umopapisdnupsidedown's page

Here's the thing: there has been a pattern of repeated price hikes for PFS scenarios over the last few years far outstripping inflation, and now they're cutting them down to "2-3 hours" (see the Sept 2025 OP blog post). Which is, of course, another price hike (less content per $; shrinkflation, if you will). They are also dropping stat blocks entirely in order to cut development time (and therefore development cost).

This is exactly what I mean about questioning your assumptions, though. To my knowledge, the change to 2-3 hours was because people have been having trouble fitting scenarios in as venues have been closing earlier and earlier—and might I add, has been one of the most welcomed changes. Like I said, for me, don't love it, but it is what it is... And to be fair makes them easier to run because I don't have to block out 5-6 hours of my day.

And removing stat blocks... Is it about saving money, or about reallocating resources? Because in exchange for people not having to format and proofread stat block appendices, we get two scenarios per month. Again, I don't necessarily love the change, because it's going to make things a bit more annoying to prepare and run. But on balance, I can see why the team saw stat block appendices as lower value.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are some big issues (narrower level bands being the main one), but I think you're fundamentally barking up the wrong tree here and it doesn't come
across like you know something Paizo doesn't—quite the opposite, in fact.

For what it's worth, in my opinion you might want to question your assumptions—I don't think the changes are meant to make Org Play scenarios "profitable."

Honestly, assuming they lose money (I don't know that for a fact but I agree with your logic), I don't even think the changes are to make the scenarios lose less money.

Which undercuts the core of your argument.

It doesn't really sound patronizing, it honestly kinda just sounds clueless.

(To be clear, I don't necessarily even like the changes, which is something I have made known. But I think your basic assumptions here are very misplaced.)

Can be useful to remember that not everyone play at the same pace, so how much development/advancement happen in the same span of time will vary.

Totally agree, but it does seem to be pretty consistent. Asked around, and so far the outlier seems to be Strength of Thousands, at least for some groups, at around 60 hours of play per book.

I'm not sure having more two-book APs (with possibly an optional "introductory" adventure) would be an issue for people who play faster—it just means they could play more, which I think is my main point.

Regardless of how fast or slow you play, shorter stories means you can play (and finish) more of them. And I see people talking about padding. Shorter stories hopefully means less padding.

Anyway, I've made my point I suppose, so I will try and stop here :)

umopapisdnupsidedown wrote:

Eight sessions or less for a whole AP volume seems pretty quick to me, I salute your GM but I don't think I could ever match that pace. That would be the equivalent of running a 1-20 AP in 12 months which seems effectively impossible to me, in terms of timeline.

Looking at the actual numbers, all of the APs I've ran for my group have lasted around 42 session +/- 5. But that being said, the sessions are also 6+ hours long each. (Clearly, there's something wrong with me.)

Earlier books typically take longer than later books.

I imagine PBP would take significantly longer though.

Like I said, I find PbP and live sessions (fortnightly anyway) can be roughly equivalent. It's helpful to know that you run long sessions, though, that also partly explains the quick pace.

For example, 8 or 9 weekly 6-hour sessions for an AP book is around 48-54 hours of play. Similarly, my AV and Empires Devoured sessions (as a player and GM, respectively) tend to run around 3-4 hours. So if we finish Empires Devoured in 12-13 shorter sessions, that's around the same amount of gameplay (call it 40-52 hours). And AV took us roughly 8 months per book, but that was only about 13-14 sessions probably. Still roughly in the 42-54 hour range. No idea how long it took us to finish book 2 but it was probably around that.

So I'm guessing a 6-book AP is around 250-300 hours of gameplay.

Getting back to the topic, I suppose I'd like to see more stories in the ~100 hour range, that's about 25-30 sessions which you can do in a year and change with fortnightly sessions and accounting for real life.

As a total aside, a rough conversion for play-by-post is one hour equals one week (I tend to run a bit faster, 3 weeks to 4 hours-ish), so you'd probably be looking at one book every 7-10 months. Roughly equivalent to fortnightly 3-4 hour sessions.

umopapisdnupsidedown wrote:

Two books is still realistically 1-2 years of gaming.

Oof.

Sorry that your group doesn't get together very often.
My group, on average, get through a book in 2 months or less with weekly sessions.

Nah, the ones I'm running are by post, but the pace is actually roughly equivalent to the ones I've played live with fortnightly sessions.

It took us around 8 months to finish the first book of Abomination Vaults in live fortnightly sessions, which was about the same for book one of one of the APs I'm running by post. And I think we finished book three of Ruby Phoenix in about six months by post.

