Oceanshieldwolf's page

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.

I get that Paizo is a business. And a business needs to make money to run. And these are times of great instability amd change - tariffs, distribution woes, AI/technological change. I guess there are multiple ways to make money, and these seem like, to Paizo, some great ways. And to plenty of customers, they are. I applaud Paizo for making changes to their business model, upgrading the site and trying to grow their customer base. In and of themselves, those are sensible business decisions.

I just don’t particularly applaud the actual steps they are taking to achieve those necessary aims.

But then again, neither am I offering much in the way of useful alternatives. So, community, if you have ideas, post away…

I would echo other posters dismay at the “only verified purchasers can review” policy. I have read the reviews of may reviewers who were players, and likely not the purchaser (I have no data for this) who provided the “player experience” point of view. Which is incredibly useful even for prospective GMs. Sure a review of how easy a scenario is *to run* is useful, but I’d also be just as interested, as a GM, in who and how many of my group, will have certain itches scratched, and player reviews tend to be laser focused on things like degree of combat, puzzles, intrigue, length/pacing etc.

The other point I’d like to make is that the current posited option seems to be designed to cater reviews to those who will purchase them, which seems like a no-brainer, but also, for the points I raise above, kinda also not.

So maybe look at this, and see what you can do.

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

The most unsettling part of all of these announcements is that there hasn’t been much discussion on how/whether the forums will exist…I don’t see a tab there in the screenshot for…Community. Not that that means there won’t be such available, but the optics, insofar as this Blog is about the Store/loyalty program as opposed to the new site, are concerning.

New forums are still on the roadmap, but we aren't going to be able to even guess on a date until we get the new store up and running. From my April Tech Update post:

Quote:

"Areas that will stay the same for now will be the forums, Organized Play reporting, the blog, and a dozen or so landing pages."

We want to get everything improved, but we need to get some of this current work behind.

-Jim

Thank you Jim (and Maya!) for reminding/confirming this. I clearly forgot what you said in April. And I understand that the Store update/upgrade is your first priority.

Yuk. Loyalty programs and creating exclusivity is gross. Creating tiers of consumers is gross AND weird. Turning the reward “currency” into fun-timey “gold” is tacky. Then again, I’m not much of a “customer” and mostly am part of the “community”…

Given that there will also be a space on the new site to host Pay-to-Play GM’s a la Start Playing, it really seems as if the community and I are soon to part…

The most unsettling part of all of these announcements is that there hasn’t been much discussion on how/whether the forums will exist…I don’t see a tab there in the screenshot for…Community. Not that that means there won’t be such available, but the optics, insofar as this Blog is about the Store/loyalty program as opposed to the new site, are concerning.

As for which social media platform to “use”? Just don’t use them folks. If the world gets to state at which these times are able to be looked back on with any sort of clarity, social media will be remembered as a plague that infested a completely unprepared generation who then completely failed to protect the next from its mind numbing paucity.

graystone wrote:

Myself, I think the distinction is important because in whatever game i'm playing, that descriptive text may not apply but the mechanics stay the same unless there is a house rule. Secondly, if care isn't taken, flavor text written in a casual way can just confuse things. For instance, when you see text that says prey, is it related to Hunt Prey or not? You have to make a judgment call and use context clues since prey isn't capitalized. If flavor was clearly distinguishable from rule text, it'd be easier for everyone involved on what's meant to be a mechanical effect and what's meant to be evocative as a possible outcome of the effect.

To be clear on what I meant, I meant the distinction as a negative. I get differentiating them, since they are different, but I do not think that differentiating them needs to come hand in hand with narrative text being belittled as compared to rules text since I still think they're two parts of an important whole. My issue with the term "flavor text" is the negative connotation, not the differentiation. What I find silly is saying one part of the whole is less needed than any other.

I’m not sure how silly this might be, but if I have one part of the whole that is flavor text, and the other part of the whole is the mechanical/game rule text, then I would imagine you only really truly *need* one of those parts. To play the game, with rules. And it isn’t the flavor part.

