nephandys's page

Always wanted Inquisitor back, massively disappointed.

I find this weird.

Secrets of Magic needs a remaster. Guns and Gears doesn't.

This feels like it's being done just because people will buy it, which is the first time in this whole remaster I've felt that way.

We gave them grace because WotC forced this remaster on them. The assumption was that things would return to normal afterwards. But has it instead led to a new business model?

Couldn't say this better myself. While I appreciate the effort that goes into a remaster I think I'd rather just have an errata. Then that effort can go into brand new material and I don't have to keep buying books I already own.

If the remaster was a wild success and a vast improvement over the original I don't think I'd feel this way. In my opinion it's been a necessary evil due to OGL and ended up being net neutral verging on negative. So, buying more remastered material does not excite me.

Lord Viator wrote:

The only thing that kinda annoys me is that it's difficult to read these as a changelog with the new and old errata being smashed into one entry since we've moved away from printing-based errata for the newer rounds. I think it'd be helpful if maybe there was some dating or something so that a person only interesting in seeing the most recent changes from last time could distinguish them easily.

This is high on our list of desired functionality improvements but will likely need to wait until after the website updates are complete before we can start moving forward with implementation.

One thing that could be done without a new website would be changing the color of the text for the most recent errata to be different than the standard. I play a lot of warhammer and that's how the most recent vs older errata's are differentiated. It's not as nice and detailed as one might like but it gets the job done.

YuriP wrote:

Mellored wrote:

Gortle wrote:

I agree this is my biggest concern with Guardian - that Intercept Strike is so weak that people will just take Champion's Reaction instead.

My second biggest being the feats at level 1-4 that other builds are going to take from these classes. Hamperings Sweeps being too strong, and Defensive Swap being 90 percent of the point of Guardian in one feat.

I don't expect Hampering Sweeps to survive as is.

I expect something like difficult terrain or similar.

I heard a similar thing about Wings of Air during Kineticist playtest and the only thing that changed was its name to Cyclonic Ascent.

2 people with reach weapons, both using Hampering Sweeps (including 2 feats for a champion) can immobilize anything.

G= Guardian
x= empty space
E= enemy

GxExG

The enemy can't move away from either one. It is stuck, at level 2 (or 4 for other classes).

Flying is available to all casters at level 7. Air Kineticist isn't doing anything new at level 8. Just doing it more often.

Isn't this already covered by the duplicate effects part of the core rules?

So since I’ve recently come off of watching Arcane and reading through Outlaws of Alkenstar (still holding out for a Numeria based campaign in 2e), I’d like to discuss the Alkenstar of 2e, since Outlaws of Alkenstar was our first firsthand view of the place in this edition since like one module in 1e.

To be honest, it’s really disappointing to see that they decided to emphasize the “”Bronze Dead Redemption/cowboys with flintlocks”” thing, instead of really focusing on the steampunk/ pulp-weird tech elements.

Maybe this is just a case of a tremendously good portrayal of something being compared to a merely ok portrayal of something, but every time I look at the worldbuilding and ambience of Piltover/Zaun in Arcane and compare it to Skyside/Smokeside of Alkenstar the latter winds up looking like a poor imitation.

Having said that, I believe a great deal of things could be fixed by giving up the weird obsession with flintlock muzzle-loaders that Pathfinder seems to have and replacing them with simple mechanical revolvers and rifles, and more exotic things like maybe the Golarion/Mana Wastes version of thasteron-powered guns (would add subplots for mining that stuff as well).

A new dedicated clockwork automaton ancestry like Golarion’s version of the warforged would help the flavor as well. Lean into the mad science subplot opportunities (possible interplanetary/interplanar adventures might happen here). And depending on personal preference, maybe replace some of the dusty streets with neon lights?