I'm running Empires Devoured in weekly sessions right now, and it's about the length of one AP volume. We are on pace to finish in three months (a little longer, if we skip a couple of weeks), which is about the same pace. Eight sessions or less for a whole AP volume seems pretty quick to me, I salute your GM but I don't think I could ever match that pace. That would be the equivalent of running a 1-20 AP in 12 months which seems effectively impossible to me, in terms of timeline.

I'm going to go one further than "not sequels" and throw my hat in the ring for "in fact, two-book APs."

Don't get me wrong, in principle I absolutely LOVE the idea of a six-book AP like Strength of Thousands, and I hope to play it someday. And on paper, a pseudo-six book AP made up of a prequel and a sequel seems cool.

But I will never, ever get to playing or running all the APs I want to play or run. I'm nearing the halfway point in book two of one that I'm running now and I just pray we have the steam to make it through to the end of book three. It'll be about another year, I think, and by that time I'll be ready to do something else. I've hit a slowdown in my Seven Dooms game but it's short enough that it still feels tractable.

Two books is still realistically 1-2 years of gaming. And I love how Seven Dooms focuses on what, to me, is a pretty fun level range. I'd love to see another two-book AP or two covering levels 6-14 or levels 7-15, as those are probably my favorite levels to play.

Edited to add: after having reread the above regarding standalone adventures vs APs, what about a structure akin to Rusthenge and Seven Dooms, wherein the standalone becomes a prequel to the AP, and they are developed in tandem (to save on production costs)? I hear what people are saying about the "1 to 20 experience," but honestly the earliest levels are by far my least favorite to play, and finishing a three-book AP is still a major effort (and accomplishment). Two books seems eminently more tractable.

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Wise_fuer wrote:

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

I don't think any Paizo announcement said that the spaceship playtests would be included.

More bad news: spaceship rules aren't even going to be in player core. Basic rules will be coming in the GM Core, and the tactical rules are TBA. I'm not even sure they've confirmed a spaceship playtest at all.

That's equal parts irksome and concerning.

Ship combat is such a huge part of the draw for me, and a mainstay of the genre.

...I think the idea is to actually take the time to get them right, though, which is ultimately probably a good thing. I play two space-themed TTRPGs and for one (which is not under active development) we use a complete homebrew rewrite of the space combat rules... And from what I have played of SF1 space combat, it's not a strength of the system. I don't dislike it as much as some people do, but I can at least see where they're coming from.

So I'm personally hoping for a nice system, not necessarily a quick one.

If there really is no written set of tactics to follow, then I can't fault the GM to using tactics that make sense for the monster.

Well, to an extent I get that, but I get frustrated when people fault the scenario for what is ultimately a GM's choice.

I probably could have TPKed my players in that scenario, too, by doing what your GM chose to do. And I had another situation I recall in which I likely could have TPKed my players (high AC monster with a massive breath weapon).

Those were the "optimal" tactics. But there's no rule which states a GM must use optimal tactics.

I chose not to, because it wouldn't have been fun for my players, or for me.

Did the opponent still feel powerful? Yes. Did they still have to work for the win? Yes, absolutely. But to bring it back on topic, close calls feel much more rewarding, to me, and make better stories and better memories.

I once did try to kill a PFS PC, because it made sense for story reasons. And she nearly died, and we all enjoyed it. But instead the PC survived three death-effect spells and we got an epic tale out of it.

I've come close to a TPK in an awful scenario.

** spoiler omitted **

...As an aside, this is a good example of "the GM could have made different choices to make the game more fun."

Just because one can kite the players indefinitely, doesn't mean one should. From my perspective, a GM can make that fight feel difficult without making it effectively impossible (and a potential TPK). But that's the GM's choice (or responsibility).

This is still a problem I've run into with GMs in other scenarios though. "You all made it to the end in record time, but the author made a typo when copying the chase rules, so everyone takes damage, and you miss a Treasure Bundle."

I don't want to risk derailing the thread, but my view on this type of incident is that it's a GM issue, not a PFS campaign issue.

I get frustrated with reviews that read like, "this scenario SUCKS! It's terrible that X Y Z happened, it wasn't fun at all!" when clearly the issue was how the GM ran things.

Sadly that's potentially bound to happen, too, in a global campaign with hundreds or thousands of GMs. But those are opportunities for GM education, as well—good examples of how PFS can help people to improve as GMs.

Have not yet seen a PC die in PFS2, and have not killed one as a GM. And that makes me happy, because from my perspective PC death is not very fun.

(In some ways it's worse when a character dies in an AP, ironically. It creates an issue for the player, but a bigger issue for the GM. And yet GMs don't necessarily realize this...)

