Search Posts
Hardcover APs. As someone who has been subscribing on and off since Dungeon Magazine. I'm looking forward to this change. It is better for shipping costs, environment as well as the shelf space. I like the fact that everything is all in one book versus needing to pull out multiple books when I'm trying to prep either forward looking or reverse looking. Huzzah!
Step
Unsure why open space would be difficult terrain Difficult Terrain Difficult terrain is any terrain that impedes your movement, ranging from particularly rough or unstable surfaces to thick ground cover and countless other impediments. Open air is unstable surface. Also; the word carefully is one of the reasons why it could potentially be considered to not meet the step intentions. It's not like you are absentmindedly walking off a cliff. You are [i]carefully[i] moving to avoid being put in a compromising situation. It's not like you are standing with the ground under your feet then the ground is no longer there. You would probably start falling as soon as one leg doesn't find ground. You could jump. But a jump action would provoke an attack of opportunity.. I was trying to look for an interesting video. I couldn't find any useful videos of anyone carefully walking off a ledge / diving board etc. FWIW: I could go either way on the ruling.
Interesting rules lawyering discussion happened in a game the other day. Let's say you are on a cliff next to water and there is a straight drop. You are engaged with a creature or player with Attack of Opportunity. Can you take a Step into open air, and fall into the water to prevent an attack of opportunity? Secondly if you can, then can you use a swim move or move if you have a swim speed? ------------------
------------------
Thank you
I know right? Quickly setting the stage: a BBEG is standing toe to toe with a fighter. The fighter swings with their sonic sword and crits. Rolls are made the BBEG is deafened... permanently. Then before the BBEG could retaliate they are blinded by a caster. This is a two parter. 1. So if the fighter is grabbed or otherwise flatfooted to BBEG would BBEG get sneak attack damage? I think this question equally applies if a rogue is attacking someone invisible OR if they are in complete darkness and somehow the target gets flat-footed. Do they get precision damage? By RAW it looks like the BBEG would get sneak attack damage, but it was contested and I wanted to see what people's thoughts were RAW vs RAI. 2. Let's say the fighter moves back 5ft the end of their round... Being Blinded and Deaf can the BBEG SEEK out? I imagine it'd be slow and difficult randomly guessing squares and all that. Sounds like the fight is over at that point, but for completeness sake curious on thoughts RAW and RAI.
I know right? Quickly setting the stage: a BBEG is standing toe to toe with a fighter. The fighter swings with their sonic sword and crits. Rolls are made the BBEG is deafened... permanently. Then before the BBEG could retaliate they are blinded by a caster. This is a two parter. 1. So if the fighter is grabbed or otherwise flatfooted to BBEG would BBEG get sneak attack damage? I think this question equally applies if a rogue is attacking someone invisible OR if they are in complete darkness and somehow the target gets flat-footed. Do they get precision damage? By RAW it looks like the BBEG would get sneak attack damage, but it was contested and I wanted to see what people's thoughts were RAW vs RAI. 2. Let's say the fighter moves back 5ft the end of their round... Being Blinded and Deaf can the BBEG SEEK out? I imagine it'd be slow and difficult randomly guessing squares and all that. Sounds like the fight is over at that point, but for completeness sake curious on thoughts RAW and RAI.
This came up last night and I made a quick decision but still unclear how these two spells interact with each other. A player had true seeing and succeeded a counteract check to see invisible creatures. They then wanted to project that invisible creatures location to the rest of the party through Web of Eyes. Do the other players see the invisible creature? I quickly ruled they did. I still have doubts because I read Web Eyes is that the players are seeing through the invisible scrying sensor and not through the other players eyes directly. The doubt comes because later in the rule it says: "Each target can use an action to share what it sees with any..." It doesn't reference the sensor but what it sees. I'm still assuming it's through the sensor; else why even mention the sensor to begin with. Web of Eyes:
You place an invisible scrying sensor on each target just above their eyes. Each sensor looks where that target looks, and all the targets can link their vision briefly to help notice things one target sees but the others might not. Each target can use an action, which has the concentrate trait, to share what it sees with any number of other targets until the start of its next turn. Only one creature can share its vision at a time, so if another target takes this action, the effect ends for any target that was previously sharing its vision. This improves how well the recipients can perceive anything the sharing creature is looking at. For instance, if a creature is undetected to a recipient but observed by the sharing creature, the creature becomes observed by the recipient as well. Typically, the creature is seen as a glowing outline superimposed on its position. This might allow the recipient to target a creature it couldn't otherwise; however, cover and line of effect still might prevent or impede targeting and attacks. This can only improve the recipient's vision, not reduce it; for example, if an enemy was undetected by the sharing creature and observed by a recipient, the recipient would still clearly observe the enemy. Once the vision sharing stops, the benefit ends. Whether a creature is hidden or undetected is still based on the last information a target had before the vision sharing ended. For example, that means if a creature is behind a wall but hasn't moved, it's still hidden rather than undetected by a recipient that witnessed its current position.
