gwynfrid's page

I looked for a description, no luck. There’s no entry in Archives of Nethys either.

I'm happy to see an update integrating the errata, as these had become really long lists. Splitting the books will not please everyone, but the physical weight of the CRB definitely made it uncomfortable to read, so I score that as a positive.

Removing alignment... well... that's pretty surprising. I wouldn't have been shocked if the design team did that in the original PF2. But after 4 years, it feels a bit late for such a momentous change. I look forward to hearing (or preferably, reading) the explanation.

The Clairvoyance feature is fantastic, especially when researching a choice of spell, magic item, or feat. Really well done, thanks!

I have to agree with the posters above. The change in color feels wholly unnecessary, and it will make my bookshelf less attractive. It's not the end of the world, and it won't put me off buying SE, but it's a letdown.

Sounds like just the right move. Godspeed to Paizo and the whole community of creators rallying under the ORC banner!

Paizo not increasing prices, now that would have been shocking. As is, these changes look like the company trying to keep pace with reality.

Delirious2022 wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Well, I'll toss out my questions to backers now, and hope I wake up to folks with the PDF tomorrow:

How does the new introduction (in Brevoy) look?
Did any Numerian goodies sneak into either the AP itself or the Companion Guide?
How's the art on the kobolds and the centaurs?
Are there any Archetypes in this?

I only skimmed through the Brevoy section but it looks good. Starts with a feast and uses the influence system in the Gamemastery Guide, some named creatures to fight afterwards in the attack that I don't think were in the game (it's been a minute). Art looks great in the intro, really cool ogre fight art and another art piece with Amiri slamming a chair onto an enemy.

I appreciate the reply!

And if anyone can do a Ctrl-F "Numeria," you'd be my hero :>

The new introduction is a great upgrade on the old one, which was entirely contained in the text of the PC's exploration charter. Now we get very nice detail on the sponsoring Swordlord, her household, etc. Especially, the opportunity to meet with the other groups sent to explore the Stolen Lands will help a lot with establishing the kingdom's environment. The introduction is now a whole chapter with choices that can influence later developments. Prominent among these, of course, are the encounters with the potential NPC companions.

Numeria is mentioned many times, but nearly always as a basic geographical reference, in some NPC backstories or land description. There is one exception: A small portion of the Stolen Lands is described as Numeria territory, with a modest amount of specifics about technology-flavored encounters there. There is an opportunity to establish a trade route with Numeria, but the flavor from it is left to the GM.

There are 4 pieces of kobold art in the AP: New versions of Chief Sootscale and Tartuk, as well as 2 new NPCs. All very good, but then I think the old depictions of Tartuk and the Chief were great too.

The centaur art is just reused from the 1e AP, which I found a little disappointing. I would have rather kept the kobolds and gotten new centaurs, but that's just me.

There are no archetypes, only pointers to archetypes in other books.

Best wishes in this new stage in your life. Many of Paizo's creations have a pride of place in my library, my hard drive, and my memories. Thank you!

A very cool read, well done. And thanks.

All the best for you in the new job, Mark. I enormously appreciated your forum contributions around the time of the PF2 launch. I was also super impressed by the education you gave us about Paizo's team members and issues (in the thread quoted by KC, above).

The more I think on it, the less I care about the law firm. Unless someone files suit against Paizo for something criminal or even civil, the past is the past. I don't like it, but we cannot affect it. So, my eyes are looking forward and on the UPW. I want to see how the contract negotiations go and what benefits they can secure.

I fully expect the law firm to advise Paizo how to change their behavior to avoid future problems, but that will all occur behind closed doors with the executive team. However, the results of their negotiations with the UPW will be very public and we'll get some insight into what Paizo is going to look like moving forward. The very fact that this has become so public and there are a lot of very attentive eyes on Paizo that in an of itself means working conditions should improve. They cannot afford to even allow the appearance of mistreatment let alone an actual incident because it will be shouted from the mountaintop.

Its been nearly three weeks since the last posting by UPW. I wonder what is going on? They are small enough they should have been able to elect officers and determine their negotiation committee by now. Have they met as an entity to discuss and formalize their constitution? Have they submitted anything official to Paizo yet? Is there any progress towards negotiations at this time? Have they published a rough timeline of events? Yes, it takes some time to get everything done, but not too much. Momentum is an important thing in contract negotiations. The longer the process takes, the more momentum begins to dissipate.

I think the above is the only realistic view we can take on the situation.

The leadership team has lost the trust of an important part of the community, and the Nov 15 update has done little to restore it. Anyway, as several have correctly noted, restoring trust will require action, not words. So, unless it's to announce the results of action, we shouldn't expect any further communication from leadership. If they did communicate, for example, by explaining more about the choice of this law firm, it wouldn't placate anyone, quite the contrary.

The other interesting element is that the UPW has not seen fit to react publicly to this. Which makes sense, since any negotiation is best conducted behind closed doors until the parties agree. So, I don't think we should expect any news any time soon.

This Canadian salutes you, and is thankful that you're thinking of us & that you remember Canadian Thanksgiving being in October. I have to explain that anew to my US colleagues every year.

