thaX's page

I have been avoiding Nexus simply because I would have to buy all the books again after having done so for Herolab. This is on top of the service being tied to a web portal ALA AOL Mail type of interface and after being burned when the license for 3.5 was pulled from Etools, forever ending support and nixing the next version of their expansive Forge engine that needed another six monthes to further develop.

For me, Having both Herolab and Nexus is not viable, and I will keep with the standard instead of the new shiny that would cost me more to have the same material that I already have with the other service.

The Roll20 clique is nice and all, though I am confused as to why it wasn't something that all character generators could use to fill the Roll20 sheet instead of the exclusive interaction with Nexus.

Sorry, but I will stick with Herolab.

Mike!! Congrats!!

A word on Vancian casting for a moment.

It isn't the slotting of spells that is the problem, it is the forgetting of it after it is cast. A wizard, Cleric, and other prepared casters in the game (PF2 or otherwise) need to be able to pull on the spells they have put to memory without having to waste resources to slot in extra copies for multiple castings. This is something that should have been down with D&D 3.0 instead of including both Wizard and Sorcerer with cross competing mechanics that needed nerfed on one end to prop up the other.

A note on prepared casters. PF2 kept the premise of memory wiping spells after casting, the "fire and forget" type where one needs to prepare multiple copies of a spell if they want to cast it more than once.

There is some mitigation with this, starting with the bonded object, but having to waste resources to get a multiple of a favorite spell is an unforgivable tax and the reason I try to play the spontaneous casters when I can.

The other way to go is the Flexible Caster, but the pairing down of spell castings makes it to where they are almost a half caster and more reliant on their cantrips.

Hopefully, PF3 puts the nail in the coffin of Vancian casting.

As a merchandiser, the typical rotation for bestsellers is the Hardcover coming out first, than a trade paperback coming around 6 months later, depending on continuing sales, then if the sales of the book is slumping but is enough for consideration, the paperback version comes about a year later. Sometimes as soon as 6 months if they skip having the trade paperback.

Seeing the same titles come up again and again in different formats gets to me sometimes, seeing some books go through the process in an accelerated time scale, getting the hardcover and paperback within two months sometimes, but that gets a bit extreme with the release schedule.

thaX wrote:

Why was there two arcane casters who were basically doing the same thing with different mechanics? Why not just use the new mecanic overall in the system instead of keeping the old with the new?

Because it is wrong to exclude people with different preferences when you can easily accomodate both.

Different people like each one. That is Ok isn't it?

The overall feel I get is that those playing the brand that PF2 Remastered is moving away from in it's current (soon to be NeRfEd) iteration love that the same mechanic is used throughout, and that the wizard chooses what spell he has in his memory to cast each time instead of forgetting said spell after casting.

OfCourse, the brand has other issues that have nothing to do with magic use, but that is another discussion I don't want to delve into.

The point is that there was two distinct ways to do magic mechanics, and one had to be nerfed to keep the other. Not a great start.

So...

I have mixed feelings about this change, but need to clarify my overall preference since D&D 3.0.

Why was there two arcane casters who were basically doing the same thing with different mechanics? Why not just use the new mecanic overall in the system instead of keeping the old with the new?

I talk, of course, of the difference between the Wizard (Vacian Caster) vs. the Sorcerer (Spontaneous Caster).

I went with the Sorcerer from then on, then in PF1, each caster got a CHA based Spontaneous Caster equivalent in later books, the most prevalent being Cleric/Oracle.

I still don't see a reason to keep having to mem more than one copy of a spell to cast it more than once.

That being said, removing the schools will give the arcane casters overall a better fit into the setting and will set the PF2/PF3 Pathfinder setting in a better position overall. The room to have the wizard grow will likely make the class separate itself from the Sorcerer that much more, and hopefully have ways to recall a spell in place of Memorized ones more than once.

I had thought the Sorcerer would be the Elementalist of the arcane classes in PF2, but the same structure for Vacian/Spontaneous system made for different priorities. Seems that the elements are also being taken over by the Kinestest.

Be interesting to see how the changes will be overall in the caster realm with the rest of the classes from here.

Any information on how we are supposed to use other sources of replays not tracked in the system such as the one that allows you to give replays to others?