What are your thoughts on this?

ps: the fact that the main plot character of OoA seems to disappear after book 1 and how the overarching plot about “”pyronite”” simply doesn’t seem to be enough of a high stakes enough plot (and that any mention of the stuff vanishes completely after the AP ends) doesn’t help anything

Personally I think the theme of mad science is a bit more Ustalav than it is Alkenstar.

TBH, in lore, Pharasma is rarely depicted as actively hunting undead. Hating them doesn't mean she goes out of her way to destroy them. She's patient, and know that ultimely, most will still die.

One of her Edicts is literally "Destroy undead."

Definitely steering clear of this one. Maybe take a look at launch. Current reviews are just as bad as expected, likely only getting worse, and no shocker cite some of the same points posters here predicted would be issues. Pick better partners Paizo. There is pretty clear evidence of demand for a PF2e CRPG, both in and outside the PF2e ttrpg community, but we get a vampire survivors cash grab and an ARPG with the most generic looking environments and enemies around.

Before we get Intelligence to Healing I'd like the DC to be lowered by like 5 first.

Healing at low level is no fun.

Low level is one of the only times healing is interesting in the game.

I guess the PFS scenarios themselves provide the description of the skills and DCs needed for identification and those needed for disabling.

It doesn't normally provide a description of skills or DCs needed for identification outside of the standard perception check. There's no additional information in a PFS Haunt stat block than in any other. I'm sure there's an exception in a Haunt stat block out there but it would be the exception.

Not sure if you're interested but there are many player-created versions that might appeal to you. In my drive, I have at least 6 different versions for my players. Unfortunately, I don't have any links to these outside my drive but you might want to look around and see what you find.

I'd like to back this, but won't while I am still waiting for fulfillment of the previous Kickstarter project.

While I did back it I have to admit this was my first thought. Why would I back another Battlezoo Kickstarter when I still haven't received any of the physical contents of the first two? What changed my mind is the fact that delivery of this one appears to be within months. However, I do think it's worth considering the public perception of starting a new project, asking for more money, and not having fully delivered either of the two previous projects.

Knowing everything we know about Sarenrae as well as what her creator has shared I really doubt that if you were legitimately lying to save a life and there was no other option, etc etc she wouldn't care.

Mechanically you might as well tell the lie. The text on Anathema says "If you perform enough acts...." acts plural. So as long as you are not doing these things repeatedly you're fine anyway.

We've told "infiltrating Razmir's cult". We've told "stop Razmir from getting immortality". That's about all the status-quo stuff that he had in PF1. In PF2, he's got the "selling out to Tar-Baphon" thing going on, so that's new. It also doesn't feel like there's an adventure to be had from that without changing the status quo further. Razmir's just been getting older and putting off problems for a decade, and he started out old and putting off problems. The dude has gotta die, actually get immortality in an interesting way, or be invaded with consequences so dire that helping out a scumbag like him is worth it for the sake of the people in his country.

Razmir is a cool setpiece for the setting, but Razmiran seems harder to adventure in than any of the other evil nations. It's stressful cult oversight top to bottom, and it's even hard to get buy-in from the players for an villain game because everybody knows that Razmir is a fraud.

I am probably biased, or not the target audience. I was a player in Masks of the Living God, and I found it to be one of the most unenjoyably stressful games I've been in. It felt like you couldn't do anything.

I'm plenty interested in "what's going on with Razmiran as the setting progresses", but it's not something I'd want an adventure in as it stands. Neither side would be appealing to me.

I thought Razmir is

Honest opinion if you didn't tell someone this game was associated with Pathfinder they would have no idea. This looks like a generic reskin of an existing game in an effort to cash in on its popularity. The characters and visuals are bland and the effects look anemic. The characters are named things like 'The Rogue' or 'The Wizard' if they'd at least used the iconics or something idk. This is another swing and a miss from BKOM for me.

Wow spoilers on the Kickstarter page.

Some changes have me really excited while others have been extremely disappointing. Overall I'm feeling pretty meh about the whole thing. I'll wait until it's out to make up my mind.

