Watery Soup's page

Malk_Content wrote:

Oh yes absolutely it can be right for a group. Just wanted to offer a counter point to whether it is advisable or not. I don't feel it would be, as I'm of the strong opinion that correct amounts of restriction make choices flourish.

Yeah, I'm genuinely happy to get counter points and different perspectives. You're always one to contribute in a positive way!

There are a lot of things I'm struggling with, so it helps a lot to get different viewpoints.

Well, then, here's my viewpoint:

I think a lot of the debate boils down to peoples' reasons for playing. Think about it this way: if you create a character that sucks (whatever your definition of sucks is), what happens to you?

For some people, it's soul crushing. They're stuck playing a sucky character (which may be a fine character but just not fine tuned like the rest of the party) and it ruins their experience.

For others, they will laugh at their gimped character and have a blast anyway.

I'm way closer to the second type. I used the word "icosahedral" at work and a bunch of us found out we had played RPGs when younger. We played D&D 5e because our first GM knew that system best, and then PF1 because our first GM wanted to play and our second GM knew PF1. I picked alchemist because there was no D&D alchemist. So it's all kind of whatever to me, if PF2 alchemist sucks then it sucks, if I can't take a feat because I didn't plan ahead then maybe my next character. It's unreasonable for me to expect to play through more than 2-3 characters before PF3 comes out, so I'm never going to see the difference between a storm druid and a leshy druid anyway.

I totally understand if people who play way more, or with groups way more serious, want to fine tune their characters. They're the race car drivers that look at fuel-air ratios and restore '65 Mustangs and whatnot. I'm the idiot who brings my car in for an oil change every 20,000 miles.

Yeah, but you don't stop an annoying player by killing his character.

It's like there's a big spider nest somewhere in the house and someone asks how to kill one spider. If your goal is to kill that one spider, a rolled up newspaper will do. If your goal is to not have spiders, you need to get rid of the nest.

It's clear the OP is satisfied with the rolled up newspaper.

If someone posts an Advice thread saying that there's a spider in their living room and asks how to build a flamethrower, is it more rational to suggest better ways to solve their problem or to post links to schematics?

It depends on the goal.

If the goal is to have a habitable living room, then better suggestions are more rational - including suggestions on how to trap, swat, or ignore the spider.

If the goal is to kill the spider, then the flamethrower is a perfectly acceptable solution, because what happens to the living room is not part of the goal.

The problem is that people often don't understand their goals. They swear up and down they want to kill the spider at any cost, then cry when their living room burns down, because what they really wanted was a habitable living room.

You can't fix stupid.

Many have pointed out the absurdity of solving what appears to be an out of game problem in game. The OP disagrees. What else is there to do? Grab some popcorn.

I'm thinking about GMing a PFS2 PbP.

1. I've never GMed PFS2 before.
2. I've never GMed PbP before.

I've GMed a lot of live homebrews, and I also GMed a PFS1 scenario at a LGS. I've only played PF2 a few times.

Any tips people want to share, or should I start by jumping in? If it's better to wait for more player experience, that'd be welcome advice, too (I'll sign up to play a PF2 game instead of GMing when my Gameday commitments start wrapping up).

Do people run the quests online?

Does it have to be funny?

The high level NPCs can push their squires into some kind of hiding place and all they hear are grotesque noises. The actual enemy is not even seen, but the PCs have sounds or smells to follow.

Ok I know I've been posting a lot

But I think I figured something out
I want to build a character and not a murderous
Bunch of Numbers of a sheet of paper.

well I still Want to be able to enjoy combat I
don't want it to be 100% what my Character is about

so I was thinking of bringing an old Oc of mine before
I actually played Dice game over

The Idea is a Beefy Male who is an oni or Spawn o such
Thinking Red skin , horns , wheres the typical Rope belt
is muscular and Fights hand to hand

How much of the thread so far has met your expectation?

It seems like you've started out by outlining your character's combat abilities, and people have responded along the lines of how to mechanically achieve that.

If that's what you're looking for, fine.

If that's not what you're looking for, re-read your OP. Well-rounded characters are non-optimal. Well-rounded characters don't dump CHA. Well-rounded characters have "wasted" traits or feats or skills.

If you want a character that can roleplay, don't choose a race that literally comes from people boinking demons. Red dudes with horns are scary. Don't start off by asking how they can fight - start by asking what motivates your character.