I'm also thankful that American Thanksgiving means it's a slow week for me. I might even be able to take Friday off! Life sometimes has big blessings and sometimes big pains, so let's try to appreciate the small blessings too.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Calls to oust the leadership team are unlikely to be useful, imo. First, as several have said, they're unrealistic. On top of that, it's not clear how that would solve the existing problems. Finally, this makes implicit assumptions that things can't possibly get worse under new management, and that there's nothing to lose. Experience says otherwise.

I hadn't posted a comment to the leadership team's update yet, due to the storm that raged in this thread for so long (in itself a pretty bad mark for Paizo, but an issue that was thankfully, if belatedly, fixed).

I finally come here to write that comment today, and... Here I find this damning post by a former employee, a well-respected industry veteran.

Wow.

I have a couple of decades of experience in management roles. I have had my share of troubles and major mistakes along the way, so I'm by no means a shining example. I have the scars to show how difficult it is to manage people. That's why I want to be slow to condemn. But man, the list of big no-no's in Sean's report is something to behold. Some things can be blamed on pressure, stress, lack of money, and your typical communications snafus. But the attitude it reveals - that is inexcusable.

Back to the leadership team's update: Like many others on this thread, I find it disappointing in its lawyerly ways and cautiously worded apologies. It might have come across a little better if it hadn't taken so long to come up, but it took close to two months. It clearly was written under a great deal of constraints and limits. In short, it's not great, but I find that understandable. The reputational damage to Paizo will need a lot more work than this before it's even partly repaired.

My conclusion is that the formation of the UPW is a long overdue development. Hopefully, it will help, although it would be naive to expect any short-term solutions.

I have discussed this same issue on another thread, so I will just say this here: I agree with Sanityfaerie that simply removing the offending posts is a weak method of moderation. It does little to discourage bad actors, so it invites more or less covert repeat offenses, until the moderators are forced to apply suspensions. It does even less to educate people who, without being bad actors, will do mistakes. And it fails to bring reassurance to the victims of offensive posts.

Instead, showing which posts were removed and the reason why is a clear warning to both bad actors and the rest of the audience, as well as closure to the victims.

Where I differ with Sanityfaerie is on the idea of leaving the offending text for all to see. I believe bad posts should stay, but the text should be removed and replaced with a banner like "violates guideline xxx". This is because leaving the text in the open gives permission to readers to judge for themselves if the moderator was right or not: In other words, it leaves the debate open. That's a recipe for further warfare. We should instead trust the moderators: Right or wrong, they have the sole authority to make these calls, and we shouldn't second-guess them.

Also: Jiggy's analogy, linked above, is excellent.

It was high, high time. These hateful posts, and the completely justified pushback they had generated, were making the threads unreadable. Strong action badly delayed is way better than weak action or no action at all: Thank you.

I’m going to try to answer to those who responded to my post (thanks). It's going to make for a longish post, again.

To vagrant-poet:

gwynfrid wrote:

Being challenged after a provocative post is in fact the result a troll hopes for.

Not necessarily, they also want to have and share their hate-filled nonsense in public spaces as if it were legitimate, or or value to discuss. Leaving it unchallenged only achieves leaving it unchallenged.

I leaves it scrubbed away, if moderators are active. I will admit that leaving it in the open for hours is not good. I don’t think that challenging it makes the thread better, however. It may have the virtue of making the challengers feel better: I don’t want to neglect that, it’s a valid feeling. If the moderators are OK with removing twenty or a hundred posts instead of one, then I’m not going to tell them they’re wrong. In the meantime, however, the thread isn’t really fulfilling its initial purpose. I have been on forums where the policy is flag and move on (and it's enforced - it's not just a suggestion). When an offensive post isn’t immediately scrubbed, that stinks. But if it gets buried under a couple dozen of on-topic posts, then its pollution feels less toxic. This is all subjective of course, and I can understand you have the opposite feeling.

Sorry, but absolutely wrong-headed to suggest that countering hate-speech causes these things, once the hate-speech exists, these criteria are met.

I certainly didn’t suggest that. I suggest, however, that aggressive responses make the thread even worse, overall. At least, it’s the way it makes me feel.

Hate speech existing in a public place gives it exposure, and completely ends ANYTHING like suggesting an atmosphere is welcoming and inclusive. As long as it exists, the forum cannot be "welcoming and inclusive" challenging it does not degrade and atmospshere that doesn't exist in the presence of hate-speech.

This is true. All I’m saying is it’s possible to do better than the current never-ending flame war. This requires a very robust moderation policy (and resources) which isn’t the case on this forum at this time.

gwynfrid wrote:

A solution to overnight/weekend moderation limitations is to temporarily lock those threads known to be at risk (they're not hard to identify), and reopen them come morning. This is what was done last night on the leadership announcement blog thread. That was a wise move. In the worst case, moderators should consider locking an entire subforum during times when moderation isn't available to react quickly. Sure it's heavy-handed, and hopefully won't have to be done in a routine manner forever, but it's a safe way to go, unless Paizo finds a way to vastly increase moderating resources.

I mean, the real answer is to increase moderation resources, or at very least have a no or low tolerance to bigotry or bigotry dogwhistles. That involves suspending bigots. And I'd like to see where a rigorous effort to do so leaves us in a few weeks.

