Magus Tata wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

everyone else seems to see things from a player D is right player B is wrong perspective.

I think Bluemagetim hit at exactly what bothers me about this whole discussion. The Issue is that players B and D think differently about how a party should be composed. Neither is really right or wrong - each is the good guy in their viewpoint.

Except it's wrong. Only one of the players tries to force others to do something (and for really stupid reasons). And it's not D. So yes, B is absolutely wrong.

Unless of course OP omitted something and we aren't presented with the full picture. But it would be on the OP in that case.

Magus Tata wrote:

The rules don’t say there’s only one way to play. I think players B and D should discuss with each other whether or not they can come to a compromise that works for both of them. It seems some people here are expecting that D would expect each player to optimize their characters for their “roles,” but D could just as readily be looking at a rudimentary coverage of the “basics.”

Again, the only 'compromise' here is B minding their own business. And maybe once, suggesting some course of action and be willing to take instant 'no' for an answer.

Magus Tata wrote:

If B is trying to avoid optimization, then

they are welcome to avoid it for their own character. Unless the game and campaign doesn't support that and they break the game for others. And it doesn't work the other way around, the case is not symmetrical: 'optimized' characters doesn't break the game for unoptimized ones in PF2, it's not pf1 for example.

Seriously, what have non-optimizing players done to you to make you this way?

everyone else seems to see things from a player D is right player B is wrong perspective.

I think Bluemagetim hit at exactly what bothers me about this whole discussion. The Issue is that players B and D think differently about how a party should be composed. Neither is really right or wrong - each is the good guy in their viewpoint. I personally agree with both views. I’d like to see fewer “somebody must” situations, but I definitely feel it’s sensible to fill gaps in party roles.

What the players are doing is recommended by the rules. As long as no build choices are being forced on anyone, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of teamwork.

PC ch. 3 Classes wrote:

Groups of players often create characters whose skills and abilities complement each other mechanically—for example, ensuring your party includes a healer, a combat-oriented character, a stealthy character, and someone with command over magic—so you may wish to discuss options with your group before deciding.

I may be nitpicking here, but “Groups of players often…” is not the same as “Groups of players should (or are recommended to…”

The rules don’t say there’s only one way to play. I think players B and D should discuss with each other whether or not they can come to a compromise that works for both of them. It seems some people here are expecting that D would expect each player to optimize their characters for their “roles,” but D could just as readily be looking at a rudimentary coverage of the “basics.”

If B is trying to avoid optimization, then, in my opinion, the GM should check with the other party members (seemingly D in particular) if their intent is an optimized party or simply a “well-rounded” party. If an optimized party is what 3/4 players want, then B may be better off in a different party. If not, then this is a smaller issue than it is being made out to be.

I'm not an experience GM - or player, for that matter; the first experience I had was D&D 5E in 2020 - but my playgroup (outside of myself) is very experienced with RPGs. In this case, that experience comes with knowledge of how to "optimize" (but maybe not to the extent that some here have indicated) their character builds. And they have done so. When I tried running Stolen Fate, the encounters were all trivial for them. Ridiculously so.

Personally, that drives me nuts. For me (warning: personal opinion) the game is about a collaborative story. "Solving" the best character build isn't what I want - so I freely take liberties with my dice rolls to make it more challenging. I'm not shooting for TPKs or anything, but I don't want every encounter to be a shallow speed bump.

This week I ran a PFS scenario (#2-13 A Gilded Test) for a party of three level 4 characters and two level 3 characters. Rolling all dice in the open, each combat was edge-of-your-seat "are we going to win this?" That was my favorite GM experience, and every player responded very positively. I think the challenge of the encounters, rather than the "challenge" of optimizing characters, was the best part of the game.

So as far as I'm personally concerned, the best way to build a character is a mix between what is powerful and what is thematic. I ironically just built a fighter and it's fun to role play something different from what I "always" play. I've made some non-optimal choices simply to delve more into the character rather than the metagame, and I couldn't be happier.

So is the fighter relatively less powerful than other classes in a certain level range? All I can say is that I don't know (or really want to know) if that's true, or if I'm even on track to be pushing the limits on power (I'm definitely not, I'm sure, even if I tried).

Ultimately, I firmly believe the answer to the question posed in this thread is "maybe" or, better yet, "your results may vary." To everything there is a season.

I’m sure you will have many opportunities to save yourself from a lack of dice. Just 21? Those are rookie numbers!

To quote Homer Simpson:

"Forty seconds?! But I want it now!"

Of course, in this case, it's 6 months rather than 40 seconds.

I think I had better not comment on whether they are edible. :)

For legal reasons or because you’re not ready to admit your addiction?

Ex3: Not just hazards, it seems that all monsters ALWAYS get to decide when to "start" combat. The party has no effect on this, even standard exploration activities such as Scout and Search have no effect. Even in an ambush, the monsters decide how close to get before the ambush is triggered. For instance: Two groups see eachother coming on a long straight road while still 3 miles away. The wizard prepares to fireball as soon as they get in range (500 feet). The enemies can decide to be within 40 feet before initiative is rolled.