Fill in the combat capabilities as necessary, not as desired. Murderhobo comes from unattached wanderers whose only skills are combat. If you don't want that, don't start your character concept with an antisocial race and the capability of killing people with your bare hands.

I tend to start by thinking of expectations that can be defied. For example, if you really like the idea of a character with red skin, what if he looked like a tiefling but wasn't? Just some kid who looks like his mom hooked up with a devil. His upbringing could be tough - his dad kicked them out, they had to grow up in a place where hooking up with devils wasn't frowned upon, but they also avoided places where it was celebrated. End result: he fights with whatever weapons were common in the place where he grew up. Use the human bonus feat to pick up an exotic weapon proficiency.

From a pro-fun perspective, what's the functional difference between a TPK and TPK-1? I can only think of some minor continuity issues. It seems more fun to treat it as a TPK (but as an aside, I wouldn't have let the party die separately - if there's going to be a TPK it's way better for everyone to go down together).

Make the footsteps friendly. They can be the new party, including a new character for the player with a blinded character. The goal should be to return the blinded character to safety and "retire" him.

if some adults play, ask them to play very quickly.

Good advice whether you have kids at the table or not! :)

There is going to be a huge difficulty differences within a CR depending on how the party is built.

For example, my party encountered some kind of golem/construct and nobody had adamantine to overcome DR. Only one person could do enough damage on a regular hit to knock off 2 HP on max damage, and my alchemist's bombs did half damage - everyone else needed to crit to damage the enemy. I ended up using all but two of my daily bombs and we used up all of our daily healing on a 2-hour CR-1 or CR+0 encounter.

Enemies that can immobilize a party member can cause problems with lucky rolls - the front line fighter goes down with a natural 1 on a fort save, and suddenly the minions that the fighter was going to one-shot become a horde of CR+1 creatures.

If you want to challenge your party, you can just choose CR+0 or CR+1 monsters that poke at a weakness in the party.

Also consider the possibility your party doesn't want to be challenged. If killing an animal companion is going to cause so much stress, maybe it's a sign that they really, really, really don't want their characters threatened.

Sounds like fun! Thanks for GMing!

Shelyn doesn't get jealous.

Well, I just put together a champion as well. :/

I'd love to get in on this, but I only have one 2e character right now that I'd like to reserve for FtF play. I will attempt to create a new one by Thursday but, if pressed for time, don't want to hold up a whole adventure.

I'm also open to suggestions on character creation. My other character is a bomber alchemist. I was thinking divine sorcerer, but heard the APG will have a formal oracle option so I might wait for that.

Wights are CR 3-ish, and they can be created by other wights. So you could have a human child wight and some low level vermin wights.

Unless the enemies are so hard that you need optimization to defeat them, there's no need to construct the world's most optimized fighter.

Retraining is mechanically advantageous, but story-wise terrible. It's more fun to think about what makes your fighter unique, rather than aiming for the same optimum that everyone else is.

You have 13 INT, which is high. It opens up some INT-based feats through Combat Expertise.

Having the option of ranged is good. Since you already have Point Blank, consider Precise Strike so you don't annoy your allies, or Rapid Shot or Deadly Aim.

Falchions have a large crit range, you can expand it even further with Improved Critical.

the only complaint was the bottle neck with all the huge creatures engaged in melee blocking the hallway. Nothing specific to the Construct, nor did the construct take up any extra time.

Do you believe anyone had less fun because of what you did?

If so, what would be your proposed solution?

He insists that I am not following RAW or the spirit of the game.

He is demonstrably wrong, in that ...

I have more players to worry about than just him

... the fundamental spirit of the game is an adventure everyone enjoys. You may or may not be following RAW but you are absolutely following the spirit of the game by making sure everyone at the table is having fun.

Note that it's possible your other players don't mind. Maybe they secretly hate combat, and thank Construct Man behind your back. In which case, I argue the spirit of the game would dictate that you allow the constructs - or probably better, adjust the nature of the campaign.

It's more likely your other players will side with you. Even if it means their characters taking a few ineffectual swings with a club before the optimized fighters take out the enemy, it's generally more fun for everyone have something to do.

Key point: Pathfinder line-of-sight is determined from 5' square corners, not from the 5' squares themselves. When you're in a square on the edge of Obscuring Mist that means two of your corners are outside OM and the other two squares are inside OM. Thus, your square provides both concealment and the opportunity for a clear attack.