On this, we agree. It appears that the moderators recently (re)discovered a better technical solution to do so (by the way - that looks real bad for Paizo as an organization…). If the situation improves over the next few weeks, I will happily conclude that you were correct.

To Kobold Cleaver:

gwynfrid wrote:

This is where I don’t agree. Having a post deleted has a clear meaning: That the post was in violation of the community guidelines. Maybe we don’t want to call that “punishment” if we find the word too loaded with moral intent. But it is definitely enforcement, or in another word, it is discipline. It’s a consequence of undesirable behavior, and it needs to be seen as such by all forum participants. This is the only way the moderation policy can be applied for the betterment of the forum.

This actually isn't quite true. Many posts are deleted not because they violated community guidelines, but because they were caught in the crossfire of mods deleting posts. A lot of posters get very angry about this, and seem to have a punishment mindset--"Oh, so we aren't allowed to quote anyone?"--but it's not actually rational to treat it as a punishment for bad behavior at all. Nobody's ever going to get suspended for replying to a bad post, intentionally or unknowingly.

Having thought about this a little bit, I realize that our disagreement comes from talking about two different things. I was trying to talk about the moderation policy and enforcement as it should be (in my opinion at least). You’re talking about the moderation policy and enforcement as it currently exists on this forum.

But I think this is one of the reasons why the moderation policy, and the way it’s enforced, needs to improve – possibly, to change radically. I mean, I don’t think anyone is happy with the current state of affairs.

Moreover, the problem with treating deletion as a punishment is in line with Rysky's criticism elsewhere--it's not really punishment at all, for the same reason it's not really moderation at all. It's just cleanup. It can happen for any number of reasons--posts being off-topic, baiting, interacting with deleted posts--and on its own, it's not discipline.

I completely agree. This is why I suggested earlier that mere removal is a bad solution. It doesn’t teach anyone anything. Instead, the post should be edited to explain why it’s not appropriate. That would be discipline.

Yesterday, a lot of us Flagged--and emailed about--a poster who was using blatantly racist, transphobic rhetoric and dogwhistles. Moderation didn't suspend them--moderation just deleted some posts. That poster proceeded to ignore the deletions and just keep on trolling.

I don't blame moderation for this. It was after-hours and they're always doing their best. But can you see why, the system of "flag and move on" having failed, a lot of us felt pressure to show our dissent?

Yes, I can see that. In fact, I can feel the same urge to respond, myself, even as a cis person. I think responding, including with profanity, insults, and terms that maybe aren’t insults but propagate the fire just the same, is a valid way for you to alleviate that pressure. I don’t think it helps with anything else – but maybe achieving this is good enough.

I still believe, however, that it contributes to the overall tension in the atmosphere: The more yelling there is, the harder it is to hear. So, OK, I understand your need to fight this fight, but it would be preferable if the moderation policy made this unnecessary. Since it works that way in other places, I believe it can work that way here (insert required caveat about resources, again).

I will conclude by saying that if any of the above made anyone feel aggrieved in any way, then it’s my bad and I will have to rethink my approach. My goal here is to suggest evolutions in the way the forum is moderated, not to reproach anybody about their reactions to toxic posting.

The problem with "Flag and move on" is this:

Much of the time the baiters and trolls come out after hours and on weekends when moderation is at a bare minimum thanks to hourly schedules. If we just flag and move on, that leaves that post up for hours, sometimes even days, unchallenged.

It's fine and dandy to say "Just flag and move on" when you're not the one under attack. Leaving a post unchallenged for days means that there will be posters that see it, and don't see anyone defending the people it's attacking and then think "well I guess this isn't a safe space for me to be in."

This is a valid point. However, I will second Ixal, above: Being challenged after a provocative post is in fact the result a troll hopes for. It gives them exposure and, if it's aggressive, it degrades the atmosphere of what should remain a welcoming and inclusive forum. On top of that, it adds work for moderators.

A solution to overnight/weekend moderation limitations is to temporarily lock those threads known to be at risk (they're not hard to identify), and reopen them come morning. This is what was done last night on the leadership announcement blog thread. That was a wise move. In the worst case, moderators should consider locking an entire subforum during times when moderation isn't available to react quickly. Sure it's heavy-handed, and hopefully won't have to be done in a routine manner forever, but it's a safe way to go, unless Paizo finds a way to vastly increase moderating resources.

KC, I'm going to go out on a limb and attempt to debate you. Please take it as a sign of respect and appreciation on my part. You're one of the very few posters who's shown a willingness to spend time on thinking an argument through, educating others, and trying to actually propose something to help with the current situation. So, I thank you. I think your posts in this thread are worth thinking about and responding to.

That said, I don't agree with several of your points, and I believe this might be a useful discussion to have. Here goes (warning – this is going to be a long post).

Back on topic, I think a lot of people who perceive "bias" in moderation are actually perceiving two very different things: nuance and context. [...]

I fully agree with the importance of nuance and context in forum moderation, as well as with your definition of these two concepts.

Someone's emotional or mental state never excuses them for their bad actions, but this isn't really about "punishment". Contrary to popular rhetoric, having your post deleted is not a punishment. It's simply the action of removing a given post, for any number of complex reasons.