Sure, they both “help” to understand the game and the rules and the mechanics, but if you look at each of them, in one case, if that is all you have, then you just have flavor/description but no rule to abide by; in the other case, you might have a dry rule without narrative explanation, but you can still play the game.

I don’t need flavor text, I don’t use flavor text and it, to me, is unnecessary.

We need to stop using the term "flavor text" in forum debates.

I am happy to use “descriptive text” but that takes more letters. I don’t think we “need” to stop using it in forum debates because it is something people clearly wish to debate about. It *does* exist, and it *is* problematic.

The term “flavor text” is often used by players to dismiss sections of roleplaying game rules that they perceive as non-mechanical, narrative, or ignorable. However, this distinction is both unofficial and misleading—and ultimately harmful to rules clarity and good-faith interpretation.

As above, I don’t “dismiss” it because it is non-mechanical, or narrative or ignorable. I find it oftentimes *problematic* because it is counter to the mechanical effect it purports to describe, or makes assumptions about the campaign or setting; or it makes assumptions about the situation that altogether are entirely unnecessary and/or effectively and actually “wrong”.

…

In short:

“Flavor text” is not a recognized category in official rulebooks.

The full body of a rule’s text informs its interpretation and use.

Ignoring descriptive or thematic text invites misinterpretation and bad-faith rules lawyering.

I’m not sure that any or all of this is true, except that the full body of a rule’s text *informs* its interpretation and use. I would counter this to say that removal of what is clearly “descriptive text” might, in many cases, actually ease both use and understanding. I would counter this to say that I’ve seen more weird arguments about how fla…descriptive text is interpreted.

If we want to respect the game, its designers, and our fellow players, we should treat all text in a rulebook as meaningful—because it is.

Yes, it is all meaningful. But we need to have open and honest discussions as to the usefulness and appropriateness of those meanings. And I would disagree that flavor text is meaningful or useful in *my campaign* or among *my group*. I don’t want it, and they don’t need it, and I would much prefer the space, time and resources applied to creating it be requisitioned elsewhere.

I’m not sure where “who am I to judge” came from, but I never find it very useful, as I always, at least in my head answer “Clearly lots of people”. I actually find making judgments about the actions of other people’s activities a very useful tool for checking my own actions, checking my biases and understanding what I can about my place in the world, others’ place/s in the world and what motivates them to do whatever it is that I am observing. Without making judgments, there can be no accountability - it results in a system where folx are *afraid* of having or sharing opinions that should be aired, contested, contrasted, argued about and defended. So me. I’m judging. Judging doesn’t require that I am pure, or without fault. That thinking also leads nowhere. It merely means I feel something.

I’m definitely judging how I feel about continuing my association with a company that will promote paid GMs. I feel strong ties to this community, and what *I* see as its wellbeing. Obviously, an “imagined community” is just that, and if that is the way Paizo wishes to move, and the community by and large supports that, or doesn’t care enough one way or another for it to be a problem, then I will necessarily accept that I and the community are misaligned to such a degree that I remove myself from it. It is the way of change.

@Monkeygod: I’m not sure what “bringing politics” into a discussion has to do with not wanting to “have rational discussions about this topic”. I’m merely trying to illustrate that whichever side of politics some folk cleave to, there are reasons each side provides for people to abrogate personal responsibility to a higher authority, be that the state (“government”) or the market (“money”). And that neither has ever been necessary for humans to game together.

I have no hatred for paid GMs. Paizo is well within their purview to promote them. I’ve already thanked Maya for creating this thread, and have proposed no malfeasance or subterfuge as the intention. And I’m merely providing a dissenting view.

If only you could have kept playing in what sounds like a great game. But unfortunately, for a quite obvious reason….you couldn’t. And that, quite honestly, sucks.

Nice initiative Maya, it is good to be welcome to share ideas and opinions.

I’ll just repost what I said in the linked thread:

The commodification of an RPG experience whereby one person is paid for their participation and the rest are not completely changes what was a social contract between a group of people into a commercial contract between an entrepreneur and customers.