Surely this is a GM issue rather than a rules issue. I’m certain that if we encountered this situation with my regular GM, and neither group was trying to get off the road, he would allow the fireball and then have us roll initiative. At worst he’d have a semi-simultaneous spell attack from the opposing party that coincides with the fireball

PossibleCabbage wrote:

By the time we get the half-halfling heritage, we will need a diagetic name for "what these people call themselves" to use.

Shirelings

That gasp you just heard was the sound of Paizo’s lawyers reading your comment.

I’m standing in my FLGS right now in front of the following:
5x GM Core Special Edition
20x GM Core sketch cover
Zero standard GM Cores

4x Player Core Special Edition
12x Player Core sketch cover
Zero standard Player Cores

The owner only ordered the fancy ones. And received them as ordered. It is NOT a Paizo policy, it seems.

Any idea when these book will hit FLGS ?

It absolutely should be at your FLGS today.

It's great to see that you can now start this subscription with the Tian Xia World Guide!

Glad to be starting my subscription right now!

They said it wasn't going to be mandatory on release until they announced that it's mandatory on release.

From the Paizo Blog post, Pathfinder Society and the Remaster, "Game Rules 1. Players and GMs must use the remastered rules of the game immediately where possible." Alex later clarified that "Immediately" means the release date, not immediately. Also "Beginning on November 15, 2023, no new characters may be created using the class chassis printed in the Core Rulebook if the class has been reprinted in the Player Core."

I do not like the way that PF2.5 has been handled so far. Yes, there are lots of exceptions, allowances, etc. But, I'm pretty sure it was Jason Buhlman that admitted in one of the early videos about the remaster that many of these changes were supposed to be in 2E at release, but they wanted the legacy players to buy in and they didn't think enough would come over if they cut out things like alignment and spell schools. Then we were told that the rules in the remaster won't be mandatory on day 1. See my statement above.

Despite how I feel about the surroundings of the release, I'm going to give it a fair appraisal once my books come in.

If you are playing Pathfinder Society games, you are required to use the Remastered ruleset.

If you and your buddies are playing Pathfinder at home, use whatever rules you like.

These statements are 100% consistent with the messaging that Paizo has put out about the Remaster.

I'm not on rulebook subscription yet, but I will be getting the FLG-specific core books as soon as they drop. I cannot express my excitement for it!

we never hear a peep out of her saying "maybe don't eat people."

Note that this same statement is missing from (as far as I'm aware) the platforms of every political party in modern day nations.

Coincidence? I think not!

While I'm not enthusiastic about paying more, I definitely understand the increases and I love the transparent communication!

I'm delighted with the products I've been getting, so I'll keep acquiring even if it's not as much of a steal.

Does anybody have experience with huge paperback volumes like this? I’m not sure how this will hold up compared to the hardcover.

Those are some excellent art previews. And now we apparently got half-orc/half-elf hybrids? Also pretty interesting.

The important question:

Are they called orfs or elcs?

As a player who is relatively new to RPGs (only since the summer of Covid) and is even newer to Pathfinder, I am interested in GMing and have already mentioned it to the local Ventureperson (I don’t know her rank offhand).

My biggest concern is exactly the concern I had when I first GMed for my kids, and later my friends. As a brand new GM, I felt that the adventure was vague in ways that forced some degree of adlibbing and/or improvisation. Not knowing the world or all the rules, that’s intimidating. I’m also an engineer, whereas my friend who is our regular GM was an English major and he has done this for years.

I would *love* to see some adventures written with a lot of handholding for new GMs. Even giving guidance and/or examples of how to deal with players not following the script the GM is reading would be an immense help. I don’t know how practical it would be, but it would definitely make it easier to onboard potential GMs who share my fears/concerns.

I know the ancestry and background I picked for my bard don't directly help with being a bard. Both were purely for flavor, as I fell in love with the description of the gnolls' culture as folks who do what makes sense to them and come across as monstrous, while actually being big puppy dogs when you get to know them. And I don't exactly want to min-max either. My GM feels we have to, and I kinda posted this mostly to figure out who is right. I want to do what makes a good story, not just make Spreadsheet Joe who's just a collection of numbers to throw at enemies.

This paragraph makes me delightfully happy!

I'm new to PF2 myself, having come from D&D (amongst tastes of a variety of other systems). Sadly my playgroup ends up closer to the Spreadsheet Joe end of the spectrum, but I LOVE the approach you're talking about. It's more in line with how I build my characters as well (but also I'm too lazy to look for "best" options and just follow the Rule of Cool instead).

Turn ORC into a cash grab licensing scheme.

In a similar vein, they should post a draft of a new GOBLIN license - Gamers Only Bring Large Income Numbers - indicating huge price increases and Paizo taking 110% of third-party profits.

Just received my subscription notice - the day after my first session GMing Stolen Fate. I’m excited to read the finale!

As for the names, they are meh. They should had just called them Core Rulebooks and made the fact its Pathfinder 2e more prominent than a tiny blue mark on the side saying "2nd edition". Don't get me wrong the fact its out of the way is great for the art. But that should be front and center for rulebooks so that people don't get confused, not off to the side.

I’m curious why there is no 2E indicator on the books’ spines. That would be very helpful to shoppers, I expect.