True Seeing: You see things within 60 feet as they actually are. The GM rolls a secret counteract check against any illusion or transmutation in the area, but only for the purpose of determining whether you see through it (for instance, if the check succeeds against a polymorph spell, you can see the creature's true form, but you don't end the polymorph spell).
TO be honest I wouldn't put too much stock into advice forums. As a player; I played a caster Herbalist and put all my feats into that dedication until 6th level and then added a dedication into fighter. It created a lot of flavor and actually came in handy. I really enjoyed that character. As a GM half my players don't even really care to learn the rules and play un-optimally. WE've had a few people create off the wall combinations that are "watered down." We all still have fun and no major deaths.
TO be honest I wouldn't put too much stock into advice forums. As a player; I played a caster Herbalist and put all my feats into that dedication until 6th level and then added a dedication into fighter. It created a lot of flavor and actually came in handy. I really enjoyed that character. As a GM half my players don't even really care to learn the rules and play un-optimally. WE've had a few people create off the wall combinations that are "watered down." We all still have fun and no major deaths.
It's a shame that nothing the Leads can do to appease the passionate few. Good try though. I however have faith in the future and believe people make mistakes and can change. If I didn't have that belief it would be a sad world where people aren't allowed to make mistakes and learn from their pasts. The world would not have a chance to become better.
So, it is a grey area. I work in this area and have to deal with GDPR data and it's a very murky murky area. It's so loose that some of the best GDPR lawyers around are unsure to answer some of the "problems" I've ran into. Most of the GDPR stuff has to do with data processing itself. In GDPR for example; Names aren’t always considered personal data. AND it also depends on what you consent to give those companies in their Terms of Service. There are some protections that GDPR gives consumers: the right to be informed, the right of access, the right to rectification, the right to erasure, the right to restrict processing, the right to data portability, the right to object and also rights around automated decision making and profiling... Again most of these are around making sure that algorithms don't go rogue or that information doesn't "leak" in biased ways. Part of the murkiness is that company can store encrypted data about a user as long as it's "necessary to run its business." Also GDPR only offers protection to EU citizens. So if a company was found breaching some GDPR policy it has to apply to the EU; which is why many companies segment their businesses to still do additional things with non-EU data. (GDPR is still somewhat new so I am not an expert. I also believe that every country should have many of the GDPR protections).
Working in a Union was one of the worst working experiences in my life, so I hope if this goes well, good luck.I think unions largely depend on where you work. Being a teacher in a teacher union, I have greatly enjoyed the collective bargaining. Great point! This was manufacturing. They're would be times when we'd have to do an "offsite job." Spend one hour driving there, work for two hours then drive back so that we could "eat lunch" in the cafeteria which was protected by our union rights. I mean I get it, but I'd rather eat my lunch in the truck and finish the job most the time. It always annoys me me when people would pull the union card to do stuff like this....
Great to hear from you, but it would be great to see Paizo's voice and leadership practice what it preaches and actively take the day off on any company holiday without feeling pressure to communicate. Especially since the community has several times expressed concerns about the mental well being of overcommited to the amount of work. Have a wonderful rest of the day
Have I complained about feeling overworked and burned out before? Yes, and my manager listened, restructured the department, and things got better. And that happened because the Exec team approved the change. Awesome for sharing openly and honestly! I do want to be fair and acknowledge that Aaron mentions working twelve days in a row as an aside, and we don't know any of the circumstances under which he chose or felt obligated to do so. That said, I do think it's worth talking about here. Working twelve days in a row should be recognized as an aberration. I think it's weird how people on here are speculating how others are being treated which are causing people to respond on their own personal experiences. I know in my own personal experience I love my company enough to work 12 days in a row especially during large releases. I don't think it should be recognized as a negative thing necessarily. I think as long as the people and the organizations work together as Aaaron shared above. I am privileged enough in my field where I wouldn't work for a company I couldn't passionately engage and work extra hours to make sure a project or launch is successful... I would not want government or people to interfere with that either.
Clear policies aren't always clear. My current office has tried to create clearer more inclusive policies; but people keep being alienated in different ways. To help prevent any issues we now have pages of policies that no one really understands to the full extent. One of the things that happened right before the pandemic is that no one can have personal items at their desks. Instead you can only have company approved items for decorations that they have preselected. If you have any decorations on your desk someone will come and talk to you. Just because you have "clearer" policies doesn't mean they are clear in every way possible and sometimes can create unintended side effects.