As a person who has been the forever DM in all the groups I have been in…forever (except PbP) I am entirely cognizant of the “work” that goes into running a game. And sure, if you are supplying VTT externalities etc then you will of course incur overheads. And I understand that there definitely are players that a) want games b) are prepared to pay for them and c) are happy to easily find them.

It still turns a hobby into a commercial exchange with all of the concomitant negative impacts that the exchange of capital entails. It promotes a financial burden that poorer players cannot afford; it changes the social contract of trust into something else entirely; it changes the value-proposition necessarily of those DMs who choose not to engage in Pay-to-Play; and it promotes “hustle culture” whereby society becomes a space for every hobby, every interest and every idea to be a shake down for cash. I find it distasteful, appalling and sad.

Clearly I’m in an extreme minority. I’m sure people play fantastic games with their paid-for GMs. But I can’t just sit here without tilting at the windmills of capitalism.

I guess I would also echo Albion’s comments around the reduction of creativity that often results from commodification - sure, economic stimulus *can* drive innovation, but the lessons from popular culture since radio/TV/the internet do not a tale of passion and creativity always make.

It’s likely a cultural and generational thing - I’m not into social media or intense hyperbole of advertainment so a “best sellers”/“top GMs” leaderboard style product page and attendant streaming/GMfluencers spotlight is definitely something that would tip me over the edge and I would just fade from the forum.

I definitely found it all…confusing. Like there were some more notes in an original draft that got lost. Most of the second half talks of her mercenary exploits, gold and glory but then the line about “refusing to fight for the helpless” would be “shameful” makes…no sense. She’s painted as a mercenary, however conflicted. Nothing is said throughout her early backstory suggests she has developed a social cognizance or attitudes toward power and control.

Mostly she seems agitated and angry. She doesn’t even seem to..revel in anything and nor does she seem to possess any great acumen either strategically or tactically or even…charismatically that we can see presented. She yells and is good at commanding. That’s how…bad she is.

I’m usually a super-fan of Wayne Reynolds work, but I would echo comments saying this one doesn’t…hit. Her kit looks strange, the breastplate looks suitable scavenged, but the markings on her arms feel a bit…bleh, and the Lord Kitchener/Euro-nob sash with also possibly suitable scavenged medals and fetishes don’t seem to work with the whole. I do love her standard/weapon. Not really a fan of the “brute” slouch and eyes - she looks feral and not at all commanding. Sure looks can be deceiving, and I obvs can’t *hear* her battleshriek, but yes, she kinda does look like a…bad…lieutenant.

Yeah, I flagged a bunch yesterday that were in 19 different threads.

It was slow at work. ;-)

I found the profile and flagged all 19 also. What was interesting to me was that the profile had chosen an avatar image, and also pasted the content of the posts to their profile. That some…strange… dedication.

Certainly puts a new spin on being the party “face”. Might make me more accepting of bards, that’s for sure.

Now I’m imagining a Face class that takes hits directly to the head with an ability called Facetank.

The commodification of an RPG experience whereby one person is paid for their participation and the rest are not completely changes what was a social contract between a group of people into a commercial contract between an entrepreneur and customers.

As a person who has been the forever DM in all the groups I have been in…forever (except PbP) I am entirely cognizant of the “work” that goes into running a game. And sure, if you are supplying VTT externalities etc then you will of course incur overheads. And I understand that there definitely are players that a) want games b) are prepared to pay for them and c) are happy to easily find them.

It still turns a hobby into a commercial exchange with all of the concomitant negative impacts that the exchange of capital entails. It promotes a financial burden that poorer players cannot afford; it changes the social contract of trust into something else entirely; it changes the value-proposition necessarily of those DMs who choose not to engage in Pay-to-Play; and it promotes “hustle culture” whereby society becomes a space for every hobby, every interest and every idea to be a shake down for cash. I find it distasteful, appalling and sad.

Clearly I’m in an extreme minority. I’m sure people play fantastic games with their paid-for GMs. But I can’t just sit here without tilting at the windmills of capitalism.

That is incredibly disappointing news. But I do appreciate the heads up as to Paizo’s plans to promote such ventures Maya.

