So essentially Lizzid People have replaced the Drow.
Search Posts
So I'm confused. Street date for Hellbreakers is March 4. Street date for Bastion of Blasphemies is July 30 (according to the Store page). So if Hell's Destiny is between them, sometime in mid May? And one AP between August and December? Or October and December if in the fourth quarter? Year looks a little front loaded on AP's or are we getting 5 this year? Is there a shift to move them more toward the beginning of each Quarter?
It is a little tricky but if you go to the Pathfinder Adventures part of the store (Here) and choose one of the Adventure Paths the next page will have the Player's Guide and Sanctioning Documents too, hope this helps I chose a few at random and none of the APs had Player Guides on them as described. Does Hellbreakers have one even published? Who's to say because I can't find any Player Guides to any of the APs anymore.
But they didn't even print enough copies to cover subscribers. As a subscriber, I was notified there will be no hard copy for me in the first print run.
Legit question. With the subscription model, how do you not print enough copies in the initial print run to, at the very least, cover subscriptions? There are ONLY two explanations that I can think of: 1) Paizo's finances couldn't allow it to print that many books without selling some first (not a good indication of company's health). 2) The new Shop automatically signed people up for a remaster and required an opt-out, instead of an opt-in. Staff in charge didn't realize this, and it screwed everything up by making people pay for something they didn't want -- meanwhile not having the supply to cover everyone that DID want a hardcover. Will Paizo be transparent enough to explain it?
Exactly. Not only do spells feel bad when compared to martials, but they are a limited resource. Going back to the game's origins, the spellcaster's game-breaking power was always balanced against it's resource limitation. Sure, you got nukes and utility, but resource management was the name of the game. Casters still have resource limitations martials don't have, but their nukes have been made WORSE than the martials. Thus, when new players come to PF2e, the hero fantasy of the powerful caster is missing from the game as they see their martial friends do better/more every turn than they can do on their nuke turn. Hopefully Impossible Magic sends help to casters.
The class for someone with system mastery, OCD, but without analysis paralysis. I present to you the Alchemist.
There are tons of software companies out there offering "off the shelf" software products that actually require TONS of customization for their customers. In almost every case, these companies over-promise and under deliver to their customers. They develop as they go; can't deliver what they promise; and delay product from being what it's expected to be sometime years (or never) what it was supposed to be. I'm betting Paizo found themselves with just such a vendor for their store.
Teridax I'm not ready the wall of text between your OP and here. But let me say this, the points you make in your OP are already fixed in other game systems. I suggest you use them. Just like I see people trying to convert DnD into Daggerheart ALL THE TIME, which blows my mind. I say to them if it's DND they want, then play DND or PF2e, but don't try to make DH the same game they just left, because it isn't. I'll say that RPG systems are toolsets. And the different toolsets do different things, just like the many tools in a toolbox. When you try to use one of these rule systems/toolsets to hammer a nail when it was designed to screw a screw, you are going to overwork yourself and be disappointed in the results. PF2E is an amazing game system for what it is designed to do, in fact, I'd say one of the best I've seen. That being said, I'm certain there are game systems out there that fix the complaints with the leveled and tiered system of play. I'd suggest looking into some Free League or PbtA-inspired game systems, which I really think provide the tools you are looking for.
That's odd. A blow from a sword can cause someone to make a new character in my games.
No one makes you choose a class choice with an anathema or edict. So a player has 100% agency in making that decision. Once they do, that's they'll need to find a justifiable way in game to make another choice. So as both a player and a GM, I love them and use them. I'd use them and adhere to them as a player even if the GM didn't enforce them.
Must remind myself to look for the Notes on whether books are part of the subscription line or not. I assumed this was not (like the other remastered books) and made what you do of yourself when you assume. :( You order a copy you don't need and have to bother Customer Service to remove your extra copy. Doh.
RAW, no (because it's poorly written/edited). RAI, certainly. The other restrictions on Prescient Consumable (still have to pay for it, useable only once between shopping trips, the investment of two feats -- one at 7th level), make using it for a potion, talisman, scroll, or even alchemical item consumable of up to HALF your level not OP at all, and practically useless if it didn't allow for it.