I've not quit in solidarity; I've definitely quickly found another job after seeing someone I care about unjustly let go, but that's because I'm selfish and want to keep a roof over my head. I've also seen people unceremoniously let go and they take a few key people with them to their next gig. It actually happens quite often in the tech industry.
Both of those statements are personal statements and not company statements. They were also addressing behavior specifically assigned to them that gives them a negative light. WHICH by the way is Slander. I'm wondering if Jessica [Edit: autopilot mistake earlier :|] understands the legal repercussions there (well maybe she does, she's been pretty quiet).
His responses represent the company not the individual. I understand that it's hard to separate the two, and it's dissatisfying, but organizations do that to protect the entity beyond the individual.
I still wouldn't. Let's just look at ridiculous examples how statements or art can be used against a company in legal battles... Example: Apple's spent twenty minutes dissecting various Banana related art that Epic has created for their game... A lawyer will twist anything you say in court... Now, obviously, this was a joke. It was a small lighthearted moment during an antitrust-focused court case. But after Apple criticized Epic for hosting the Itch.io storefront and with it, its “so-called adult games,” Epic’s attorney simply couldn’t let Apple get away with implying that its naked banana was inappropriate.
I also see no apology or admission of wrongdoing of any kind, just multiple "Well we had an email about it 3 years ago, so its not our fault!" level sidesteps. Nor should they. From a legal standpoint they should neither address nor admit anything without consulting a legal team.
Yeah. Read through this a couple of times. I feel the words are right and I thought that was what I was looking for, but an ominous ambiguous future hope for something better isn't what I signed up for when I bought full into Pathfinder 2e. That's definitely why I am here too. Paizo has been ahead of its competition on inclusion in its products for many years and it's disheartening to hear that's not the case in every corner of the office at every level. With the release of Mwangi Expanse being so recent it seems like they are still moving in the right direction. My hope is that the PaizoAccountability will help improve the lives of their LGBTQIA+ employees.
HR Doesn't protect the people. HR protects the company. If there was an HR person I bet that as part of the fired person's packet is that any negative publicity would leave them liable for a lawsuit. I know at my company that has a very positive image offers a hard to pass up packet to prevent their image from being smeared. - No longer mandatory to share hotel rooms (directly addresses one of the complaints) I agree that this is great since it's archaic to force those to share. I just hope this doesn't come at the cost of fewer cons / travel or employees who choose to share rooms are the ones who go to cons. I've had that happen at a previous company that was a fortune 500.
Great post. There are many of us without pitchforks looking for you to appease us by having people fired or stepped down. Those of us who have worked at any great organization understands that work environments are never perfect and politics happen no matter what you do. With that said it's great to hear that there are actionable and measurable steps being taken.
Awesome, I am going to use this analogy if it comes up in the future! Thanks again.
Thanks thod and Castillano for your responses. Engulf Rules 1st Paragraph:
The monster Strides up to double its Speed and can move through the spaces of any creatures in its path. Any creature of the monster’s size or smaller whose space the monster moves through can attempt a Reflex save with the listed DC to avoid being engulfed. A creature unable to act automatically critically fails this save. If a creature succeeds at its save, it can choose to be either pushed aside (out of the monster’s path) or pushed in front of the monster to the end of the monster’s movement. The monster can attempt to Engulf the same creature only once in a single use of Engulf. The monster can contain as many creatures as can fit in its space. 1) The Gibbering Mouther has Base Speed 10 If engulf is one action RAW this creature would never take the Stride action since it doesn't need to actively engulf someone. It could just make the engulf action to move 20 ft. Which might be why it's a base speed of ten!
The engulf ability says `once per engulf action`. This is the biggest reason why I thought that perhaps it was a mistake. I don't mind if it's one action to do engulf, but you could just go back and forth over the same clustered players over and over again which is terrifying.
Great imagery!
I've played / run four campaigns in 3.5 / PF1e from levels 1 - 20. PF2e we are only up to level 14 in our current campaign so I can't compare levels 15-20... So far it seems much more balanced overall. The characters don't feel overly powerful and a lot of my gripes of high level play are gone. One of the great things about the new system is we were able to have three combats in our last session of 4.5 hours whereas in 3.5 at the same level it was much more of a slog. The monster levels vary anywhere between 9-15 over levels 13-14 and the weirdly the lower level battle was still a challenge with the unique abilities they had. We've talked about using the variant rule that takes out the level since it's not too much work next campaign. If we do we'll probably test it in a one - two off first to see how it feels.