Kinda want to find a spot for Sofia Boutella. She's got some action credentials and feels underutilized these days. Maybe Seoni?

Sofia Boutella is easy. Close your eyes. Imagine her as…Valera. She’d do an awesome job. No reason these Iconics can’t be changed, and movies do it ALL the time.

Looks like issues keep popping up. I guess there is a spectrum from “acceptable errors for the industry” to “hmm…maybe there IS a problem with the release schedule”.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

@Maya: Has Erik Mona’s Keynote address happened yet? Is there a writeup of what was spoken about? Remember there are a bunch of us who *only* get our info from this Paizo website. Crazy, I know….

Yes.

It was posted on YouTube 3 days ago.

Thanks Arkat - the video has a pretty good transcript, so that made things much better. Tentatively excited to see Dawn of the Frogs - a great idea for bringing new folx into the game.

That is very cool. As someone who played almost all the NWN/NWN2 stuff, but has not engaged with BG3 at all, I’d love a PF2 version.

Or really, yanno, a true PF CRPG that wasn’t isometric like the Kingmaker/WotR games. And possibly realistically, whoever wants to make such a game might want to wait for PF3….

Though to be honest, I actually think a PF3 might not actually need to exist, much like some games that have an awesome chassis don’t need to reinvent whole-cloth systems*. I get that PF2 cleaved a bit close to d20/3.0/3.5, but with the Remaster I feel the game could just be….an awesome chassis that occasionally gets…updated. Remove some things that are clunky. Replace them with better, smoother mechanics to reflect an evolving pastime. Doesn’t mean the player base needs to be scoured to pay for new Core books. There are enough other books that the player base already buys (<———unfounded and baseless assumption).

* Can’t actually name any, but they might exist?!?

Was in a fantastic Old School Greyhawk for PF1 game (with Albion) that had an incredibly passionate and well organised DM. ALLENDM also had a gift for not only evocative description and characterisation, but his combats were thrilling and cinematic. Take a look at the Campaign Tab populated with Campaign Maps, Tactical Maps, Houserule Docs, Player resources and loot sheets, Macros etc. The Campaign Tab goes a long way toward taking a lot of the heavy lifting and putting it in a central place.

(If I have other advice, it would be to maintain the momentum of the game through encouraging the players to use the Discussion thread. This doesn’t mean anyone should wake up to 13 new gameplay posts and 157 new Discussion posts (a slight exaggeration of a slight exaggeration I made in a thread with DQ and Albion) but it is a place to get to know each other, ask rules questions and generally support the Gameplay experience.)

And I should shout out the exceptionally wild
Blood Rage of the Wastes: All Orcs Giantslayer game I was in. A completely unhinged and blood soaked ultra violent and somehow not completely depraved opus of giants, orcs and mania. Read the initial Gameplay post - not sure how much of that is cribbed from the original AP, but I’m guessing most of it is DragonOfAshAndFlame’s own deranged and febrile mind. Our party was half the fun of the experience, each one a orc or half-orc of high degree. And again, check out the Campaign Tab. Definitely the passion that DOAAF put into the game made it pop - a lot of rule of cool and occasional handwavium but still held in a tight PF1 chassis.

And another: DM Scholar’s Kingmaker - note the Campaign tab, and again the first actual Gameplay text that has all the spoilers for each player - the DM has made great effort to bring in each player to the game and central premise and theme. With player buy-in, the rest is easy as the player characters are invested and have threads to tug at and weave in.

All three of those games had other characters I found interesting, believable and verisimilitudinous. I didn’t always gel with every other character, nor with their narrative arc, but ultimately it was the game itself, as run by the DM - inhabited by the party working as a narrative group if not a well-oiled team - that kept me playing.

PbP is a fantastic mode when it works well. And different players look for different levels of the spectrum of RP/social/combat/loot etc. Be definite about what you want to run, and find the players who like that.

Heh. I actually have Golden Heroes in the physical. Definitely takes me back to my high school days. I’m interested. Thatcher’s Britain is…pretty grim, but the music!!!