Trying to come here to get ammo to throw at your GM that's made a decision on something that is 100% left up to interpretation by design, is bad form, IMO. How would I rule? Remember as a Justice Champion, RAW, you must FOLLOW the laws and RESPECT legitimate authorities and leadership. You do NOT have to hold the laws in high regard. And you do not have to LIKE the authorities and leadership. Follow and respect doesn't mean LIKE, it means do. Calistria edits are to PURSUE personal freedom, SEEK hedonistic thrills, and TAKE revenge. PURSUEing personal freedom may mean that it's taken from you or is limited, but that doesn't mean that ends your PURSUIT of it. If the legitimate leadership of a land has the authority under the law to conscript into service any individual within their realm to do their bidding, and chooses my Calistria Justice Champion to do do so, I would follow that law and do their bidding, and do it my own way with which I could get away with while still following the law and their wishes. Now, if that conscription involved taking advantage of another in violation of my Justice ananthema -- this is where I'd have to respectfully try to get out of it. That would be the fun part, but as an ananthema that would be a line that I would consider not crossable. But as a follower of Calistria I'd seek revenge on those authorities in the most lawful and respectful way. In whatever way the legitimate authorities of that land may be determined I may lend my assistance to the opposition successor in a legitimate, lawful fashion. But if you are just looking to play an evil person in a game that your GM has said evil PCs won't fit, and you are trying to bump up against that just to spite them -- you should probably find another GM to game with. The fit for you just doesn't work.
So the question really seems to come down to -- Paizo, why are you not following your own rules in published adventures and scaling to level DCs for skill checks?
I think the nuances of the Deity + Cause + Sanctification of a Champion makes for all kinds of cool combinations. Thus, each Champion has the opportunity to face and approach ethical dilemmas unique to them. This is a feature, not a bug. Outright saying that placing an emphasis on one or the other (Cause, Deity, Sanctification), or placing emphasis on either Anathema or Edicts over one or the other shortchanges the opportunity to face those moral dilemmas when the come up. Like in real life, sometimes the ethics of a situation isn't black and white. My suggestions is NOT to come here looking for black and white answers ahead of time. Dive into and play out the dilemmas at the table. It sounds like a fun opportunity that shouldn't be hardwired beforehand. I think to do so can derive yourself of a great deal of fun.
But it's not at the expense of verisimilitude is it? Chases rarely involve actual speed by overcoming whatever obstacles exist between point A and point B. "Congrats, you got to the pile of crates before everyone else! But when everyone else gets their, they scamper over them or slip through them much faster than you can manage to do."
Hazards, obstacles, chases, and haunts mostly involve various skill checks that can be made to overcome them -- using some skills can be more difficult than others to overcome them. I know chases usually have the caveat of "if the PCs come up with something reasonable" let them try it. My question is how do you run these? There are several options from a more gamist perspective all the way to a more narrative perspective. Let's take overcoming a Violent Crowd for example:
The more gamist approach to running this makes it much easier than a narrative approach. Gamist approach (easy mode): You let the PCs know their options for overcoming the obstacle/hazzard. Essentially you tell them the skills/saves/attacks they could attempt, whether training is required, and at the very least a relative difficulty. This allows the PCs not not waste fruitless actions guessing what they should do. Narrative approach: You simply set the stage that will certainly include hints, but nothing outright that alludes to specific skills, training requirements, and certainly not difficulty. Middle Ground: And of course there's somewhere in between those two, where you could describe the options they might want to take, like confiscate the debris, clam them, scare them, or be brave and confident, without giving away the actual things they'll be rolling to start with. I've personally done all three before. And I'm not sure which I prefer. I find in Chases, because of the "creative caveat" PCs will just try to use their best skill over and over again and waste game time trying to convince me whey they should be able to use their best skill every time. Because the Narrative Approach above can result in "wasted actions," the Middle Ground might result in very ineffective actions, and while the Gamist Approach will result in efficiency of actions -- it seems it may come down to a question of game balance. Should appropriate leveled obstacles/hazards take into account there may be "wasted actions" or not as PCs may be trying to figure out the best course of action. This isn't clear to me within the rules. When dealing with a Creature, sure there may be wasted or ineffective actions if a Recall Knowledge isn't successful. But skill challenges with Chases, for example, don't really allow for a Recall Knowledge in a Chase round. So what's the advice for how to approach? Do you guys use the Gamist, Narrative, or Middle approaches above? And what were the designers' intent, do you think?