I was really hoping to see Paizo's updated take on the Drow. Maybe bioluminescent fungus worshipers with ties to the outer gods or who knows what else. This is honestly the worst of both worlds - removing Drow and leaving nothing or nonsensical oops all snake people in their place. Cavern elves aren't even close to a substitute especially if they're going to be heroes of the darklands. I'm sure I'll get over it but I don't think I could be more disappointed than this.

Since this got brought up, yes. I'm on the panel and will be talking about some adjustments that will be made to the Darklands—this area, more than pretty much any other region in Golarion, is significantly impacted by the fact that so many of the things that live there have deep ties to the OGL and D&D. It's a region we haven't really done much significant with since the pre-Pathfinder RPG softcover book that panel is named after, "Into the Darklands" (we NEVER did a big book about this location for the actual Pathfinder RPG, other than something like Darklands Revisited, which is less about the region so it doesn't really count for what I'm talking about here).

I fully expect what we've got planned for the Darklands to disappoint some people and excite other people, but again... more than any other location on Golarion, this is a part of our setting that needs an update.

There's plenty new we've brought to the underground, like serpentfolk and seugathis and urdefhans and munavris, and some stuff from public domain like gugs and morlocks, but there's a LOT going on down there that, as a result of it being developed when we were using D&D as our rulebook, remains very D&D if that makes sense.

The "Into the Darklands" panel will be a lot more about our upcoming Sky King's Tomb Adventure Path and the Highhelm book (both of which represent the closest and biggest thing we've done in a long while to playing in the Darklands), but the time to recontextualize is near. Some things will stay the same. Some things are going to significantly change. I'm actually pretty nervous about how everyone's gonna react to some of it... but it HAS TO HAPPEN.

We'll have more to reveal in a few...

Can't wait to see what you all have in store! I'm sure we won't be disappointed.

James Jacobs wrote:

It's a region we haven't really done much significant with since the pre-Pathfinder RPG softcover book that panel is named after, "Into the Darklands" (we NEVER did a big book about this location for the actual Pathfinder RPG, other than something like Darklands Revisited, which is less about the region so it doesn't really count for what I'm talking about here).

I should have expected this was the case. Drow in particular seem like a footnote in the setting. Something I would easily forget was ever there if it disappeared

They feature heavily in at least two of 2e's APs, one of which is probably the most popular, I wouldn't describe that as a footnote. In 2e splats/rules so far sure, but they have featured plenty in the narrative.

IMO (and some will disagree) but Cavern Elves adequately fill the space Drow took up with none of the egregious baggage.

Drow are not totally normal elves that fled Golarion during Earthfall, came back, and took up residence in caves, which then influenced their biology resulting in Darkvision. Most of the people interested in having a Drow Ancestry would not be even slightly satisfied by that outcome just like they haven't been since 2e's launch. There's no reason Drow can't be just as amazing and different as Ekujae, Mualijae, Vourinoi, etc.

On the subject of Protean villains there's a PFS plot thread that features one. You can see it prominently in

That sounds like a console thing, it's difficult to imagine for a PC game. And it sounds even worse to me than playing over the internet.

There are literally a ton of PC games with this feature. My wife and I play this way all of the time.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Fighter's only class features besides it's increased proficiencies are better Initiative, better Will saves vs fear, AoO, and Combat Flexibility. The only one of these that is remotely unique is Combat Flexibility, and it's just more feats. It emphasizes the Fighter's nature as the "Build a Bear" class.

Monk's core feature, on the other hand, is Flurry of Blows. It's a rather plain feature with no bells or whistles attached that signposts that Monk is an action efficiency class. There's not too many ways to tweak it compared to more complex mechanics, and it already has fantastic feat support for that.

Meanwhile, something like a Cleric's deity or a Witch's patron is central to each class's concept as a whole. In addition, both impact the classes' core feature of spellcasting via domains and changing your tradition, respectively.

The only subclasses that don't really do this at all...