:) I meant called out on whether or not I `paid` for the material. The problem isn't finding time to read material. The problem is getting 4 - 6 hours of straight alone time (e.g. screaming toddler in the background which happens at work when I run meetings :o ) . Even when I've played I keep myself on mute to prevent any of the noises in the background which have been mostly great I didn't judge nor question any of the GMs and thanked each and everyone of them for their time and truly appreciate them for taking the time to run the games. Every single society GM has been incredibly kind, and my only complaint about the games is that in 75% of the games at least once there was this awkward skill failure where either GM was unprepared for how to proceed with failure or didn't want the party to fail and has been an unsatisfactory experience for me. I don't include combat because every GM had open rolls and there were tons of failures and people even got knocked out (no kills or TPKs), but it's only been skill points. The two better experiences I had tended to be the ones that allowed failure. Thinking back on it (and the purpose of starting this thread getting other's input) is because the game flowed more organically. I'm also grateful for everyone here who answered and took the time to give their perspective. Part of the reason I asked is because I know my 8 games since April is a limited sample size. Part of the reason I started looking through the past scenarios I played (mostly the last three since those were more recent in my mind) was based on one of the author's responses and I wanted to see "was there a failure condition? if so what is it?"
A) WOW I feel called out here! Luckily; I subscribe to all their hardcover books for both lines and get free PFS scenarios even though I don't run them. I have supported Paizo since Dungeon / Dragon Magazine was in their preview. I have purchased almost every hard cover book that they have come out with at full price, not because I need them, but because I want Paizo to stay in business. B.) I've thought about signing up to run some, but it's very hard with my current schedule and two little ones that love interrupting :). In the past I've only ever played society games at cons, (Gen Con + some local cons). I've never run a society scenario so that would be completely new to me.
I think I found one of "those people." ;) Ironically you get upset at my BadWrongFun in favor of what you perceive as BadWrongFun. Remember that when you stomp on someone else's BadWrongFun in the future. :)
A.) I didn't say that it was wrongBadFun. I said that people who aren't okay with failure shouldn't play games with chance; because there is inherently failure in those games. They should understand that there are failure conditions. If they can't, they shouldn't play. My best friends doesn't play TTRPG or even most video games for this reason. It's not a judgement on their character. B.) It's ironic that you bring up "BadWrongFun," My complaint is that the scenarios as written (I've read three of the 8 in my complaint now) have failure conditions and failures happened, but we kept rolling until succeeding. I embrace the failures as they are in the scenario as written. Now I'm not saying my fun is more important than other's fun, but expected to play the mechanics and scenario as written. No matter what it's unfair if there are people at the table with differing expectations. I don't know what the other player's expectations were, but my assumption going into this post was that most people are aware that failure can and will happen and the penalties are probably treasure or "successfully completing the primary objective"
My complaint is that the scenarios had failure conditions and we failed (this has happened in 6/8 games I've played) the rolls and the failure condition was ignored. In the latest scenario, the failure condition that happened didn't impact treasure or secondary goals. The three scenarios I've read most of the failure conditions that I recall prevent a treasure bundle, which is no big deal IMO. I've only talked to one other player about this because it was the one game I had known someone in and they agreed. But I didn't and wasn't going to poll everyone. I haven't said anything to the GMs either. The first few scenarios I brushed off as edge cases and only came to the forums to see how common this is or if I was missing something. I read through scenarios to see how they were written after my initial post. I am grateful for the GMs who ran the game and didn't know them so didn't provide unsolicited feedback. I will check ahead of time if I can about how they run scenarios though because as someone who enjoys games the games as written I'd prefer that if I failed a roll to move forward in the scenario as written. I'm more than happy to not play with people who feel entitled to every treasure bundle regardless of failing. I don't wish those people ill will or want to stop their fun. Part of the reason I was asking on the forum wasn't to complain, but to see how common it was and gauge the community.
Zexcir, your experience is not inharent to the PF2 system or Society play. That said, what is inharent to Society play is a randomization of other people at the table, from the GM to other players. When you join a Society game, the chance of playing with others that...have a conflicting styles of play is part of the deal. My experience in Society is pretty limited. Probably 10 different sessions all different GMs. From what I've seen here it seems its' more on the GMs than on the Scenarios where there are no failure modes. I'm fine with different plays; however, I don't think I would continue with society scenarios if most GMs run them when they don't let player's fail (even when the two scenarios I checked had failure conditions that weren't terrible). Personally it feels like a waste of minutes of rolling that interfere with the experience when we clearly failed 9/10 checks and still "succeeded." I understand if a GM wants everything to be copesetic, but TBH it would have been better to just let the failures be failures instead of forced awkward `success.` The stories could have moved forward during those checks of failure and it wouldn't have mattered overall other than maybe a treasure bundle or two. |