This is where I don’t agree. Having a post deleted has a clear meaning: That the post was in violation of the community guidelines. Maybe we don’t want to call that “punishment” if we find the word too loaded with moral intent. But it is definitely enforcement, or in another word, it is discipline. It’s a consequence of undesirable behavior, and it needs to be seen as such by all forum participants. This is the only way the moderation policy can be applied for the betterment of the forum.

So if the mods seem to be exerting a more delicate touch sometimes, and coming down harder at other times, that could be for any number of reasons: [...]

I understand and appreciate what you’re trying to do here, I really do. But, as a policy, it can’t work. A moderation policy needs to be clear and definite: Either a post is in violation of guidelines, or it is not. If it is, it needs to be removed even if the poster is right on the merits, and even if the poster is rightfully responding to something wrong.

There have been a number of calls, in other threads, for posters to not respond to bait. “Flag and move on” is the mantra, and it is correct. Some of these calls have been made by moderators. All have been ignored, by virtually everybody. Some have tried to hold themselves to that standard, but that didn’t last. The results are plain for all to see: The thread under the leadership team’s announcement blog post is a case in point. I wanted to post a reaction there, but when I saw the sea of fire, I thought any reaction was going to get drowned, and I just shut up.

The problem here is that mere calls to not respond to bait amount to “please be good”. That’s not a policy. Saying “please” is a way to be polite, but without enforcement, it’s useless, as proven by the current toxicity level of most threads on this subforum. “Please flag and move on” isn’t a request, it’s a rule (and I believe this should be made explicit in the guidelines), just like anything the moderators say is a rule. Posts that don’t follow the rules need to be scrubbed, period.

The posts being removed simply are not good for the thread. Maybe they're off-topic. Maybe they're going to make things worse. A lot of baiting/"snarky" posts fit into this column. And yes, it is a moderator's right to make this call. They don't make it often, but, well, context matters. Are you baiting people in an extremely emotionally charged atmosphere, as a lot of people have been lately? Is this about the Caster/Martial Disparity, or about something trivial and low-stakes?

Baiting posts, snarky posts, any sort of post that elicits angry reactions cannot possibly be good for the thread… Even in low-stakes situations. If the situation is low-stakes, snark that angers people will cause an escalation, and soon enough the situation will become high-stakes. Everyone loses.

The posts being left alone are important for the thread, or share a perspective that might be lost otherwise. Again, it's not about punishment, it's about the practical results.

If a post contains both something important and useful and something inflammatory, it’s still inappropriate and shouldn’t be left alone. I believe the solution is to edit the inflammatory part away. If that’s not practical, then the post needs to be removed. It’s possible (but it’s more work) to remove it and suggest the poster tries again with improved language.

You think that there are two valid sides to every issue, sunlight is the best disinfectant, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and you may disagree with someone but you'll defend to the death their right to say it. We know. This isn't a very complicated mindset, but it is comforting. It's just not realistic in the slightest. Most of the "nuance" people have tried to bring up for trans issues, for instance, is just Fox News scaremongering dressed up as concern for women's rights. It's time to move past the Golden Mean Fallacy. You cannot tolerate intolerance because intolerant people are very good at making online spaces unlivable for minorities. Maybe you wouldn't notice at first. I hope you would eventually notice that all the trans people got tired of being misgendered and left, and now only one viewpoint--the intolerant one--survives.

I wholly agree with that part. This is why I believe the community guidelines should be adjusted to explicitly warn about any discussion of trans issues (among a number of other sensitive issues). Such discussion should not be forbidden, but a great deal of caution is necessary, and what you’re saying above is a good start towards describing the potential pitfalls.

If the moderators came down equally hard on every post, regardless of context or nuance, what happens to people with more skin in the game? In any talk about transphobia, trans people are going to be the most likely to get emotional and upset, because it's personal to us. Obviously.

If the mods applied identical one-size-fits-all standards, without considering the nuances involved (something I kind of expect people who get mad at this post will be guilty of), trans people are going to get a lot more of our posts deleted because we didn't quite manage to be civil enough to a given troll. We end up silenced because we were too closely connected to the matter to not get angry, while those distant from the problem are allowed to dispassionately argue the two sides.
This is a dynamic transphobic trolls eagerly take advantage of. [...]

This is the part where, I’m afraid, I differ with you the most. I totally understand and empathize with you being emotional. I know the issue is personal to you. Of course it is!

Instead, I would suggest the following policy solution to provocative posting:
- The provocative post is removed, on the basis of having triggered flags and angry reactions.
- The angry reactions are removed as well.
- The provocative poster gets a suspension or a ban. Possibly just a warning on a first offense.
- The reacting posters all get warnings. They only get heavier consequences in case of multiple repeats.
- Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe it would be vastly preferable to edit the offending posts, replacing their text with something like “scrubbed” or possibly “scrubbed for X reason” with X being from a shortlist of typical violations. A mass removal would only be warranted in cases where an entire thread has turned into a firestorm, something that unfortunately has happened a lot recently.

Thank you, again, for your efforts to educate, explain, suggest, and argue in a peaceful manner. If anything in the above feels bad to you, I would like to apologize in advance, and assure you that it was unintentional. In such a case, I stand ready to be corrected and work to do better.

I would like to come back to KC's original topic, the state of the Paizo forum moderation. I wholly agree that this state isn't great right now, particularly in this subforum. It is true that the situation over the past 2 months has been especially tricky. No one envies the moderators their jobs, which look like something impossible and awfully stressful.