This issue could be avoided with a simple check box on the reporting page for "replays tracked elsewhere" or something along those lines that allows credit without subtracting from the online replays. If worried about trust you could make it require VO approval or something.

I am also interested in this. I have various replays I have done that are from the Expanded Narritive in PF1, a reaccuring boon for the successive seasons, one from a boon that was from a Tales book, and another for SFS from a Venture Officer to fill a table at a charity con.

I have the info for them, just need to know who to tell and what to check.

So, a couple of things with catching up...

4th edition essentials... Was Compatible with the old in the same way 3.5 was compatible with 3.0 or that 1st edition could be used with 2nd edition. (I played in a 2nd ed game where another player had a 1st ed Assassin in the party.)

It took the balancing aspect of the system, and broke it.

---

The dragons upcoming actually sound cool. My lament is that they are "replacing" the OG dragons (colored and Metalic) and I wonder if the Shadow and Nightmare dragons are going to be a part of this.

I still miss the Mercury dragon from 3.5, the sly little fella.

---

Kobolds already had a big change in PF2, with bigger heads and stouter bodies. Sounds like they will embrace their big brethren dragons no matter the changes.

---

My overall view about the Stat changing to Mod's only is that it is unnecessary to completely remove the original numbers. There are a lot of other systems that don't use the OGL that have this array.

Heck, I am still disappointed 3.0 didn't include the seventh stat (COM)

thaX wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Ability Scores are out. Modifiers only.

That would suck. It was bad enough that HeroLab OnLine has still not had the ability scores be featured instead of the ability mods with teeny tiny list of the actual scores to the side.

Why would they copy Mutants and Masterminds?

It’s not a “would” anything - this change is in, presumably because Ability Scores that were entirely vestigial was silly. If an 18 Strength only matters because it gives you a +4, it should probably just be a +4 Strength, no confusing 18 needed.

So, when I want to go up to +5, what happens? I don't have a "19" in the score anymore, so I can only have lower scores go up now?

This is an unnecessary change, and one that would have nothing to do with the OGL/ORC issue. Alignment has always been in the crosshairs, as Small Weapons got the boot in the crossover between PF1 and PF2. The focus on the modifiers has always been a strange duck, and all scores going up by two exclusively instead of the point buy in PF1 (D&D as well?) has always been a head scratcher for me. Starfinder even has a single point stat bonus in character creation.

Mods only makes it generic. I didn't like it in Mutants and Masterminds, not gonna like it here.

Ability Scores are out. Modifiers only.

That would suck. It was bad enough that HeroLab OnLine has still not had the ability scores be featured instead of the ability mods with teeny tiny list of the actual scores to the side.

Why would they copy Mutants and Masterminds?

Coming in late again, as I don't look at the boards on a daily basis.

I suggested playing from the Core rulebook to be a primer for learning the rules, seeing how PFS organized play is, and begin to get the basics down in a few sessions as others at the table help out.

We are a friendly group, and like to put newer players at ease and help them where they need during play. Ask questions and we will do our best to guide you through.

The core races do have some good qualities, and as you seen above, The Kobold is available. I also love the inclusion of the Goblin.

The AcP is also available to get an Ancestry/Heritage that you would want for a character as you get more experienced and have a better grasp of what those choices could do for you and what combinations would click.

Main thing here... Have fun.

My late chime in for this subject.

The Tengu ancestry should have been a free Ancestry from the beginning, since they were a part of PFS in PF1 for a majority of the 10 seasons (11 counting season 0).

I believe they are called Kenku in the brand.

Now, I have some qualms about some of the decisions on the other side of the aisle, as the brand had, in a previous iteration, left out Gnomes in the initial players book, and the inclusion of the Tiefling has always been a headscratcher for me. (Talking core races here)

For Pathfinder, including Goblins was a brilliant move, since the little buggers has become an icon for the system since their introduction in Rise of the Runelords. (Fire! Fire!) There are some that disagree with the little guy becoming a core race. The turning of the half races (Elf/Orc) into Heritages was something to get used to and really not optimal, but it does give an example of the mechanic in the Core Rulebook.

My overall advice is to give the game a chance. I would start with a Core book character for the first time, and expand as you get more experienced with the game and mechanics flow.