What your key point is missing is that Obscuring Mist does not use line of sight.

A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance).

Note that it specifies a distance - while general line of sight rules uses corners, obscuring mist explicitly uses distance.

So RAW, obscuring mist is symmetrical.

What about rules as intended?

Paizo has not, to my knowledge, issued a formal clarification - they have let RAW stand.

And when they had the opportunity to revise the wording - 2nd edition - they unequivocally clarified it in the RAW direction.

It's pretty hard to argue that RAintended is any different than RAW.

Aw ... party pooper!

Hey, I agree. I think it should be asymmetrical. It makes more sense and it's more fun. Come play at my home game if you want RAinterpreted to be asymmetry.

But I might also houserule it to be a second level spell for any class that abuses it. Because that's not fun either.

Watery Soup wrote:

I'll point out that the 2E spell solves the wording problem by being explicit.

If people wanted to play 2E they'd be in the 2E forum

It was a response to a statement that Paizo should revise the wording to be clear.

I'll point out that the 2E spell solves the wording problem by being explicit.

To be honest, I don't incorporate evil gods in my campaigns and don't really support people playing evil characters. There is enough hurt in the world that I don't really want to deal with it in my recreational time.

But if I were to, I would draw inspiration from the Church of Satan. The vast majority don't literally worship Satan, he's a symbol or figurehead. The religion is couched in relatively neutral terms - ones that, if said anonymously, would be widely agreed with.

"If it comes down to them or me, I choose me."

"I am in control of my own destiny."

Etc.

Good- and evil-aligned characters should be able to play in a campaign together, and they should take the same actions a non-zero percent of the time. Good characters may slay a dragon to prevent it from killing people; evil characters may slay a dragon to prevent it from killing themselves.

In that context, I would put evil churches on a spectrum of "a little nuts but as long as they don't hurt anyone they're tolerated" to "they protect the village, we like them."

Some evil churches - even if there is a core cult of true believers within - may even openly hand-wave their deity. "Rovagug is a figment of peoples' imaginations, a way for people to blame the external. Sarenrae let all these bad things happen, and didn't want the blame, so she made up all these evil deities to cover for her weakness."

Some people may secretly worship evil deities and pretend the powers gained are from their own work. They may rationalize their bargains by saying they are going to aim for the greater good - "Yes, my soul is bound to devils when I die, but at least my family won't starve" or "Lamashtu is bad but she's the only one who can prevent us from getting overrun by goblins."

Again, you can draw a lot of inspiration from real life, but that's exactly why I choose not to do it, it's too depressing.

OP, are you trying to simplify the GM prep before the session, or GM actions during the session?

The people who are arguing that those outside the mist get concealment from those within will point to the description of Obscuring Mist and use the rule of "specific trumps general" to say that the rule about concealment is irrelevant.

I personally think rules as written is poorly written and that rules as interpreted should be asymmetry. It makes more sense and it makes for more fun. But it does make Obscuring Mist disproportionately powerful relative to other 1st level spells.

The important part is making sure everyone's on the same page and knows where everyone else stands.

There's no disagreement on the philosophy, only on the practice.

Mid-session, you suspect your players are deliberately screwing with your plans. Are you going to roll with it an improvise a new plan? Vocally punish them in game to deter them? Secretly punish them out of game to deter them? Tell them as players to stop and quit GMing if they don't?

To be clear, if the last option were "tell the players that this is a massive derail and ask them to choose between the first three options," I'd choose the last option. In exceptionally few circumstances am I threatening to quit GMing, especially if there's a large power differential.

Hahahaha I mean with 12 people, if they all stood in front of the Cleric when he casts Obscuring Mist, there's almost not enough squares in the mist for them!

In my city there's only really one person who runs 5E one-shots, and so every week there can definitely be 12+ people playing his games...

This is tangential to the thread, but 12 people is a solid player pool. A few other people should learn to GM so that you can do two tables of 6 (and so the GM gets the option to play once in a while).

I've played several low level clerics who made excellent tactical use of Obscuring Mist. I'll present the most extreme example, Vicente.

This has the possibility of infuriating other players, so I'd ask for permission before doing it.

Watching someone else slaughter the enemies is fun some of the time, but annoying some of the time. Anyone without fog sight ends up literally unable to do anything - including helping the mist warrior if one of the enemies lands a lucky crit.