The questionable "don'ts" in PF2 are typically roadblocks to prevent abuses of rules that had happened in PF1. Since my players don't abuse the rules, I often houserule the don'ts away myself.

Yep, I this has been my experience. I find some of the assumptions of the system *might* be played/run don’t line up with how I *prefer* it to be played/run. Luckily the in-my-opinion elegance and structure of the core chassis of PF2R are more than up to handling the tinkering I like to engage in.

She says the fighter should have delayed his turn until the wizard Recalls Knowledge and casts Light on his shield. Then the fighter should have entered the cave to stand over the unconscious rogue, shield bashed the corpselight, and raised his shield. The druid could cast Stabilize on the rogue from a distance. Later, the druid and wizard had spells that deal bludgeoning damage, such as Timber and Telekinetic Projectile. The tactical plan is to force the corpselight to respond to the attacks rather than finish off the rogue.

Ok, but the point of this thread is that *the game* doesn’t do a good job at teaching new players how to play.

In this hypothetical, level 1 situation that you have presented, if it was applied to new players, bereft of your wife’s storied and obvious tactical acumen, there is no way they would a) understand any of those functions, capabilities or even possibilities let alone b) execute them in a co-ordinated manner.

It’s not even HP that is a problem. In one of my recent PbP PF2 games the GM advised that my character *should* have used the Crawl action upon waking in a tent to sounds of combat. I didn’t even know there *needed* to be a Crawl action, let alone that there was one and that it was an option. (The same GM refused to let us start encounters with weapons in hand “because he’d watched dev’s games on Youtube who played that way” even after I pointed to the “Example of Play” in the Player Core that has Iconics doing just that. But I digress…)

I’m ancient, been playing DnDs since 1982, so the whole dying early level is not foreign to me. And I do think Deriven Firelion’s point that this latest iteration has given 1st level PCs more of everything than previous editions. However I also think that there is a tendency to think that means something in a graded or gradual sense, editions improving etc. It doesn’t to me. It just means a different playing field, and I would totally agree with posters here who say that the *lethality* of PF2R encounters for 1st/low level characters is absolutely a thing. Just the fact that enemies have multiple actions, meaning more than not - multiple attacks, meaning more than earlier editions and even with MAP - more chances to inflict hits, damage and possibly crits. It doesn’t matter if the players also have more actions, especially if they are new, and have no understanding of how the system is geared to have them operate.

And the game, in the rulebooks, *does not* teach this. By all means think that specialised player bases will be boned up on all the minutiae, be tactically savvy and approach the game gradually learning al the tricks and pitfalls to avoid as they level, so that at level 5 they are totes awesome. But I’ve been playing for a *long* time, and it’s all a bit of a morass to me. I can’t imagine a new player, absent a convincingly compelling “fantastic game” being all that impressed.

I ran a game of PF2R for my crew, and they found all the “dos” counterintuitive and the “don’ts” questionable, and I had a hard time disagreeing with a lot of their points. PF2R is incredibly bespoke. It isn’t clear, or simple. It’s a system, at times convoluted, and at times incredibly elegant. It’s my favorite iteration so far but I heavily houserule it to favor the way I play and run it. And one of the trickiest things to “learn” is the “synergy/teamwork stuff”. Not that you should employ it or attempt, but all the ways the “combos” interact. You don’t walk in off the street and start doing that. Generally.

Oh, and I guess I prefer “normal” approach to loot. I find ABP a bit too much of an abstraction - I do think it is a good system for games that are less granular, but I don’t get that vibe from this game.

That is has existed since PF1 has no bearing on whether it is good practice or not, if anything, it speaks to a history of socio-economic malfeasance, well intentioned or not.

And regardless of whether it is “game changing” or not, it monetises game outcomes, no matter how small.

Look, I get that PFS/SFS exist in a ecosystem that in part relies on game stores. But there just isn’t an argument for social responsibility that says “paying real world money for in game benefits” is justifiable. In any economy. Some people just won’t have the wherewithal to “pony up” for benefits, no matter how small. Sure, this might all be part of an exchange of “well, I was going to buy some cool dice, might as well buy them during the game” but it still sets up an economic ecosystem that I feel just shouldn’t be a part of the game ecosystem, even if it is part of the organised play.