Oar remembers little Nixret. Oar is happy that she followed Oar in helping the Pathfinder Society, and hopes that Oar and Nixret meets in the future on some adventure.

Ah, the wonder and serenity of the Garden brings a tear to Oar's eye, to here the bird song once again when Oar returns to the Lodge at some point is something to look forward to.

4th edition had some good ideas, some of which is used in PF2. This is especially true in the Bestiary builds for Monsters.

Healing Surges are something that is sort of twisted and used (in a weird way) in PF2 and I still don't like the heavy nErf(tm) to the wands that was done in PF2.

I still think Defenses should be the default instead of turning the saves to the target rolling it, but it was made into another form of AC in 4th edition, which killed that aspect for future editions and iterations.

I still liken this to the Essentials being shoehorned into 4th edition back in the day. It killed 4e and put a stain on D&D that it still had not recovered from, even with the 5th edition success.

Now they are saying that this new iteration is gonna be compatible with 5th edition. It is more like a build up of the system and a prerunner to 6 (Really, 7th)th edition coming out soon after.

Look for it in 2028. Whether WotC still has the IP, or someone else buys it and slaps on the TSR label back on it, "6th" edition will be coming.

*The previous statements are humble opinions of the author and not a result of any insider news or sources of ill repute*

One of the things I see here is the want for Wizards to "monetize" the 5th edition third party product via Royalties. Pretty much a lot of the 3.0/3.5 material has either been updated or revamped to the point that the license is is a secondary thought at this point.

PF2 likely could be published as it's own content without the need for the license, as it is far removed from 3.5 stile rules. My humble and earnest take on this is that the license is used currently only to continue the setting on a familiar structure of classes and D20 paradigm.

To me, Pathfinder would do fine without the license alltogether, whether that means "third edition" or an errata to adjust rules to further distiguish from the IP.

The real question is what Starfinder is gonna do. I expect that Starfinder 2nd edition has already been in the works already, bringing in line with and unifying with the Pathfinder system, and having time travelers go back and forth between the settings... wouldn't that be exciting?

I believe Paizo will be fine no matter what the new OGL is gonna be. PF2 likely can work without it, or the legality of such a move may prove to be wizard/hasbro overreaching past the current 5th edition line.

Think on this for a moment.

PF1 had races that had all the features from level one where PF2 turned those features into modular additions to the baseline ancestry skeleton. (Which are call (Ancestry) Feats.

This was something that confused me when this new edition came out, other than having everything now being "Feats" in the game.

These options, expanded beyond the beginning features of the original races, are mostly keyed into the culture and background of the Ancestries, pulling from the materials made for PF1 as well as telling a new iteration of these classic (and newer) race ancestries.

The new stat option is a nice compromise to the ongoing discussion in RPG circles about sensitivities that have not been a problem in past editions or in practical play overall.

The Ancestry Feats, as well as the Class Feats, Skill Feats and the very few General Feats out there, really improve our choices and are fine as they are.

Of Course, we could always go back to getting the set features from the beginning instead like in PF1. I really don't want to go to everyone just playing reskinned humans. I avoid playing Fortnite for this very reason.

They replaced the term "race" with something other than "Ancestry." I talk of the brand, not Pathfinder here.

thaX wrote:

I do get the feeling that some of the changes (and forthcoming gutting) in the main brand RPG that this great game is based on has a heavy influence on making this slight change.

Yeah, that's why they changed Race to Ancestry, cause DNDone got rid of it as well. Yep.

I was referring to stat changes, not the name change done years ago in PF2. They botched that also, somehow making it worse than "race." Might as will call the character racial choice "thing" with the replacement they chose.

I look at the evolution of quests from what they began as back in PF1.

It used to be some replayable small one off that started as a one time running at a convention. Then repeatable quest started to come into the fold for low levels (mostly 1st level characters).

We have a few scenarios that consist of four quests put together as a themed bunch, and then had the quest packs with six quests that could be repeated and run together or separately.

Then PF2 came in with "Quests" that, at the beginning, had the repeatable tag, but soon we got some quests that, for the first time, was not repeatable. These began at 1-4 tier and then we had 3-6 tiered quest released.

