vanguard looks like a fun class. “Entropy” seems simple enough as a power source, and I wouldn’t see any need for narrative questions around spirituality or lack thereof. Understand tho’ that I don’t tend to give gods much credence either in fantasy or IRL, so making non-spiritual narratives comes rather easily. I can see that if in a Pact Worlds campaign, that aspect might be handy to have some guidance on.

Mechanically I like where the powers start, and they look like they could really be fleshed out, perhaps by 3PP. Mayhap such powers might work inside the Solarian chassis.

I kinda feel like Paizo will showcase an entirely new Iconic that is in line with their ever-changing and evolving diverse and inclusive campaign setting.

That is hilarious. Looking to finally be able to play a meaningful necromancer and your best bet is not to play a…Necromancer. The Captain might just be my favorite archetype.

My definition of a Shifter is: something I want discussed in a different thread.

Yep, it’s just as Pastor Niemoller said:

“And then they came for me, but by then all my roleplaying buddies had been interned, so nobody spoke up for me.”

The runaway success of the Iron Gods AP and Distant Worlds pretty much gave Paizo the information it needed to proceed with Starfinder. Iron Gods is the only AP I ever subscribed to. I bought Distant Worlds too. So if they could get *me* to subscribe, there must have been an appetite for swords and…planets.

That’s right folks. I AM the reason Starfinder exists.

However I would be alright with a book dedicated to giving new content to every class instead of just a new class or two and limited additional content for other classes.

This remains an ongoing issue across both editions of Pathfinder. Lack of support. It really is a massive shame.

We still need a fully Wisdom based spontaneous caster Paizo! ASlso a Wisdom Psychic would be cool as all can be!

I really think that Paizo just doesn’t give a lot of credence to filling in gaps like “Con-based Martial” or “Dex-based Primal Caster” or “Prepared Strength-based Gish”. It does seem like the biggest driver is narrative power - not in the sense of “narrative agency” but in terms of what stories is Paizo trying to tell or trying to enable the fan-base to tell. Tying the classes to thematic releases seems to be the go, and I applaud that in terms of letting creativity be the driver rather than filling in boxes.

I do see that there are certain boxes left unfilled that just make sense to fill from a game-mechanics point of view, and it isn’t as if you can’t tell awesome and meaningful stories with those missing pieces. That just isn’t the focus of Paizo’s strategy.

Personally I want Paizo to keep trying new and interesting ideas insofar as new classes go. I almost liked the playtest Guardian, and have seen snippets that it might be something I can like. Of the recent releases, I haven’t liked the Exemplar, Animist, Commander, Necromancer or Runesmith, either because of theme, mechanics or in most cases both, but I do remain hopeful.

Yeah, I figured most of what Lia was saying was actually supporting Teridax’ argument.

I think it’s a really valid note, but I’m unsure even if debuffs will matter given, as Lia says, they too might just end up as resource attrition. I’d be interested in seeing *anything* that might somehow skirt “but magic” or “but healing”.

Mostly I find the best environmental hazards work in tandem with combats and ambushes, where they act to hamper action economy, mobility and/or inflict debuffs and damage. Otherwise they are just a blip that is overcome narratively rather meaninglessly.

Yep. “Rush job” pretty much satisfies “why are some bits of SF2 missing compared to SF1”.

But I’m less interested in *who* or *why* and more interested in *when* the missing pieces will arrive. Like anyone wanting a full product on release. And I’m pretty sure a lot of that information has been relayed by posters in this thread.

The thing is though, is that there are always “reasons” why something isn’t stellar. And it isn’t always the best idea to ship something that isn’t.

I’m not “arguing semantics”. I’m trying (however obtusely) to point out that being critical of a product, however poorly it is conveyed, is a very useful tool that ethical companies can use to improve their performance, products and standing in the community; and that said companies own supporters should be mindful of the uses and abuses of critique.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Yeah, no, the only salient point this guy made is that all the pieces of SF2e some people are looking forward to will not be there when the game initially releases. Additionally, while salient, it is not hard to point out the relevant factors outside of Paizo's control that contributed to that situation. Everything else has been answered pretty thoroughly by the community.

That point about “factors outside of Paizo’s control” are effectively meaningless. The poster is concerned about the state of SF2, not the state of RPGs in the wake of Wotc’s various Wotcgates.