Had a couple of close calls, on both sides of the table, and those are far more fun than actual PC deaths.

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

3) The ability to travel the world. PFS can be weird sometimes because it sends your character everywhere. Your character gets to experience all the different cultures and craziness of what Golarian (and other planes and planets) has to offer.

I'm late to this thread but I'll add the ability to travel the actual world. I used to travel a lot for work and I've had the chance to drop into PFS games across the US, and even a few in Europe. The folks in the Netherlands were incredibly nice. There's something special about being able to play with completely different people in LA, and Indiana, and Utrecht and still have it feel like it's one massive campaign.

...I wrote above that PFS is like jazz, and this is part of it: you can rock up to a jazz or blues jam anywhere in the world and play, without even sharing a spoken language.

Same idea for PFS, though it would be difficult without sharing a spoken (or written) language! But there's a reasonable chance even that has been done at some stage...

I find that aspect so cool.

Oooof that sounds rough, I'm sorry you had that experience.

More than anything, to me the PFS2 campaign strives to be positive, fun, inclusive, and welcoming.

...And if there's someone who is causing issues and working against those goals, from my perspective we want to know. ("We" in this case being the volunteer corps who care about such things deeply, and also the campaign leadership would probably want to know as well).

So yeah, definitely, come play, either locally in your area or online. And if someone is causing issues... We want to know, so we can address it.

I loved reading the different perspectives on "the point of PFS" for people, thanks for that. Just a couple of things to add:

First, the community: I've had a couple of tough years, and can say without hyperbole that 2024 was probably the worst year of my life. The community really helped me to get through. I love having shared experiences with people all over the world. I liken it to playing jazz, in that there is a shared repertoire (jazz standards, PFS scenarios), and if you follow a few simple guidelines you can engage in a fun, cooperative, improvisational endeavor (making music, playing PFS) with like-minded people anywhere in the world.

But also, let's talk about some of the more mechanical benefits of PFS, in terms of the structure and how it's set up...

GMs get to play too: This is absolutely crucial for me. A major barrier for me previously is that I enjoy GMing, but I also want to play and develop my own characters. Basically, I enjoy the game partially for that sense of building and progressing a character. In PFS, time spent GMing can also advance your own characters for when you DO get those valuable opportunities to play them.

There are as many ways to play as there are players: PFS is truly a "big tent." Roleplaying enthusiast? There's room for you. Just want to roll dice? There's room for you too. Want to build weird and wacky meme characters? Why not. Want to build serious, deep, complex characters? Absolutely possible. (I should say that I even had a PFS experience in which revelations about a character during a scenario moved me to tears.) Minmaxer? Can do. Care more about narrative than stats? PFS can accommodate that. After I got into PFS, especially online, I really gained an appreciation of the true diversity of players and ways to play the game.

And if you want a more consistent experience with a stable cast, PFS can accomplish that as well—that's basically what happens in my local group. It's not an AP-style campaign, I think of it more like episodes of Star Trek or a pulp fiction-style nonlinear storytelling experience.

But also...You're not stuck with one character or one group: as of this writing, I have twelve PFS characters (and most of my AP characters are variations of my PFS characters...) I routinely play different characters, and to be honest I sometimes get bored of playing just one character in an AP game.

And let's face it, some players or GMs might not be your style for a game that will last years, but you can perhaps make it through a scenario with them.

Oh and regarding GMing, it's a great way to hone your GMing skills, because of the variety of adventures, characters, and players. Also for those of us who don't have time to make a whole campaign ourselves, we still get to GM with the great adventures Paizo puts out.

Speaking of which, at heart the point of PFS is to sell stuff and keep Paizo in business. It's marketing. But it's by far the most interesting and fun marketing program I've ever seen or participated in.

Oh yesss. Time to finally dust off my sadly disused Lastwall book! Still looking forward to a Gravelands Adventure Path, but in the meantime perhaps the anthology will do...

GMs are granted replays each year based on their number of glyphs:

Lorespire wrote:

Each January 1st, GMs are granted 1 additional Replay for each Glyph they have earned up to that point.

It doesn't look like that happened this year. I'm definitely feeling the replay pressure, so it'd be great if those replays could be granted!

If there's not time in the schedule to update the database, can GMs simply act as if the replays were added? For example, can a GM who started the year with two glyphs replay two scenarios without checking the replay box, but still take a chronicle?

I suspect this new functionality is coming (might be good to add that note for now in the Guide). But since without the replays in the system it's difficult to track, I would advise patience rather than simply acting as if it were true.

Prior to the replay point system glyphs gave single-use lifetime replays, so annual is a significant upgrade. We'll get there, but also I suspect the Paizo tech team is quite busy :)

We might have to wait until August to find out if Our Overlord The Chime is really dead, or just resting.