An update. My players and I enjoyed the second half as much as the first. Review uploaded (it took 3 tries to get it work for some reason).
The Remastered versions of property traits changes language from "attack" to "Strike." However, crushing rune hasn't been remastered yet. The Remastered rules would certainly dictate my ruling that a crushing rune wouldn't apply to the Shove action, and only on a Strike action.
Half way through running this in my home game (I don't actually do organized play), the players absolutely love it so far. I had the best time running it of any published Paizo published adventure/AP (and I've run A LOT), and am looking forward to it's conclusion in next week's session -- as are my players. The best of props to this. Running it for a four-person group of 4th Level PCs.
is climb really usually an on level activity? Is that an AP thing? You know that's a good point. The PF2E design philosophy is a zero to hero design philosophy where the mundane is supposed to become easier as the heroes grow in power. Scaling DCs for "simple" tasks seems anti- to that.
The biggest problem with the PF2e Wizard is that it doesn't fulfill the class fantasy that "Wizard" conjures in the minds of players. Other classes fulfill that fantasy better. And it's telling that an entire thread has to basically be summed up, "But if you do this specific thing, and make this specific choice, then it's actually decent." That sort of hoop-jumping is just pointing out bad game design. As a GM I've seen a player come in to PF2e with the idea of playing a Wizard and when it didn't fulfill the class fantasy, they'll probably never play PF2e again. As a player, these problems are pretty obvious. It just doesn't seem fun to play a Wizard in PF2e. Wizard probably hasn't felt this bad to play since perhaps 2e DnD. Too bad they didn't do better with the remaster, but they were probably too rushed to fix the class to level it needed.
I'm going to cancel my Advantage subscriptions and take an a la carte approach. If the gold adds up to a discount, I'll spend it but I'm not interested in understanding the tier-system. My wife has been begging me to cut my hobby expenses and this seems a perfect opportunity. Yeah, I think this money grab is going to majorly backfire on them. I'll also be canceling subscriptions once this goes into effect.
I see lots of work around suggestions that a GM can use within a game. I feel like I'm only hearing from forever GMs though. How bad must it feel to have a character to play that has a certain ability, only for the GM to be like -- "Know that cool thing you can do, well, you can't cause reasons." That's a design flaw. And my original question was, why would game designers consider it good game design to have a core class that eliminates a common trope of the genre. I'd argue that it was NOT good game design. Because to run a common trope, you have to take away something from the player agency that they get at 1st Level character creation. IMHO, GOOD game design would place this ability as higher mid-range ancestry feat or (if left at a base ancestry ability) to place it on an ancestry with the uncommon tag. I was simply trying to understand why the design decision to NOT go that route was taken.
The broken or damaged hyperdrive, or warp coils, or whatever Lost in Space specific trope you want. It's a die-hard "technology-can't-save-you" trope of science fiction and science fantasy. But for some reason designers thought having an ancestry that innately eliminates this trope (i.e. scenario possibilities) would be good game design? I'd love to hear an explanation.
First it's talking about crafting a COPY of a FORMULA or crafting a NEW formula that you have reversed engineered. Either way the early part of the test describes crafting a formula. The latter part of the text is about crafting the ITEM. I've edited the quoted part above. Why would this matter? You might borrow, or temporarily be in possession of an item and want to craft a formula for that item, so that when it is no longer in your possession, you possess the formula you've crafted in order to make more without having access to the actual item.
At legendary tier spending spending $100 gets you a $10 voucher OR 3 Society adventures. An easy way to calculate the value of the gold is it's worth 6.67 CENTS, aka $0.0667, but if you used on Society scenarios they are essentially buy 2 get 1 free. But those are just PDFs, so giving those away at a discount costs Paizo as a company nothing after they are created. -- No shipping, no printing, no warehousing, no tariffs. So that's pretty sharp on their part. So those once per week reviews you guys are so excited about leaving are worth 33 cents per week. It appears the discount on shipping may be going away as well. Guess what that free shipping was maximized value ($10.00). And there's no alternative. Paizo isn't using a distributor so you can't go get product from Amazon and use Prime for free shipping. Paizo is monopolizing direct sales. Hopefully there are social media influencers out there who aren't too scared to break this all down and show how bad this new program is for customers compared to the old.