Afraid there is no druid in the party.

Is there room for a 13th?

Quixote wrote:

Dave Justus wrote:

First rule: Fun is the goal.

Agreed. But the GM's fun comes first.

I'm sorry but no. Everyone's fun is equally important.

Yes the GM is putting in more effort (probably), but that doesn't mean they should place their happiness above the players.

I think it depends on the nature of the group that's playing. For groups that were friends before they played, I agree with you. I would put PFS into this category too because even if people aren't friends, players and GM play by prearranged rules and GMs are proportionally rewarded.

But a lot of groups have large power disparities and for some people absolutely yes you need to treat the GM with kid gloves or else they will take the rulebook and dice and maps and minis and then nobody gets to play. I wouldn't play in those groups at this point in my life, but I understand if there are those who would. It's just part of life.

Nova (Chevy)

And there are several situations where you are forced to try to save. As an example, when Confused you treat all attempt to cast spells on you as an attack (you see everyone as non-friendly) and are forced to save.

Also, sometimes you just want to spite the party cleric.

For a long term disguise, you could make periodic rolls but not let any single roll fail. Just as some poisons require two saves in a row, you can make it so that someone only sees through the disguise if they make multiple checks.

You can add some urgency my shifting the time frame a bit - the storm has already hit and the PCs are summoned not to break the storm but to evacuate or rescue. In the course of helping, they learn about the old man, and then from him, they learn about the axe.

You'll also need to tie off the story in the end, unless your PCs are okay with becoming the permanent solution to a yearly problem. For instance, maybe they can't use the axe themselves, they have to find the Chosen One (a young child), who is the only one who can wield the axe. Or they realize that the storm retreats out of self-preservation and they have to chase the storm out at sea and finish it off in its lair.

You can plan for a plot twist. Maybe the old man turns out to be the BBEG - he's an exiled storm prince who stole the scepter of power (the axe) and the storm king is here to recover it. Or the old man and the storm are lovers and this is a 40-year-old lover's quarrel. The old man chases the storm off because he's still mad, but not mad enough to kill it.

I appreciate the input here guys, I think I will use it for self defense, and if anyone questions me it is a hell of a lot safer and more humane than tossing a fireball.

It's always about proportional response.

It's very easy for people to see that dropping a fireball because the bartender won't give you a free drink is abusing magic.

It's not easy for people to see proportionality for enchantments. And if you're using 3rd level enchantment spells to get free drinks at the bar, it's going to be just as distasteful. But if you're using your spells appropriately, nobody should really question you except out of curiosity.

The only time you ever roll dice is:

-when there is a chance for a PC to fail

AND

-when there is a penalty for failure.

I think there are many more examples than that, but I agree with the principle that one should have a reason to roll.

Basically, rolling dice is a way of choosing between multiple narratives which are all interesting to some degree. If PCs go into a bar to look for the bartender, perception checks aren't necessary because not finding the bartender isn't interesting.

I would even extend this to PC battles. Sometimes during the boss fight, the BBEG goes down before the last minion. It's uninteresting to play out the remainder of the battle, even if there's a chance for failure.

I can't see your maps, but even if I could, the biggest uncertainty is what the maps were meant to include. Presumably in any settlement, most of the buildings are uninteresting - Farmer #35's House, etc. Are the maps meant to show all buildings, or just the interesting ones?

If they're meant to show all buildings, Google "London 1300" or something to see pictures of real life cities along with their known populations.

If they're not meant to show all buildings, estimating the population is futile.

Some additional questions to consider:

1. Are all your players committed? What happens if someone leaves mid dungeon?

2. What happens if a character dies mid dungeon?

3. Do players need the rewards mid dungeon to remain motivated?

I don't think there's a universal answer. Low commitment players can cause more hassle by poorly tracking treasure than they will save you by doing it themselves.

you're really not helping and you aren't doing a good job of representing our community.

Depending on how you define "our", I may not disagree.

If you think this topic is too "hot," then let me use a parallel example: Paizo has made it clear they are not including people who primarily speak languages other than English. Their exclusion isn't a value judgement, it's just a practicality. Characters speak "Common," and Common is English. The rule books are not translated. It would be hard to run a game with an English-only speaker and a Spanish-only speaker.

And to my knowledge, although some ex-US players are sad, very few are mad. But it'd be different if Paizo said they were supporting Spanish speakers, and then put out an awkwardly translated CRB. Or translated part of it and just said "use your best judgement in adjusting everything else."