That said, other posters have said that the problems in moderation aren't just these past 2 months: It's worse right now, but it doesn't mean things were fine before that. I can say, personally, that I have been much more of a lurker, and a big reason for that it that the forum is intimidating. Flame wars start very quickly, accusations fly freely, and it seems very difficult to get posters to use a softer tone, in spite of the moderators' appeals, and in spite of the great, courageous efforts by Hmm, KC and others to suggest a better way.

Here's a list of problems, as I see them:

1) Moderation removes inappropriate posts without an explanation attached to them. There's a moderator post, but it can be pages later, and that post doesn't connect to the conversation that violated the rules, since it's no longer visible. This creates multiple problems:
- It makes the thread incomprehensible to one who joins the conversation at a later time: The posts left over after a cleanup are often completely disconnected from each other and can feel rather random.
- It doesn't give closure to the people who were offended by a removed post. They have to re-read the thread to check that the post is no longer there.
- It does a poor job of educating posters about the rules. All we can see is a moderator post, usually to plead for people to do better in the future. The experience of the past 2 months is one of pleading to deaf ears.
- It's such a small consequence that it doesn't deter rule violators all that much.

2) The favorite mechanism contributes to the vitriol. Clicking on a + sign to mark a favorite is easy, and it can be done without much thinking. It's ambiguous: It's possible to like a part of a post but not the rest (not a good idea, but an easy mistake to make). The biggest problem is that the favorite marker quickly creates camps between posters. It does so without nuance and can quickly build up partisans' numbers instead. This makes it an inherently divisive tool.

3) The moderators rest on weekends. As they should! But unfortunately, this leaves a lot of time for fires to spread. I think it even creates a risk of encouraging pernicious behaviors.

I have no experience or competence in a moderator's job, so please take my suggestions with a grain of salt:
- I suggest editing inappropriate posts, rather than removing them outright. The text could be wholly replaced by something like "post moderated for X reason", with X taken from the list of disallowed post types. This would bring a degree of solace to offended posters, help educate newcomers to the thread, and mark a consequence for inappropriate posting. Another benefit: It relieves the moderator from the duty of writing a whole new moderator post every time.
- I believe the favorite mechanism should be curtailed. For example, it should be disabled in areas of the forums that have exhibited vitriolic tendencies over a recent period of time.
- By the same token, areas of the forums that are prone to excesses could be temporarily locked during weekends and holidays.

As an example of an effective moderation policy, I'd like to mention gitp.com. Of course, it's a very different outfit than Paizo. For starters, the site isn't used for direct sales (GitP is a one-man operation, sales are handled via a partner company). Also, all the moderators are volunteers. Still, I believe the audience is similar to Paizo's, so while their example isn't fully applicable, it's relevant at least in part. I suggest you check out their Rules of Posting. They're rigorous, comprehensive (the text is like 10x longer than Paizo's guidelines), well thought out, and clearly described (the infraction system, and how a poster can end up banned, is shown in a very transparent manner). They're also a lot more strict: For example, the restriction against political discussion is interpreted very broadly; responding to an offensive post is strongly discouraged, and can in itself warrant a penalty; vigilante modding is explicitly forbidden; etc., etc. This allows the moderators to put flame wars out quickly and thoroughly, and to reduce the odds of recurrence. Even if Paizo doesn't wish to apply rules as strong as these, I think they're worth a read, as a benchmark.

I hope this helps a little. If not, well, it was worth a shot.

I'd like to conclude by wishing all the very best to our moderators: You really don't deserve what's been happening here. Thank you for your courage and hard work in the service of others.

As others have said: These are powerful words. They will help me being more mindful of things I should be mindful of, even as I lack the background, culture, and personal history to fully understand them.

Fully agree, these guys are fantastic. I'm caught up on the original GCP (Giantslayer) and nearly caught up on Androids and Aliens. I'm way behind on Legacy of the Ancients (Rise of the Runelords) and Raiders of the Lost Continent (Ruins of Azlant) because it's quite hard to keep up with the sheer volume of podcasting they put out, especially since the pandemic polymorphed commute time into work time.

Troy is an amazing storyteller and overall entertainer, and the players have this great chemistry and ability to riff off each other's play, whether jokes or serious roleplaying, especially in the original GCP. They create superb characters and play them to the hilt. The shows have many hilarious moments, intense dramatic moments, and some unforgettable roleplaying moments. Highly recommended.

For those who would like a taste of what these guys can do without engaging into a long story, I suggest listening to the 3-part demo of PF2 they did at PaizoCon 2019, with Erik Mona, and Jason Bulhman as GM. It's an absolute blast.

Removing this thread without comment would have been easy, and entirely justified. Responding politely instead, and acknowledging that the OP may have a valid point, shows a level of humility and courage that not everyone is capable of.

Guns and Gears is a superb book, packed with imaginative, fun, novel ideas. Congratulations to the whole crew!

France is legendary for it's general strikes. We could all stand to learn from its example.

(French guy here) This legend is more like a myth. The last true general strike in France was in 1968. Large-size strikes are frequent, but they're pretty much always limited to state agencies or state-owned companies, not the entire economy. Whether that's a good example to follow is a matter of opinion, but that discussion would be off-topic, and, I suspect, against forum guidelines.