Make no mistake. This is a price increase for Paizo's most loyal customers. The company profit pros of using a reward currency system is that you can effectively change the value of that currency in the future on a whim. There are basic, modern methodologies being put in place here to better control profit margins now and in the future. Paizo is hoping gamers are not bright enough regarding economics and business practices to realize how this system will be worse for their customers. Keep in mind, they are planning to release FAR more Society scenarios over the next year than perhaps ever before. This new currency system means they aren't giving away that extra content as they have in the past. From a business perspective and a spin perspective, I give them props. It makes perfect business sense. From a customer of said business, it feels bad when you understand what they are doing and their motives.
If text is written with no mechanical connection to other rules yet it's meant to, that's just horrible writing and game design in a rules manual. And that's the position these "flavor text is rule text" people are essentially taking. By saying that some of this text not connected directly to a mechanical effect isn't MEANT to have a mechanical effect, we're essentially saying the game designers, writers, and editors are NOT bad at their job. Because clearly there are endless examples already shared. So when when there IS reasonable ambiguity in text where the intent is not clear about separating mechanical and non-mechanical - we often seek clarification of intent. Deadlines at Paizo are tight, and pay is relatively low. So it's understandable some ambiguity isn't caught.
Thanks, you all. I was confused to start because I was looking at ranger from the archetype perspective and had to really dive in to get the full picture. As someone whose been playing TTRPGs for nearly four decades, the concept of flavor text not being rule text has been a thing for a helluva lot longer than it hasn't. I didn't realize there was a new standard adopted on PF2. So thanks, again.
I think I understand that the intent of the Rangers' feats that use the terms and phases "the one you hunt", "your prey", "your hunted prey", are to only apply to targets for which the character has used the Hunt Prey action on. Is that the consensus? If so, for clarity, Hunt Prey should call the designated target the "Hunted Prey" (capitalized), and should use that same proper term when that's what is intended throughout the applicable feats. Switching between inconsistent terminology creates confusion as one must ascertain was the change intentional or not. Further clouding the waters in TTRPGs is discerning flavor text from rule text. One might consider that with the lack of a proper "Hunted Prey", the inconsistency terminology in the feats is flavor text. I hope they errata that for clarity. Thoughts?
Is it allowable within RAW to use starting gold to purchase additional alchemical formulae from what a character starts with? If it's not, could you cite the prohibition? Thanks.
This 14th level feat requires the use of 2 infused poisons. The feat states to use the lowest poison's DC. Isn't it unnecessary to say this, since the 5th Level Alchemist class ability Powerful Alchemy would make all infused poisons have the same DC (the class DC of the alchemist? Or am I missing something? Thanks.
I wanted to drop in again and say thank you all for your patience in this! We realize a lot of our community has been waiting a long time, and even though we're asking you to wait a little longer, we appreciate it whole heartedly. We will update you as soon as we're able! Have a good weekend everyone! I'm actually project manager for upgrading from a manual to electronic system at work, so I can totally understand how these projects take longer than anticipated. Can't wait to see this launch.
I liked how Curtain Call was handled as an indirect sequel. The problem with direct sequels is just like you guys had with the 6 book APs -- if I'm not interested in the first set, then I'm not going to be interested in the second set. And it seems like Runelords/Sandpoint-adjacent is the most likely for this to happen with. I avoid all those APs as they just don't appeal to me, unfortunately.
Thanks for the Behind the Scenes insight.
Seems a little unusual to have even the hardcopy in hand before the Player's Guide is out. I would have figured Player's Guides were completed early in the process of developing an AP since their relevancy is usually nil after the first book in an AP.
I use these for Abomination Vaults: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0919BYMJZ?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_t itle_1 I painted these gold, silver, and bronze for Outlaws of Alkenstar: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQYSJYGR?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title
If I EVER run a game IRL that calls for a 20d4 roll, you get a 50 and we're moving on. I'm not waiting for someone to roll and add up the results of 20 caltrops.