Furthermore, if Paizo did choose to put out a poorly translated CRB, and when Spanish-speakers complained, a bunch of English-speakers on the forums complained about how most people speak English so deal with it, Spanish-speakers would feel excluded.

You're correct that I don't speak for you - or many others in this thread. The question is whether I am part of "our" community, or whether people like my son (who has congenital hearing loss) are part of "our" community. To be clear, it's cool if we're not. I am not threatening to boycott or show up with torches and pitchforks. I am asking Paizo to either scale back their promises or make some minor wording changes.

Wording things so that they are capable of being interpreted as also working for magical senses, or the level of hearing possessed by bats or whatever, will just make the CRB even more clunky and annoying to read than it already is.

Then all Paizo really needs to do is clarify that it's not their intention to use inclusive language, and then it wouldn't be a problem that it doesn't exist.

I fail to see what is wrong with their "assume sight is the default, and in the rare case a monster has a sense that is as good as sight or better, reinterpret things as required".

Because players end up at the discretion/mercy of the GM.

Is echolocation as good as sight? More importantly, what happens if one GM says yes, and another says no?

If the player pool consisted of isolated groups playing separately, agreed, no problem. Each GM rules the way they want. You might have a deaf-friendly GM who appeases the deaf gamers, and another GM that grants his powergaming players superpowers in return for being deaf. And as long as those players never have to interact with each other, there's no problem.

But that's not the way it is. At the very least, someone in Pathfinder Society is going to have to make a universal ruling. It'd be better for Paizo to make that decision up front and codify it in the books.

Ultimately, I kind of agree with you - I think the easiest way to solve it is by inserting a line somewhere and explicitly saying, "for characters without vision, X, Y, and Z can count as 'sight'." It should go in the same section as "we alternate between using 'he' and 'she' as pronouns, they are not meant to limit the accessibility to any gender."

But it should be explicitly in the text somewhere - not assumed.

Yeah, this really doesn't feel like an issue of ableism. Maybe unclear wording, but I don't think anyone is going to read the CRB and say "blind people = bad and stuff".

Ableism isn't that you actively denigrate blind people, it's that blind people are not actively included. All this talk - just scroll up for like 20 examples - about how sight is "standard" or "default" is exactly what ableism is trying to fight against.

That the wording isn't clear is exactly what the OP is complaining about. It doesn't actively include the disabled; it just assumes people have all 5 senses by default and doesn't clearly include those who don't.

To be clear, the world is full of ableist language. It wouldn't be noteworthy if Paizo made no effort. But they say they want to, and there are relatively minor changes they can do to accomplish what they say is their goal.

As boring as it is, you'll probably fill in all those feats with simple bonuses to Intimidate.

Skill focus (Intimidate)
Intimidating Prowess (+STR to Intimidate)
Persuasive

Unicore wrote:

It is bad game design because Paizo does not want to exclude players for whom sight might not qualify as a "precise" sense from feeling like they can be adequately represented at the table by characters that exist in a magical universe to accomplish all kinds of things, including precisely utilize other senses to perceive the world around them.

This seems like something that would only exclude players seeking a reason to feel excluded.

Being excluded is usually the reason people feel excluded.

But, but, you say, nobody is excluding anybody.

You don't need to go any further than you PgUp button to see actual exclusion - everyone who posted "why should we rewrite the rules for a small minority?" is actively excluding.

Paizo stated they wanted to include everybody. Maybe you disagree with that goal; that's okay. But you can't argue that Paizo's language doesn't seem to match Paizo's intent.

Sup Tim.

I think there’s a lot of value in showing other regions of the world (especially those drawn from nonwhite real-world inspirations) on their own merit, rather than with the crutch of a familiar colonial viewpoint. We can have African and Middle Eastern and Native American and Latinx and Asian fantasy without it needing to be justified by “can people we’re still treating as default go there?”

The world can be interconnected, sure. But it doesn’t always need to link back up to Avistan and our familiar, largely white, largely Western-comfortable corner of the world.

EDIT: To cut back on 4am rambling, let me try to be succinct: I want the rest of the setting to be able to stand on its own feet narratively.

I agree with your general point but want to point out that "stand on its own feet narratively" and "interconnected" are not mutually exclusive.