Perhaps it's more useful to think about what "build a bear" doesn't build. Soldiers - I cannot build a convincing soldier, unless I select the Hobgoblin ancestry. However, my expectation is that out of the box, a fighter can easily be used to build a soldier. However, if you sub all of those bells and whistles around combat flexibility, then you can do something interesting in that space. Moreover, I see an issue with the "build a bear" approach. All fighters in PF2 are bears but not all fighter concepts are. And so there is a delta here where the supposed flexibility fails.

Now we could argue that we could use archetypes here but, as any semi-optimizer is going to tell you, either you want to multi-class as a caster for those tasty spells or you just straight up want a fighter feat, because many of them are very good. So in practice, you don't use archetypes to turn fighters into soldiers. Just selecting feats doesn't get the job done.

Regarding the monk, it has at least four core features, one of which is flurry. The other three are: 1) stances, 2) unarmored defense...

How are you not able to build a convincing soldier with the Fighter chassis? I feel like a lot of people playing this game have surely done that before.

3-Body Problem wrote:

Before I say anything else, I am shocked at how many of you tolerate such terrible inflexible GMing. Go find an actually good GM or start a group among your friends. You don't need to deal with terrible PuGs and power-tripping online GMs.

Secondly, I don't think Cackle is the right choice to build the Witch around. I'd much rather see patrons and their teachings take a more central role and things like cackling, familiars, and even hexes become active choices you make when figuring out what powers your patron has granted you.

Unfortunately for a lot of us, finding a different GM or even playing PF2e in person and not online isn’t an option. (Btw what does PuGs mean?). Not to mention PFS by its very nature is very inflexible and wouldn’t let someone use cackle without having their character actually cackle.

Unfortunately these GMs are the best we can settle on, so having rules be more flexible with flavor so GMs or maybe even other players can’t use it as a weapon against our character’s flavor through rules lawyering, is for the best

In an ideal world, people would be more flexible and the goal would be to make sure everyone has fun and that we can reflavor to our heart’s content, where rule 1 was indeed the make important rule to all GMs and players, where there wouldn’t be any rules lawyers jumping in and telling us that our witch has to actually cackle and can’t sing a haunting hymn or angelic singing because any other sound than “cackle” isn’t “RAW”, or them jumping in and saying our tiefling can only be red colored and can’t be purple or green, etc. In an ideal world, we can just lead a table and easily find a new table with a different GM but a lot of us can’t because this isn’t an ideal world. I have yet to find a pbp text campaign or a westmarch server that allows battlezoo despite me really wanting to use those books for my characters

I doubt it was Paizo’s intention to limit characters flavor but seeing that it’s caused issues Paizo should try to...

I've played and run a lot of society. I'm trying to picture a society GM saying "uh actually you didn't state your character made an auditory expression of a number of positive emotional states, such as joy, mirth, happiness, or relief and therefore you can't use Cackle" and I just can't. Society isn't a mythical boogeyman waiting to catch you in a rules straitjacket.

I really don't think they'd care about the Prestidigitation thing either.

In the games I GM I just let my spellcasters do any magical effect they want as long as it has no mechanical impact on the game. I think a lot of players and GMs in PF2e are under the impression that a character sheet is permissive/restrictive - as in the only things your character can do are the things on their sheet when this isn't the case. Obviously this doesn't cover society play, but I feel like this should almost just be written into that system.

Am I missing something? With current books you only need to buy the Core Rulebook and Bestiary to have everything you need to play with 6 ancestries and 12 classes. You don’t need GMG or APG unless you want GM advice and optional rules or more ancestries and classes/class options.

For the Remaster you need at least 3 books PC1, GMC and MC to have everything you need. You will also have some optional rules in GMC that you may not need, but you also miss out on what may be considered core classes (barbarian, champion, monk and sorcerer) since the year 2000 unless you buy PC2 as well.