The state of SF2e is pretty inextricably linked to the actions of WotC. That's what happens when the largest player in the industry pulls some seriously hostile nonsense on the rest of the industry. If I was referring to, say, White Wolf or Massif Press, sure, we can fully disregard them. WotC, however, has directly impacted the development of SF1e, PF2e, and SF2e and not acknowledging that misses a massive factor in why the games are currently in the states they are in (to be clear I am very happy with PF2e and looking forward to SF2e). It's like seeing someone unconscious and battered on the ground but refusing to take into account the guy walking away while casually tossing a pipe into some nearby bushes.

I’m going to be providing first aid to the unconscious person, not particularly interested in what led to the assault. That was the point I was trying to make - regardless of “why”, the poster wants to know “what” is happening to SF2. Reminds me of the permaculture principle that it isn’t (as) important to know who made the error or why and much more important to work out howto fix it and when. I always clarify that if working out who/why might lead to helping the how/when, then sure go for it, but mostly the adage stands. So yes, I’ll be making a Perception check to ensure the assaulter isn’t returning while I provide Battlefield Medicine.

Not really the same thing, but I believe there is a PF2 video game in development (Dragon's Demand).

Or, for something PF2R right now, there is Dawnsbury Days on Steam.

Okay, what part of the inventor class is mechanically exclusively medieval/rennaisance? If you saw the same class in a Starfinder book, with the same mechanics, but different art and flavortext, would you notice the difference? Please show me what mechanical parts of the class would flag it as exclusively rennaisance fantasy without using flavortext or the art.

My point is purely about the mechanical state of the Inventor, and nothing whatsoever to do with any possible reskinning/reflavoring. It is just terribly outfitted class, in terms of options and feats. That anyone would offer the Inventor up as a solution to *anything* boggles my mind.

Yeah, no, the only salient point this guy made is that all the pieces of SF2e some people are looking forward to will not be there when the game initially releases. Additionally, while salient, it is not hard to point out the relevant factors outside of Paizo's control that contributed to that situation. Everything else has been answered pretty thoroughly by the community.

That point about “factors outside of Paizo’s control” are effectively meaningless. The poster is concerned about the state of SF2, not the state of RPGs in the wake of Wotc’s various Wotcgates. And as for “prettty thoroughly” you’d have to ask the poster how satisfied they were with the “answers”.

The initial responses ranged from polite help to, at most, matching his tone. They were, frankly, much politer than I would have been with him. He's the one who came back hotter and escalated the tone. In the end, he did not in fact have anything useful to contribute and was more interested in catastrophizing than having a constructive conversation. This thread was set up to fail from the start.

I found the overall contributions from the start to be useful. Not every point, but enough to make it worthwhile, and for some of the points to be echoed or expanded upon by others with similar subjective claims.

It is not coddling or white knighting for Paizo to expect some decent manners. The is a public space, even if you access this site from the comfort of your home. Do not be surprised when people appropriately judge someone acting inappropriately in public.

Yep. Decent manners is a given. I do think some stretches of….salience have been presented. Like the Inventor as a stand in for anything.

I think Kobold Press did some solo PF1e adventures.

Also check out the “Me, Myself and Die” youTube account, makes a lot of use of “oracle” systems to generate options and answers as he goes…

moosher12 wrote:

Because there are a lot of media representations of spellcasting ninja that people want to play? Not even tool use or advanced tactics but straight up mysticism and magic?

A mystic does not need to be a ninja at all right? Or have any martial ability for that matter.

But a mystic ninja needs to be…mystic. I don’t think anyone in this thread is focussing on what a mystic does or how ninja-like they are.

When I think of the most iconic representations of ninja they are swift martials, stealthy, and only dabble in magic to further enable stealth and fighting.

Ok. But that is not the only ninja folks are seeing.

Wouldn’t you agree the more magic based you make them and less martial the less represented that kind of ninja is out there?

Probably. But that is not the only ninja folks are seeing.

Like you would see ninjitsu master style of ninjas but they are often the most experienced characters, more likely a low experience representation of a ninja has maybe only a few mystical tricks.

That is definitely one way of looking at the concept.

So I think maybe thats another angle to look at this. What does a ninja look like at low level vs high level?

Depends on what kind of ninja you are looking at.

Basically, I get that *you* think it might be pretty simple to work out using these points, but they aren’t really taking into account the varied portrayals or even imaginations expressed here. And I get that one class can’t fulfill *every* fantasy, but there is a lot of scope to create a chassis that works for a bunch of them - either through Commander style lessons or Arts, Kineticist whatevertheyares or even just….feats. Even in PF2R.

Personally I’m tentatively excited for *some* of Starfinder 2’s rules. But I would echo Quid Est’s point that SF1 pretty much operated on landing, while SF2 will absolutely not have the same spread of functionality.