However, for those who are going through the playtest now, if you run into issues you want to make sure the devs see so that they can be reviewed and possibly added to a potential errata, those errors need to be listed in the playtest survey for devs eyes to see.

Sorry Maya, maybe I’m not making myself clear, and I may be missing something obvious.

If there are problems with the playtest, that will make playtesting those problems essentially pointless because the resultant data will be compromised, therefore before players get to taking the survey, it would be useful for those problems to be “fixed”.

Rather than waiting for the devs to trawl through the surveys and then make changes, the devs can see what playtesters are posting in realtime, adjust the playtest and allow the playtesters to playtest what is intended, rather than what is in error.

I know this all supposes endless person hours of availability etc…but given the playtest period is also finite, time does seem to be of the essence to get the most effective data. So to me, devs waiting for survey results seems counterintuitive.

Shining Host, tending toward Arawai and Dol Arrah.

Going with the Child of the Pits alternate racial trait, and taking the Large template.

The character doesn’t know who but *someone* tried to create a race of Large shifters, possibly as a counter to Warforged. Could have been a secret cabal of Cyre-funded bio-artificers trying to find a way to ease reliance on House Cannith; some say it was Thranites of the Silver Flame trying to guide the blood of shifters to a more tractable anti-lycanthropic army - whoever it was, not many were “made” and this one, after the war’s dust settled found themself sold off as misbegotten materiel, cast-off of war, raised in gladiatorial pits in far-flung regions of Khorvaire*.

And all the while, the spirits of air and sky, earth and sea, the gods above and below, whispered to them. And though dark and light whispered both with rationale and guile and promises and lies, ultimately the Shining Host seemed most…amenable.

* If Storyteller Shadow is of course, ok with the Large template, and the rumors… ;)

The problem with waiting for dev responses to “problems and issues” brought up in the surveys is that *functional* problems present in the playtest doc don’t get addressed for people to “playtest as intended”. It seems obvious from reading the threads that there are at least a few more…glaring issues that might need attention before playtesters take the survey so they can give feedback on something functioning the way it is intended.

For the forums to be a place for playtesters to (in addition to provide opinions and playtest results) commune and attempt to clarify without any way of knowing if they are correct is…not ideal.

Seeing as this is a “problems with mines” thread I thought I’d gather these from a couple other threads:

Are mines
recognisable as mines or as dangerous objects/hazards?

Can mines be targeted and destroyed?

Doing 36d6 + damage with economy shenanigans at 10th level seems also to be a bit…problematic.

Regardless of where they are, were, are going or might be….I’m still waiting to find out if they can be targeted and destroyed….

This feels a lot like the Necromancer/Runesmith playtest with zero dev input to fairly basic questions across both classes…

I’m interested. Not sure if I’m brave enough however…;)

@DH: I think Storyteller describes the Iron Circlet in the current Recruitment thread HERE

PLEASE remember …

The only real thing we as individuals can do to try and get this tariff debacle ended is to contact your senators and representatives.

A storied, proud and sometime successful history of civil disobedience would beg to differ.

Which doesn’t mean it has to make sense to others, or even be “right”.

Mosty, Quid Est’s points seem valid. Especially the bit about a reminder being about as useful as a subscription - though Raven’s reply about making it easier (or frictionless!) would be welcome.

I do take exception to Quid’s point about the unlikelihood of someone stumbling across the website. Digital natives can both stumble here, or find it with a search engine (or via “social” media) incredibly easily, and in some ways way more likely than, like, totes going, like, outside IRL. Ehrmagherd.

… You’ll also be able to earn gold by writing reviews of your purchases, by referring your friends to the new store, by following Paizo on social media, by joining the new program, and on your birthday!

Can’t believe no/one else has pointed out that this seems to follow a trajectory that isn’t dissimilar to that of shonky videogames…virtual gold….inducement to social media…payment for review…payment for recruiting etc…

I’ll echo Archpaladin Zousha - ultimately, for me, the ruleset isn’t as important as the setting. Being able to weave into a setting will help make more fully-realised and verisimilitudinous characters.