Is this not raising the barrier to entry, in a way, for some? In other words, you may not need to buy 1 huge rule book any more, but you need to buy 3 large rule books if you want to play a ‘paladin’ (plus monster book, but you need that in either case).

To be fair, Paizo always considered the Core to include CRB, APG, GMG, and Beastiaries 1-3, not a CRB and Beastiary 1. There's only one extra book with the remaster and there's a bunch of content being folded into these from other existing books. Whether that's enough to equal an entire book, we don't know, but adding one book to the Core 4 years after launch seems pretty reasonable to me.

I am happy to see folks run it however works best at their table, but this is my understanding. I see the indicator in the Trigger for Shield Block - "...you would take damage from a physical attack." How do you know you would take damage from a physical attack? Only by completing Steps 1-3 of the damage calculation process. That means that Hardness has to be applied in Step 4 after immunities, resistances, weaknesses, etc have all been calculated. So Hardness is applied only once to the total damage left over.

They play a key role in the Age of Ashes AP so may be worth looking at.

Would also be cool if scenarios could be bundled with their respective maps.

BloodandDust wrote:

Just reiterating something I'd mentioned before, because IMO it is key to playing a caster. This is rookie league stuff, but just in case:

Monsters have four defenses - AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. Make sure you have an attack for every defense. Find and exploit the lowest one in every combat (or at least avoid the highest)*.

That's basically it. After that, go nuts!

* if you want to play a theme, like "Fire Blaster", then you will get completely shafted in about 1/4 of your combats due to resistances/immunities... but you should expect that right? choosing to self-nerf has consequences.

I'd like to play a "Black Mage" and have spells that deal Ice, Fire and Lightning (Icea, Fira, Thundera, etc..) damage. They also have access to some "untyped" massive damage spells like Flare, Ultima, and in the MMO Xenoglossy and Polysomething.

That being said there are Obvious Choices: Ray of Frost, Produce Flame, Electric Arc, Fire Ball, Snow Storm, Lightning bolt however I've noticed that it's basically all reflex saves.

To keep on theme of a Final Fantasy Black Mage (for instance Lulu in FFX had access to Bio, which I think is a damage over time poison ability, for instance) how would you choose to target Will Saves for damage?

Doesn't Black Mage in many of the games have Charm, Deafen, Sleep, Silence, Slow, Stun, etc.? There should be nothing stopping you from targeting will saves and staying on theme. TBH I don't think deal damage with spells is an accurate summary of the Black Mage's shtick any more than White Mage's is heal party members.

I think they are arrows. It makes it easy to describe turns over texts, among other things. Like Sudden Charge >> quick reversal > for example.

I've always seen them as arrows too.

This is a cool houserule, thanks for sharing. I can't use it myself because we play online and I haven't got access to the hero point deck, but if I'm ever in a game with it I'll definitely recommend.

A GM who is used to handing out more hero points could down the power level by asking their players to hand out fewer cards. Everyone still gets three, but each person only hands a card to their party member to the right so everyone gets one. Or if the group are comfortable with swingier hero point results each person could get only two cards, instead.

I do agree that some element of cooperation is a must for that kind of system; if nothing else it gets everybody into the PF2E mindset.

If you play on Foundry it's there and usable.

I did find some good goblins (2) for a Goblin Thief/Ranger who would dual wield, but no Hobgoblins. I appreciate all the links!

Wizkids has a Hobgoblin Soldier. I found one here.

keftiu wrote:

Helmic wrote:

A level 1-20 Adventure Path that isn't about becoming or otherwise aligning the party with a state power.

Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, and Strength of Thousands don’t count as this? Lots of 1e options, too.

You're literally in service to Escadar for "reasons" during EC#2.

Similarly, you align and work with state powers at different points in Age of Ashes too.

breithauptclan wrote:

I enjoyed Fall of Plaguestone.

Very cool. I appreciate the recommendation. What did you enjoy about?

There's a little murder mystery, it's got a 3 act plot similar to a movie or a play, and it has a little bit of all of the mechanics similar to the beginner box but not quite as on the nose. Pretty good balance between roleplay and combat opportunities.