The OP made a bunch of fairly salient points, however histrionic, and for *anybody* to suggest, for example, using the *Inventor* as a stand in for….anything is incredibly unfortunate.

Mostly I find threads like this useful for seeing just how far people will bend to justify away anything even approaching considered criticism. Critiques, however presented, are incredibly useful, and slavish positivity does no service to the hobby you love.

Well, given this thread is in the Homebrew section, there seems little point in *not* aiming for a full class. Unless you make an archetype that is fundamentally more interesting and more…meaty than 95% of Paizo’s PF2R archetypes you might as well not bother. It will feel anemic and underwhelming mechanically/options wise and just not really allow for the breadth of storied themes.

I do see the attraction in being able to slap an archetype onto various chassis (martial, scout, caster) to create various “ninja” tropes, but ultimately a full bodied class with different avenues/streams will necessarily be a better and more thorough final result. The “kineticist” approach, utilising “Arts” would be a huge space to explore.

It feels like removing ambiguity from a TTRPG is a fool's errand due to the preeminence of Rule Zero in TTRPGs (a thing that does not exist in board or card games). Like even if rules are absolutely clear to the point where everybody on earth would agree on how they're supposed to work, any rules interaction in a game like Pathfinder is subject to change based on "the people in a specific game agree that they should work differently."

So I think trying to remove all ambiguity from a TTRPG is a waste of time and effort that would be better off spent on anything else, like new ancestry feats or a cool monster.

I’m not sure that anyone here is advocating for Paizo to pour every effort into removing any iota of ambiguity to the detriment of the production of new resources. And to try to argue that as a reason to not, where possible, remove ambiguity at all seems a little off.

I can’t see why folks are against have absolutely clear delineations between what is *clearly* “flavor text intended to illustrate the theme of the ability” and “mechanical rule interactions to provide meaningful effects in game terms”; or why people like myself might wish for Paizo to completely dispense with aforementioned “flavor text” because a) it sometimes *does not* illustrate the theme effectively or b) narratively countermands the mechanical rule interaction/creates ambiguity and c) is entirely unnecessary, and would, ironically, leave more room for…content. Probably not that much, but still…it would be leaner. Perhaps less….flavorful, but then again, that is what the GM and Player are for. I get that for PF2/R Golarion and the campaign autoassumptions are baked narratively into the rules. But you don’t have to use Golarion to play PF2/R.

@Gisher, did my take on it alert you to differing concepts of “right” and “wrong” and how consent or legality doesn’t make your actions “correct”?

I…don’t have a problem with Gisher’s example, it just seems like a useful way of illustrating their understanding of what folx in this thread are upset about.

Personally, even though you might have the legal right to sell off “stuff what ain’t yours” because binding contract doesn’t mean you have to or that anyone should have any sympathy for your legality or not call it legalised theft. It’s not their stuff. No one thinks it is “theirs”. No-one should resort to “but it’s legally ok, bcoz agreement written in blood”. Sure, it’ll hold up in a court of law, if your lawyer is wearing the right color pants, and the Judge isn’t having a bout of gout, or is, or will or whatever. But that doesn’t make it ethical where ethics mean doing what is “right”. If you can absolutely go to bed at night thinking you acted ethically, because someone in full possession of their mental faculties agreed to you having the right to sell off their stuff just coz it ended up at your place when the disintegrate hit, then….great. But to me, it isn’t ethical.

To use another poor comparison - corporations that pollute often make sure to cry that they are “well within state regulations” or “observe limits as supplied by governments” while also knowing full well that those limits are borked, and there often is no “safe” limit. And they feel that operating within those limits makes their activities ethical. It really, really doesn’t.

So resorting to “but, contract!” to me is actually twice as unethical, because the activity was unethical to begin with, and then engaging in legalese (“I’m well within my rights”) is unethical.

Like most things, it just comes down to what your definition of “is” is… To my mind, whoever is running whatever arm of former-Diamond has an ethical responsibility to return held items that were created/published by someone else, and the law should not permit that just because at time of declaration, that Fraughtday in Octember, stuff (again, that isn’t “theirs”) was on their site, that it is somehow caught up in this and can be considered “sellable” with no proceeds going to the producers. To say that this is all correct and proper let alone ethical absolutely indicates that the system is erroneous, and that humans have tricked themselves into an unethical system.

And I get that some folks will lose out. But creating more losers (consignors) than there already are (whoever is owed by bankruptcy) seems…needlessly stupid.