But, much more to the point, the discussion of strikes is wholly irrelevant here. That's because the Paizo workers have made it very clear throughout that they don't want to stop working. They want to continue creating fantastic products that people will buy, thus making the company successful (this is kind of a must, when one wants employees' wages to increase). The only folks that went on a strike of sorts are a group of freelancers who said they would withhold their services until the union was recognized. Presumably, they've now resumed work on their projects.

For a small company that's not raking in tons of money, a strike isn't the best way to go, unless you believe the company's management is a bunch of jerks who exploit workers to make themselves filthy rich. I really don't think it's the case with Paizo.

Congratulations. Well done, on everyone's part! This doesn't magically solve all problems all of a sudden, but it puts Paizo and our community on a better path to work on them. I'm looking forward to a bright future for Paizo and the games we love.

A big part of the reason there's an American focus is that American issues are the ones we (and Paizo) actually have the most power to act upon. It can be exhausting to fight every fight, especially when we have almost no meaningful ability to do anything about what's happening in England or China or Mexico. That doesn't make it any less understandably alienating for you, though.

Having followed the exchanges in this section of the forum for the past couple of weeks, I frequently found them baffling and/or depressing. Like Berhagen, I have a non-US perspective, and that surely doesn't help in that regard. I refrained from participating in the conversation because of that. So let me just say, KC, that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the patience and empathy you've displayed in this post and others.

As I come from a country where choosing to belong to an union is a constitutional right, the above conversation feels rather strange to me, especially the notion that the union needs to be recognized by the company. But of course, the US is a different place in that regard... Anyway, I fully support the idea. Go Paizo workers!

I want to thank the entire design team for Pathfinder 2nd edition for their enormous effort in carefully designing every detail to make the rules consistent but elegant, simple but deep, exciting but balanced. Of course these rules aren't perfect and can't make everyone happy, but they come pretty close. It's obvious at the first readthrough that a great deal of thinking and testing went into this beast of a game.

A special thanks goes to Mark Seifter for engaging on the forum when people discovered the rules and came over here to share their impressions. Many of the discussions were rather heated, and some of the feedback sharply negative. Mark calmly and pleasantly addressed concerns and provided clarifications.

Thanks!

I feel one change in PF2 that's not been addressed very much in this thread is the simplification and improved consistency of the rules. Specifically:
- No more CMB, CMD, and convoluted rules for combat maneuvers. Instead, checks like Athletics vs Fortitude DC are used, a much more straightforward way to resolve this type of action.
- No more Touch AC. Casters use their spell attack bonus vs AC.
- The jungle of full-round action, standard action, move action, swift action, immediate action and free action is gone, replaced with just 3 types: action, free action, and reaction.
- No more special 5-ft step action-that's-not-really-an-action, gone along with its slew of special rules. The equivalent is the Step action: The creature moves only 5-ft and avoids provoking reactions.
- No more surprise round. This was a special round with all sorts of rule exceptions that I always found hard to remember. It's gone entirely. Instead, those who win initiative get to act first, and that's it. It barely changes the feel of early combat, and it's way easier to handle.
- Broad consolidation of skills. Highly situational skills like Swim, Sleight of Hand, Appraise, Fly, Escape Artist, Linguistics etc. were consolidated, so that all skills now can be expected to be used reasonably often (the only exception is Lore in specialized fields, which is mostly there for flavor).
- Damage resistance, energy resistance and vulnerability mechanics replaced with a unified, streamlined version.
- No more spell resistance. Monsters' resistance to magic is now represented by high saves: A critical success means the spell has no effect.
- This one has been mentioned before: radical reduction in the number of bonus types.
- Another one that's been mentioned above is the removal of ability damage and temporary ability bonuses. Ability damage was replaced by clear and consistent conditions like stupefied, clumsy etc. that apply easy to understand penalties. Ability bonuses have become straight bonuses to relevant stats. We no longer need a spreadsheet or Hero Lab to manage stats during combat.
- Greatly reduced impact of creature size (no impact on attack rolls, AC, or base weapon damage).
- Greatly streamlined rules for lighting and vision.
- Greatly streamlined encumbrance rules. This one was controversial because the new rule, Bulk, isn't a very realistic representation of the real world. But many groups didn't use encumbrance at all in PF1 because it was such a pain. Bulk is at least usable.
- Enormously simplified rules for polymorph. Each polymorph spell basically replaces the creature's stats with a fixed set, depending only on the specific spell.

I’m not saying that the treads have been full with insults or calls for firing. I’ve only seen very few, and these are extreme views (these posts were removed, naturally). But the feelings have been raw - and again, those feelings are valid, and justified - including feelings towards Tonya personally. In that context, I’m not sure how much good more direct interventions by her could do.

Plainly stated, the community is hurting and the Paizo team member that should be the one to help us heal seems to be mostly missing.

This is the expression of a valid feeling, or course. On the other hand, the feelings of the person you’re talking about deserve consideration as well. Tonya has been part of the topic for a week now. This has involved thousands of posts, a good number of them questioning her actions in the most unforgiving terms, including calls for her firing and varied insults. It stands to reason that she would be cautious about trying for a more personal touch in the threads, at least for a while. Helping the community to heal is a worthy and necessary goal. Not triggering further mayhem is a starting point, if a discreet one.