I appreciate the return of Quests, and the return of having them connected with the Pathfinder Society.

My question is if there are going to be some with the Repeatable tag. With the AP's and other materials outside of the Scenarios having to be played outside of the organized play structure (and retro rewarded with lesser chronicles), there is a limited number of material to actually play our characters in PFS, carbon copies not withstanding.

I still can't believe there is a quest that is not repeatable. Blows my mind.

I would add another complication to the online play of this tabletop game. Which virtual table top do we use, and would they have their own servers or create one on the DM's computer like the sponsored one for Pathfinder? Which character sheet to use for the specific table, and can it be made from the infomation from Herolab or the new character thingy that I forget the name of at this moment?

Sorry, but except for the Roll20 games here locally when I can't come in person, I am skipping the online play and the Online Cons. Hopefully, Gen Con will be in person, so I can GM some games and see everyone again.

I did not attend Gen Con this year. Though the reason is quite apparent, I will not go into it here.
I do think I will echo the sentiment in the earlier post, that things should be back to normal next year. I still think Paizo may not have the whole Saga Ball Room, but hopefully will have a bigger area than this years' offering.

I look forward to volunteering next year to GM, and hope to improve my little corner of the con.

Still waiting for that dragon plushie from the scenario that we have to sneak by without waking it up. Doesn't need to be life sized....

What did Mr. Butler do at Turbine? Was he involved with Lord of the Rings Online or D&D Online?

I had just started playing DDO. They "Borrowed" some things from PF2, like the enhancement trees being like archtype add ons instead of Prestige Class type of divergent class multiple.

Quite enjoying myself requainting myself to various setting aspects from 3.5.

As I said, disappointed.

The situation as a whole, not just to any particular individual or such.

I am a but a simple role player in this game hoping to have fun at the table with dice and stats. Everyone is welcome to join me, I just hope that everyone has a good time.

Saying nothing is an option, and that was something I was seriously considering before posting, though it is difficult to keep silent sometimes. I just see some of these situations and begin to wonder if I can keep playing the game without causing some offense to someone without knowing it.

Just a disappointing situation overall.

The overall situation is disappointing. I am just not sure what to post after that as (with everything else) anything I say or do could be that one thing that puts my own status on shaky ground. Even saying that particular subjects are political or inherently divisive seems to dredge up all matter of issues that have little to nothing to do with the game we actually are here to discuss and play.

I hope to keep playing the game and getting new players interested and involved. I just hate being on eggshells all the time.

I have always maintained that in a heroic campaign, Evil characters are those regulated to the opposing side of the game, those doing vile deeds whilst the heroes try to stop their "evil plans" and bring them to justice... or something of that sort.

Typically, when players begin playing evil alignments, they do the mustache twirling troupes and it turns into a complicated game of Munchkin. (TM)

Most adventures, stories and related material will have an heroic campaign bent, and though the group will likely work with evil characters (NPC's) who's vested interest coincides with their own, having characters diametrically opposed in alignment does bring concerns that might derail the game. It is less of a problem with Chaotic vs Neutral. (True Neutral to me is still a myth) Lawful characters could become just as problematic at times.

Yes, most times the Evil Alignment is reserved for NPC's and enemies.

Are they searching for Gold?

Oh, little ones, not dudes with picks...

Love the PF2 edition....

But...

Flexible Casting has less spells and slots to use, making the Wizard (Arcanist) limited in comparison.

It should have kept the memorization slots and use Spell Per Day (as the new chart) as the limit for casting Spells.

As it is, the vague explanation for Spell Slots makes it unsure about the use of the chart and only clarifies it with the example, which vaguely counterdicts what the entry had put forth previously.

Compare this to the Sorcerer, and it is confusing as to why this limit was so severe.

For the current year, (2021 as of this posting), I believe we have a problem with in person gaming for PF2 because of the continued cautionary stance with the real life issue of sniffles (and worse).

I hope that others do try to GM at some point once we officially open up and declare victory (again?).

For now, I just want the players to come to the table, and not have to do the online thing.

The biggest complaint I have with AcP is the cost of having to spend it for a raise, a boon that should not be dependent on the metric that is for player boons such as Ancestry and access. There was some nice PF1 boons that had been handed out in the past, and I really don't see their equivalent in the current boons except for some of the early scenario boons and a few faction boons.