I want the southern part of Garund filled in specifically because it's paternalistic to assume that there could be a whole civilization or multiple civilizations there that has/have not affected the northern half in any meaningful way. Likewise, Casmaron is only totally independent from Avistan in an Avistan-centered worldview.

On a practical level, if not enough hooks have been seeded to provide integration, I don't mind asymmetrically interconnecting the stories - that Avistan generally views southern Garund as unimportant but there's a Wakanda-like country there that keeps tabs on what they consider to be their unimportant neighbors to the north. Or that travelers to eastern Casmaron brought back exaggerated or underwhelming tales of good/evil/magic/empires which influence Avistan's view. In part, these conflict-rich settings provide a great breeding ground for storytelling. It would actually be quite fun for Avistan to be unaware of the influence its neighbors have had or the influence they've had on their neighbors.

Are you not personal friends with these people?

Can you not begin the next session with, "Are you guys having fun?" and "Most of the stuff I've prepared is out in the wilderness, is there a reason you haven't explored more?"

There's definitely a time for immersion and finding in-game reasons to do things. But there's also a time for taking a step back and just being friends.

Maybe one player has been dropping hints that she wants to try GMing for a bit and doesn't want to start a big arc as a player. Maybe another player is going through personal problems and he just wants to vent about his family for a bit. Maybe another has a few drinks before the session and isn't really paying attention to all the words.

You can spend the time to divine what everyone is thinking from their in game actions, but if you're friends, it's quicker to ask. If you're not friends, then you have to resort to trial and error or whatever to figure out peoples' motivations.

I am not a rules expert, but would have ruled it as you did. The rule is meant to make a reach weapon the same as a melee weapon (with penalty). As large creatures can hit 10' with a melee weapon, it stands to reason you should be hitting it with Polearm Master.

However, given that this appears to be one PFS GM out of several, there is a broader issue of heterogeneous rulings across GMs. This sounds like something where the powers that be (VAs/VLs/VCs) will or should want normalized. You should be emotionally prepared for it to be normalized against you (quite possibly ruining your whole build).

They should have reverse Fibonacci number of spells.

When they can cast level 5 spells, they should have an extra 5 level 1 spells, 3 level 2 spells, 2 level 3 spells, 1 level 4 spell, and 1 level 5 spell.

This is the final ruling from the Internet Opinion Committee, whose authority you desperately crave.

You may appeal this decision in one of two ways:

1. Present a Certificate of Appeal to the Appellate Court.

2. Ignore this ruling and do whatever you want.

Have you tried telling your players you have cool wilderness adventures planned out and asking them to try venturing out of the city?

Sometimes your obvious clues aren't as obvious as you think they are. Instead of fuming about why they missed them, just say something.

"Why didn't you follow the elf?"

I thought it was a trap.

I want to fight undead.

Great, now you know. And all it took was asking.

PATHFINDER SECOND EDITION = OPTION INDITED, NERDS CHAFE

The players also need how to learn how to use them.

There are those, like me, who are just unfamiliar with the concept and forget about using it. A nat 1 on the boss fight as the last PC to act before the BBEG? Oh, well. "Use your reroll, fool!" Oops.

Then there are those that use it on minor inconveniences and perhaps expect the GM to hand them out at a rate faster than they do.

GMs have it tough because until the player pool normalizes demand, it'll be hard to normalize supply.

But on the bright side - very few people have lobbied for Hero Points so far. It's going to be brutal for GMs when That Person starts whining about how The Other GM would have given them a Hero Point.

While I can't say exactly how bad an alchemist is, I will definitely be able to tell you later today after I play my first 2E character.

I played the PFS pregen. It seemed on par with all the pregens, which is to say decidedly mediocre. I think players will be able to capitalize on the dual prepared-spontaneous nature a little better over time and people will see how good the alchemist can be.

If not, my alchemist will charge headlong into battle with a bandolier full of alchemist's fire and hug a minotaur, and my -2002 will be a rogue.

Thanks! Very coincidentally, last week I caught up with the Glass Cannon Podcast (I started listening in 2018), so I've been looking around for something else to listen to.

My only real preference is that the audio quality be good. I usually listen during my driving commute with a lot of background noise.

I prefer it to be free - who doesn't - but I'm open to paying if it's good. I'll probably support the GCP on Patreon or buy a bunch of stuff on their store if I can't figure out how Patreon works.

How is audio on Find the Path and Swiss Army Scorpion?