I thought this was really simple, but after a game last night I'm questioning myself based on the Counting Damage Dice rule on Pg. 406 and the massive damage unleashed by a level 4 fighter in last night's game. A fighter with a +1 Striking Greataxe critically hits an opponent using the Vicious Swing Feat. They are doing 6d12 damage + double Strength mod? Correct?
With Guns and Gears getting the remaster treatment, what are the odds this AP gets a hardcover remaster compilation in the next year? Was this AP popular enough to justify a hardcover treatment? As a PF1 player, I only recently returned to the Pathfinder fold jumping in at the completion of the remaster cores.
I was also wondering about the impact. Are conversations being held with American book printers? Numbers being runned on domestic publication and shopping vs. foreign? Or do you just shift to a lessor tariffed foreign manufacturer than China?
Thanks for the clarity, you all. I'm new to PF2E and have lot of other versions of very similar game systems floating around in the noggin [All versions of D&D (except 4th), and PF1 to name a few].
Scenario: A Large Rat Swarm occupies a 4-quare space that contains 2 PCs. An ally of the PCs throws an Alchemist Fire bomb at the Swarm creature and hits. How I ruled: I ruled that Alchemist Fire did full damage to the creature and everything in the four spaces the Swarm creature occupied, and did splash damage to allies and enemies adjacent to the Swarm creature. The reasoning: The AC calculated to hit the large Swarm like any large creature is taken into account. PF2E doesn't by RAW allow targeting just a single square of a Large or bigger creature. And even if it did, in the case of a Swarm, I think doing so defeats the purpose with a Swarm's weakness to area and splash damage. Splash damage on bombs is applied to both the creature hit and adjacent creatures. But the PC allies were not "adjacent" to the target of the bomb, but occupying the same space as the target of the bomb. Previous editions from the current also clarified area attacks on a swarm occupying another creature would hurt that creature as well. Did I rule RAW or is there not RAW for this specific scenario? Would you have ruled the same or differently? If differently, how and why?
As the title states. Any hope of bringing your shipping and e-commerce into the misen era anytime c soon? Seeing an order listed as having shipped 11 days prior, it not having arrived, listed as untrackable is pretty sad. Furthermore, even if it was listed as trackable the tracking numbers and links don't allow for tracking.
Thanks guys. I think what I was seeing at my table was a Chiurgeon being played as if they were a bomber. I can see the Mutagen and Toxicologist not needing it as a class feature, but perhaps it's a good choice for the Chiurgeon. Nonetheless, I think I understand the design decision to place it as a class feat as opposed to a class ability. Again, thanks
I'm a PF1 vet, new to PF2e only coming on board with the Remastered. I'm also big on understanding the why's of game design. So help me understand. I understand that it's bad game design to present options as choices, when they aren't really choices, but universally there is a correct choice. This is called "illusion of choice" universally, and related to specific choices within the Pathfinder game design has been labeled a "feat tax" when relating to feats. Help me understand why Quick Bomber from a design perspective isn't a class ability and is behind a feat tax? It seems to me this feat is so essential in 1st-8th levels as an Alchemist that to play during those levels without it severely hinders options for the class in combat to the point of it's a must take.
Something a bit heavier, if you like... The band:
The album:
Yeah, I thought about that option but didn't think that made a lot of sense...and yes I know it's folly to apply logic to a role-playing game sometimes but the ability states that those that attack it become targets, not for 1 round, just now they are targets. If it were only for 1 round it would actually be really easy to exploit and terribly easy to defeat, not making it much of a guardian at all. I see what you are saying. There were plenty of VERY subtle clues before the encounter in regards to venturing into a holy place. Your party may have been lucky to have a follower of the proper deity in it. Mine did not and likely will not. They will get no clues from me on what they need to exploit the creature. Keep in mind the exploit that your players may have the opportunity to use is the fact that of all the gods they could have chosen they happened to have a follower of the right god in this case with a holy symbol out. That's quite a bit of luck that more than makes up for bad die rolls if that's how they figure out how to exploit the guardian. |