I imagine that most save their AcP for the Ancestry (Race) boons and practically nothing else. If a newer player has a character die, unless they could afford a raise with character money, they don't have any recourse.

*character Introduction*

Hello, my name is Talia... Talia Blac.... *Ahem* Smyth... Talia Smyth.

My overall opinion is that some of the old standbys could be cheaper AcP cost like the Tengu, Kitsuni, and others that have been freely available in PF1. I would liken it to a lower tier of access.

No politics (also removed posts referencing it).

That's all the bandwidth I have for the evening, sorry it's not more comprehensive, but it's been Noted™.

"Are you in, or are you out?"

It gets to the point where one is either considered right on the subject, or the worst human being ever to walk the earth.

The Mandolalorian is successful because of other leadership as Kennedy was focused on other things. Rogue One (A good movie overall) had contriversy with the representation of a dead actor without compensation, questionable use of deaging tech with a horrific (not completed) princess Leia at the end.

Not to mention the Indy 5 troubles and the High Republic tanking on all fronts. Kennedy being a woman is not a concern.

We just got past the Halloween weekend, hence the inclusion. Why bring up other issues behind it? It shouldn't matter how one dresses, what mannerisms they have, or how they like their coffee. It should matter how they can perform the duties given.

"Too Soon" Well, as others have said... this seems to be something that has been in the works since before the whole issue was brought to light. Both have been with the company for a time before this announcement.

Also, everyone, bear in mind the fact of how many of each particular group is in the populace. It isn't surprising that a lot of the people hired in companies around these United States are those that make of most of the people that live here. There are those that are quite successful in their field that are of minority makeup, and I am sure Paizo has some really great people working for and with them to produce, write and distribute content that are diverse and proud of their station in life.

This isn't anything, when all said and done. Two gentlemen got some extra duties, a nifty title, and a lot more responsibility.

So, it seems that every hire and change in structure in Paizo is going to be under a microscope, and the complaint of the lack of Diversity just seems, to me, out of place and from left field.

Both of these gentlemen has been in the gaming world for quite some time, and have the pedigree that is needed to forefill the duties of the job they are hired to do. It should not matter about their background, orientation, personal dating history, or what Halloween costumes they have worn in the past. The only thing that should be considered when filling a position, or augmenting one that is already filled (as discussed throughout the thread) is the qualifications of the person and the trust of the employer that they can do the job required of them.

Diverse hiring has gone horribly wrong when merit and being qualified for the position is not considered. One only needs to look at the Lucasfilm fiasco with Kathleen Kennedy to see a very extreme example. When a hire is just checking boxes for diversity, it serves only to put a person in over his/her head and will spell trouble for the company in the longer run.

Sorta think that there should have been some way to get Flexible Casting without making it into an Archtype. Now, the Arcanist is not going to be a class by itself for this edition, which is... sad.

I would hope that some additional archtype feats for the Flexible Caster would be added in future books, maybe even get some focus spells that are specific to the alternative casting of the classes that take this alternative.

But, however disappointing this is, at least it is an option out there to get away from the Vancian Casting sacred cow.

A new edition won't help if the stick with the Forgotten Realms setting.

They need to either go fully in on Eberon or go back to the Greyhawk setting. (Dragonlance won't be a factor in this)

Forgotten Realms died in 4th edition.

Prepared spellcasting is a dodo of the roleplaying mechanic that should have been excised from the game in 1st edition (3.0 D&D or PF1) The arcanist type of spellcasting should have been the norm for PF2, but instead it is clinging on to this old crusty from the worn paperback book that Vancian wrote long ago.

How the thing is worded, you can prepare spells in your spell collection in the hightened slots, though it also includes reference to being like a sorcerer in nature while mentioning that you still need at least one 1st level spell in your collection to insure the usage of all spells slots. (does that even make sense?)

So... you can heighten spells by putting the heightened version in your spell collection, or by using higher spell slots with the lower spells, or both? Neither? One or the other? It does not say.

I stand by my assessment. It is a role play aspect and hamstrings the prepared caster as to not step on the Sorcerer's toes.