Thanks! That makes more sense. Does it relate to party level somehow?

Guntermench wrote:

It's the creature/hazard/encounter level. Encounters also have Trivial/Low/Moderate/Severe/Extreme to denote the danger level of the encounter.

So that's a Low threat level 1 encounter with 4x level -1 creatures and a level 2 hazard.

The level numbers are specific to the hazard/enemy/etc. So the 4 creatures in this encounter will always be Level -1 even when the party is level 20. The threat rating (Low/Moderate/Sever/etc) and xp values are determined by comparing to the party's level and would vary over time.

Sixty Symbols, a physics YouTube channel, ran ChatGPT through some word problems and it failed. On a few it got the math right despite misunderstanding the concepts in question, while in another it got the concept right, but then biffed the math by 10x.

So yeah, pretty straightforward compared to RPGing, yet erroneous.
I wonder if it has something to do with mixing up wording on purpose for original conversation? Some sort of wiggle-factor?

The reason for this is that ChatGPT does not do math. There's a great explanation by Ascalaphus upthread.

Guntermench wrote:

That Razing trait going to bring up the "But Strike says you can only attack creatures!" nonsense again.

Again? It never left... It does specifically mention hazards, shields, vehicles and animated objects, all things that actually have ways to attack them in the rules.

Maybe we'll get lucky and here's a sidebar somewhere in there about attacking normal objects.

PS: On runes, coating is a good rune for toxicologists and witches[holds 10 poisons or magic oils and can apply it hands free without an Interact] flurrying lets a monk no waste it's second flurry attack if the enemy dies on the first.

Isn't this all covered by the rules on Item Damage and the Material Statistics table? The item damage rules seem to pretty clearly call out you can attack (Strike) any object you want: "An item can be broken or destroyed if it takes enough damage.... Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps."

Verzen wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm mildly concerned that we haven't heard any news of elemental eidolons yet; they seem like something that would have been talked about already. The book is still over half a year out though, so I have hope.

There was a goofy water elemental that my party named Squidicus that I'd love to graduate from recurring joke to full character.

Look what I just found...

https://twitter.com/paizo/status/1563640057885765634?lang=en

Yeah... that's explicitly the marketing department saying that they don't know, and trying to build a bit of hype.

Do we have any confirmation (or even strong implication) on the elemental barbs at all, or is that just a "some people really want it"?

I mean, I admit, I'm one of the people who want it. It's just that I'd largely given up on it, and I wanted to know if there was reason to think that was premature.

Elemental Barbs comes from an interview with Paizo posted on a website. Can't remember the name at the moment Wargaming? maybe. That's where the iron druid thing came from too.

I believe the Cayden's Keg discord has 'play by post' offerings as well. They're a welcoming group of people.

Yeah, sure, a location splat with several ancestries, none of which have a flaw just happens to be released a couple months before they announce the change. Pure coincidence.

Own it. Don't give me this "If you like your core rules, you can keep them" line.

Whether you're right or not it's definitely not as clear as you're making it out to be. Even in the Twitter thread, I assume you're getting that info from, the account clarifies that they are a marketing account, pointing out their observation, and have no idea if that's how future ancestries will be printed.

Regardless of what they print it won't change my enjoyment of the game at all. It's really a non-issue. However, I would prefer most future Ancestries to have 2 boosts, a free, and a flaw. Printing boost/free is pure flavor and not even interesting because the current canon has any Ancestry able to be good at any two things they want (this is a great change) so this text does nothing that can't be covered by the text description of the Ancestry itself. It doesn't lend any fun or thought to character building so I think it's best left off entirely if they go that route.

Storm Dragon wrote:

Eh, at the point you're a millionaire, any further engagement beyond soaking up your passive income is purely by choice, not necessity. The choice he makes to keep working with Wizards will be just that: a choice.