I’m somewhat…intrigued by the ”narrative-forward” concept, though I must admit, not in a good way, and will download the demo from driveThru. I’ll likely watch from the sidelines unless I get a good feeling from the ruleset.

Nice to see some broad minded and forward thinking folks at the levers of governance.

So, for those of us who would rather die than *watch* announcements, can anyone fill us in on the “big news”?

Runeformers: Rise of the Autocorrect. Get’s pretty frustrating when people call you the Roomlord of Sim, or Rulelord of Enjoy.

Thanks for: replying so swiftly, replying with information that is useful and for applying (and alerting us to!) such proactive moderation. The community is blessed to have you Maya.

I was just about to post an appreciation for BigHatMarisa’s comments about removing the stumbling blocks with small sidebars here and there and how we definitely don’t need Paizo to repackage advice as a freakin’ gouging Strategy Guide.

Oh well. You can’t help what people want to pay for.

And as someone who absolutely is repelled by actual play/podcasts etc, if someone could make a run-through actual play, devoid of cheesy characterisations and with zero roleplay with absolutely clear options and rules descriptions….I’d actually watch that.

Absent actual play experience, there are those people who would like to learn more to improve their understanding of the ruleset. I don’t need to “watch” roleplay. But I would love to more fully understand the rollplay.

Having little experience with play above 5th level, I do read all of these threads about various options and abilities and synergies and feats…but it is like watching a movie in another language that I don’t speak, with subtitles in yet another language I’m only half familiar with.

One has to imagine “they” will be mining every post on every messageboard also… I take small comfort from the fcat the smoe peepul seam unbale to corretc their psots.

While we don’t list dates Month/Day/Year (as that makes no sense) I can assure all of our international friends that it is March here Down Under, and 72 hours from earlier is 15th March. Do not fret. I’m sure GM Two-Hands will be back soon, *not* in two months.

I got a system for teaching people how to play pf2 while creating a character. Could run you through it on these boards as well as anyone else who wants to try it. You'll end up going through some mini scenarios and end with a level 1 character.

I can attest to the enjoyability of GM Stargin’s character creation scenarios. Evindyl and I made our playtest characters (Commander and Guardian respectively) in this manner. Was a lot of fun, and collaborative at that.

A book akin to PF1’s Unchained for PF2R that presents a bunch of “hacks” to make the ruleset more fun to play. Zero-Golarion lore necessitated, and an emphasis on streamlining play.

Dahak’s edicts do seem contradictory—wanting to destroy dragons while also focusing on wicked ones. Maybe it’s about dominance rather than total destruction? Speaking of deeper meanings, I often explore spiritual insights, like in https://suraheyaseen.com/, which offers guidance on life’s challenges.

Umm…that is an odd segue. And for your second post too.

I’m super confused by mentions of OGL with regard to Pathfinder 2nd Edition, which since the Remaster, now uses the ORC. Then again, this is likely a me problem, and any help that apparently was forthcoming from Paizo to help explain the intricacies of OGL/ORC intricacies for 3rd party publishers seems to have evaporated…

There was a blogpost from November 2023 that delved into some of the intricacies of the ORC and Pathfinder Infinite which while not germane to a Kickstarter might help folks to understand…why I am so confused. I’m in the accompanying thread too. Being confused, and a year and a half later, still just as confused.

Emberion wrote:

Alluria Publishing is picking up Dreamscarred's torch for psionics in Pathfinder 2nd edition.

Kickstarter is coming soon.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/alluria/psionics-second-edition

Kickstarter is now LIVE!

Alluria Publishing Pathfinder Second edition Psionics Kickstarter

Not sure why you don’t link your project to make it just that much easier for folks. You’ve been on these forums for years.

I’ll echo others to say I remember Alluria’s works for PF1 and am cautiously optimistic to see what you might do with DSP’s sadly now-tarnished legacy. Their Psionics books were a fantastic addition to PF1’s open ruleset.