Great story! The eidolon's origin as an imaginary friend is a really cool idea. And the art... Wow. Well done guys!

The app is a good start, but it's not there yet, imho. At least, it's not to the point where I would consider it a replacement for a magnet-equipped pad, or even the very basic turn tracker on Roll20.

A key thing for me is how many steps it takes to do basic things, like changing the turn order (when a combatant goes unconscious, or delays), adding or removing a combatant, and applying conditions. Currently, changing the turn order requires opening the Edit Combatant menu. This is not a natural interaction at all, and it's unnecessarily tedious. Adding a condition requires going into the menu, selecting the condition, and only then applying it to a combatant. The natural thing to do would be: Select the combatant first, and then apply the condition. Selecting the condition first makes sense when I want to apply it to multiple combatants at a time, but this is a less frequent use case.

Some suggestions, in decreasing order of importance:
- Drag and drop a combatant up/down (or use up/down arrow buttons) to change the turn order.
- Tap a combatant to open an edit window, where the list of conditions appears: One tap to apply/remove a condition.
- Drag and drop a combatant right/left (or use left/right arrow buttons) to mark delay and dying.
- Include condition values where applicable.
- Keep character groups in a library so we can manage several parties without having to create the group anew for every fight.
- Landscape mode for tablets.
- A round counter would be nice to have.
- Once those basics are done, it would be really cool to add more things, like tracking active spells or hit points.

I'd like to talk about the Relay Spell feat. The text says "Your ally can use you as the point of origin for their spell, calculating range and cover from your space instead of their own." This isn't a great wording, because as far as I know, the term "point of origin" isn't used in this way anywhere else in the rules. Also, this wording doesn't mention line of effect. This prompts a few questions.

For Relay Spell to work:
1) Does the caster still need to have line of effect to the target?
2) Does the relayer need to have line of effect to the target?
3) Does the caster need to have line of effect to the relayer?
4) Does the caster need to see the target?
5) Does the relayer need to see the target?
6) Does the caster need to see the relayer?
7) If the spell is meant to have an effect on both the caster and the target (example: Vampiric Touch with the caster using Reach Spell), does the relay change anything to this?
8) If the relayer is under an invisibility effect (let's assume either that the answer to question 6 is No, or the caster has See Invisibility active) and the spell causes damage to the target, does the relayer become visible (is the Relay Spell reaction hostile in this context)?
9) Who decides on the final target of the spell?
10) Does the relay work if the caster is not willing?
11) Does the relayer automatically know what the spell is, other than by trusting the caster's word?
11) (Assuming the relayer decides on the final target) Can the caster block the spell from taking effect if the relayer chooses a target other than what the two agreed?
12) Does the relayer need to have the spell in their spell list?
13) What happens if, after the caster casts the spell, the relayer for whatever reason decides not to use the Spell Relay reaction?
14) What happens if for some reason the caster and relayer can't communicate?

One of my players needed this before I could switch my ongoing campaign to PF2, so I came up with my own conversion / homebrew for the vanara ancestry. You can find it here.

Comments, suggestions and questions will be appreciated.

Very nicely done, kudos!

This is great news and very, very welcome. I’d like to second those who asked for all APs to receive that treatment. I would happily buy the digital versions of the APs I already own over again, just for the time saved and the headaches averted.

I don't give a (flying flump in a cloak)* about art, the internet is full of art.

Release pdfs of parts that are developed, which we payed for a year ago.

No way. Businesses that ship products before development is finished either change their ways, or don't stay in business (I used to work for a company like that).

Crowdfunding typically delivers late, that's practically the norm. It sucks, but I want the great game I paid for. I'll wait for as long as it takes. Thanks for keeping us posted.

Plenty of cool concepts in there. Looking forward to reading the book!

The fact that this thread can't readily agree on a tier list, or to an answer to the OP's question, is the mark of a huge success for PF2 design, imo. Congrats to the Paizo team for sending the concept of class tiers to the dustbin of history.

I can understand missing the righteous-scourge-of-all-that-is-evil vibe of the original paladin, but calling the champion's reactions "morally repugnant" is raising the rhetoric escalation to a truly absurd level.

I would very much like to see more variable casting action spells, but I can understand why there are few:
- There already exist other ways to tweak spellcasting action cost vs effect, through metamagic feats.
- There already are a number of one-action spells: Some cantrips, a couple of spells, and some focus spells.
- Variable casting action spells make the game more complex.
- There is always a risk of disrupting game balance by adding this much flexibility. So, if a spell has a variable casting action count, it needs to make sure that the 1-action version isn't stronger than the 1-action Magic Missile, or a 1-action focus spell: ie, not very strong.

So, sure let's add more but devs are right to exercise caution. Creating more metamagic feats is a safer alternative.

I think the problem here is just one of player frustration caused by unlucky dice rolls. I get it. A streak of bad rolls can be really annoying.

But it has nothing to do with the feat. Like several in this thread, I had a great experience with Nimble Dodge. It saved my Rogue from a round 1 crit that would have resulted in a desperate situation. The difference with the OP is pure luck of the dice.