Is he officially a millionaire at this point? Damn, I always forget just how much money CR is printing.

Regardless, I'm definitely not out to defend CR. Between the cultivation and maintenance of some very unhealthy parasocial relationships with their audience and the fumbling a bunch of (rich) white nerds keep doing around issues of race, there's plenty to criticize there. It's just worth understanding the difference between the material and legal conditions of Critical Role the company and the material and legal conditions of Matt Mercer the individual.

The man's not even CEO of the company.

Per the Twitch leaks a couple of years back they were one of if not the highest earning streamers on the platform at over 9 million dollars over 1-2 years. That's only counting donations not sponsorships, merch, or anything else.

My group has run Fall of Plaguestone, Age of Ashes, Beginner Box, Troubles in Otari, and working through the rest of Abomination Vaults. I think they were all great in their own way. Don't overlook Age of Ashes or Fall of Plaguestone, they're both really solid, and I think the difficulty has become a bit of a meme at this point. My players had never played TTRPGs and they did fine.

nephandys wrote:

For what it's worth I do some work in this field. We're already running studies on providing mental health treatment via machine learning.

Now that's just terrifying.

It is sort of like the problem I have with self-driving cars. Sure it works great when it works. But when it doesn't work, who is at fault? Do we just assume that if an AI car and a human driven car get into an accident, that it must be the human driver's fault because the AI wouldn't make any mistakes?

How about if a mentally ill patient has problems with their therapy? Do all mentally ill patients have the capacity to complain to an actual person if they are having problems? Who is watching over the AI therapist? Do they actually have time to watch over all of the AI therapy sessions? If so, why do we even have AI therapy in the first place?

Test oracle problem: If the human watcher has the time and knowledge to actually verify the work of the AI, why do we need the AI? Just have the human do it and save ourselves the cost of AI development. And if the human watcher doesn't have the time or knowledge to verify the work of the AI, then how do we know that the AI didn't muck things up?

AI as assistants sounds great. AI as replacements for humans doesn't.

I totally agree with you and that's always been our hypothesis. However, there are groups that would say it could increase access, supply, decrease disparity, increase revenue, etc. I find all of those arguments wanting for different reasons but they're hard to refute without data. I don't want to derail the thread. I just wanted to point out that the capability is significantly more sophisticated than you might expect and the stakes are significantly lower for a Game Master than a therapist.

For what it's worth I do some work in this field. We're already running studies on providing mental health treatment via machine learning. Subjects are almost always unaware it's an AI unless given that information. I think some are underestimating what these algorithms are capable of when it comes to running a game.

I don't see folks mention it much, but I was thinking about it the other day. There is a pretty major tonal shift towards horror when entering into AV from BB and/or Troubles. That's the sort of thing my group is into, but it might not be everyone's cup of tea. I could even see Chapter 3 of Troubles crossing into that realm too.

Hi guys, thanks to Hasbro's greed I am wanting to shift my campaigns over from DND 5th edition to Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

I can find guides to convert from 3.5 to 1st and also from 1st to 2nd, but is there anything to help conversion from DnD 5th to P2?

Thanks in advance.

Regards

Adrian

This question comes up a lot on the PF2e subreddit lately. I think you'll find a lot of resources there. You would also find a lot of help via their Discord too.

Probably a dumb question. But why is FAQ split by printings anyway? Why not a single list of errata that starts from page 1 and goes to the end of the CRB in order regardless of printing? These aren't patch notes so I'm not sure why they're being organized as if they were. I play Warhammer and there are errata/FAQs all the time and they're organized by things like page number, not the date they decided to clarify.

I'm sure someone will be curious about which changes happened when but you could use a superscript number at the end of each change indicating the printing or something.

Love the new option for free/free since it opens up a ton of options. I do agree with others that I'd like to see future ancestries +/+/free/- rather than fixed/free. Fixed/free is sort of a headscratcher on why even call this out when free/free is an option. It doesn't seem meaningful at all.