The math calculation is correct but unconvincing. A 20% chance to make a difference is great. In fact, I don't think many feats usable every round provide more than a 20% improvement of anything. Most feats that provide a bonus give a +1. Some give more, but are situational (compare with You're Next, the other level 1 Rogue feat that provides a reaction).

As others have mentioned, Nimble Dodge is a fine choice for a level 1 feat, for a class that doesn't have a built-in reaction. At higher levels, it can be upgraded with Nimble Roll, or it can be retrained when stronger reactions become available.

I think the OP has a point, however, when it comes to the Swashbuckler. That class is built for reactions, so it would be a much greater cost for the Swashbuckler to declare Nimble Dodge against his opponent's first attack, making Opportune Riposte unavailable for the rest of the round.

Now, the Swashbuckler is in the playtest phase. Now is the time to provide that feedback, so the designers can consider a new version of Nimble Dodge more appropriate for the Swashbuckler.

My other takeaway is that keeping a log of dice rolls is a bad idea. If the dice have been bad, it's just depressing. It proves exactly nothing. Worse, it gives rise to the false impression that you're somehow "due" better luck in the future.

Btw I always found it weird that:

Spoiler:

The solution to the problem people come up with is almost always make more feats/spells; and by the nature of PF2 being having nerfed magic and some other things getting those abilities would be power creep.
Which people would then complain about because "why are you ruining my games with your splatbooks".
But in the end it's still a fix to Paizo's choices.

I still remember the huge "swashbuckler are just fighters we dont need a new class or archetype" discussion. Which would cut out an entire class nd all its lore from the setting.

Not saying it's bad, just kind of weird human behavior.

Well, this is a specific solution to this specific issue with the transition to PF2 in the context of my game. I don't need to see it in a splatbook, nor do I need to make it available to my players in this or another campaign. Not only that, but PF2 even provides a nifty rule that makes it 100% legit: I can label it as rare.

gwynfrid wrote:

The example of the Goodberry spell is clear: A low level druid used to be able to feed a large family in times of famine, this is no longer possible.

Uh...yes it is. A 3rd level Druid can get 16 meals in a day with Goodberry by spending about 9 hours. They can probably get up to an easy 27 if that's all they do all day.

The mechanism and how much time/resources it takes certainly differ, but feeding people via goodberry (the important bit in-universe) remains very doable.

OK, but then the druid has to be level 3 for this. More importantly, they can't travel at the same pace as other characters. Bit of a problem if the idea is for the group to cross a desert. OK, maybe they wouldn't find fresh berries in the desert anyway, so this is possibly a moot point. Still, the story definitely changes.

gwynfrid wrote:

Another example is Wild Shape: The druid used to be able to change into an eagle for hours, and so explore a large expanse of land from the air with ease. This is now out of the question. It doesn't take lab notes to notice these things, they're obvious.

Actually, this is still completely doable. It does require being a much higher level Druid at the moment (11th level, to be specific), but it remains an option for Druids in-universe. Specifically, Form Control allows you to Wild Shape for an hour, and effectively stay in that form pretty much indefinitely (or, at the very least, only need to come out of it for a few seconds every hour), and can use Pest Form to have a Fly Speed while doing so. Soaring Shape also helps with this, improving the fly speed dramatically.

Now, that's certainly much higher level, but how often in the world lore (as opposed to 'how often do PCs do this') have we heard about low level Druids doing this?

I'm not actually thinking of a single example of a low level Druid doing this in any Golarion content.

Well, there's an important NPC ally of my group in my current Kingmaker campaign and she's a level 6 druid, so that single case is enough to change the story in a major way. I can't recast her as level 11 without causing other, deeper continuity issues.

And even if there is, that just implies the existence of a Feat we haven't seen yet, not the world...

Yep. My plan is to make a feat up, or a ritual. If there aren't too many issues like this, I'll be able to handle them.

I think 99% of the rule changes are perfectly fine from a continuity perspective. Numbers are different, that sort of thing. Even the details of how smite evil works can be explained away by the fact the paladin does good damage, thereby harming evil creatures.

There's a small portion of the rules that are really breaking continuity, however. The example of the Goodberry spell is clear: A low level druid used to be able to feed a large family in times of famine, this is no longer possible. Another example is Wild Shape: The druid used to be able to change into an eagle for hours, and so explore a large expanse of land from the air with ease. This is now out of the question. It doesn't take lab notes to notice these things, they're obvious.

I don't think it's the end of the world, but if I change editions mid-campaign (and I really would like to), I'll need to come up with a few fixes to explain away the most glaring problems.

Shed Tail is genius. Can't wait to play that trick :-)

All the best, and enjoy! My advice is 1) have a cheat sheet at the ready for stuff that comes up often, like basic actions, detection vs stealth, and conditions; 2) don't sweat the details, be easy on the players and yourself. We're all beginners with these rules, and a heck of a lot of that stuff is new, plus many of us need to "unlearn" PF1 habits. If you miss the effect of a manipulate trait or a non-stacking bonus here or there, it's no big deal, just roll with it and move on.

Interesting discussion. Sounds like a takeaway could be that martial characters can easily be built to be pretty strong, while casters require more expertise and thought for the players to leverage their strengths within the system in order to be fully competitive. If confirmed over time, I would rate this a big success for the game’s design.