Tomppa wrote:

Aren't they the exact same weapon? Both are 1d6 bludgeoning martial clubs with L bulk, 1 hand, shove, thrown 30ft, and the grippli/tripkee trait? Why change it anyway?

I think that the cruuk is intended to replace the rungu in order to avoid the issues of cultural insensitivity/appropriation raised in this thread.

...

Since the two items are mechanically identical, I suspect that Outl wants to switch to the cruuk so as not to engage in such cultural insensitivity/appropriation.

It seems to me that that's a choice that PFS might want to encourage by making the switch from a rungu to a cruuk be a free option for all players.

Even for me, this degree of hand-holding is a bit much. You don't need an official PFS ruling for this, IMHO. Just switch it, nobody will notice or care.

umopapisdnupsidedown wrote:

The times I haven't had fun with the influence system have been the times I've played with people who, sadly, weren't very good at it.

For me, this sentence shows a clear issue.

Being "good" at a roleplaying game should not be about system knowledge, it should be about the way you play your character, you roleplay and take in game decisions.

Combat is quite central to PF2 and as such to be "good" at PF2 you need to know combat rules. That's a specificity of this system, one that has to be accepted (so even if I understand why you can ask for less combat, I think combat is a legitimate expectation due to the game we play).

For me, the central point is, "Unless people have at least some minimum level of of competency and system knowledge with the combat rules, playing with them isn't very fun for others at the table, so we expect some level of system knowledge." That seems reasonable. But for whatever reason, that expectation is lower or nonexistent for other subsystems, which frustrates me.

Every subsystem in the game, including combat, is intended to facilitate roleplay with some level of structure. And people spend inordinate amounts of effort on combat optimization. (And a lot less effort on combat roleplay, but that's a topic for another rant...)

Despite the fact that most of the other subsystems, including Influence, are much simpler (it's really not rocket science), a lot of people don't seem to put much effort into learning or even thinking about it. And then they blame the subsystem(s).

Well, just as combat kinda isn't great if you've got a player who is spending their turns on triple guidance for partymates who aren't even going to make use of the bonus (or if this doesn't do it for you, just think of the most useless three actions you can possibly imagine), other subsystems aren't great when you've got players just derping around, either. And derping around seems to be the standard with non-combat subsystems, including Influence.

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

There is a creature in a scenario with +132 to its attack. (Pretty clearly it was changed from +13 to +12 or vice versa and someone forgot to hit delete / backspace. I guess it is lucky it wasn't on the damage line...)

While I’ll agree that’s a very obvious error, that really doesn’t address the question.

I honestly don't think it matters whether a GM calls it +13 or +12. I don't think guidance around fixing obvious typos is a huge deal.

However, one of the reasons I like Org Play is the relative consistency of the experience across tables and time. I can play scenarios from year one (long before I ever started PFS) and have the common experience of "whew, that was tough!"

On some level I hope to preserve that.

I'm glad to see this happening. The only "mechanical" change I would recommend is changing "may" to "can" since that's what "may" means in this context.

I would also like to see a provision explicitly allowing GM discretion for enemies to retreat or surrender when it makes sense for them to do so. It's written into some scenarios but not others.

It just occurred to me that Hireling Translators cannot get regional languages, because they are uncommon and apparently Hireling Translator only allows common languages. Since Pathfinders have access to regional languages anyway, I'd like to request a boon update to include "common or regional" languages. Seems a bit weird (and perhaps not intended?) that I can hire a translator for Dwarven but not for Varisian or Hallit.

Thankfully Pathbuilder is not affected given it has already had to abide by being purely ORC-based and not using Golarion content. That's why it just has "Faction prerequisites" and such, as opposed to saying for ex. "Firebrand member."

...Is this true, though? Because it definitely uses "game rules" like classes and feats and leveling structure and such. The verbiage has all been sanitized but the underlying structure still relies on game rules that are a mixture of OGL and ORC content (at least for a complete product, as Jared noted above).

It's an example of an extraordinarily popular tool that I could easily see just...No longer existing after the licensing change.

By that description, I'm certain that my character sheets, and many other tools like them, require ORC/OGL + Compatibility License. Only the most basic of tools would have no rules reference in them at all. Something as simple as "Select your ancestry from this list" would be enough to cross that very low threshold.

...The FCP doesn't apply to any character sheet, builder, tool, wiki or app that uses game rules...

I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to the legal perspective, but until basically all of the OGL content for PF2e is remastered, it doesn't even seem tenable from a game perspective to have a third-party PF2e-related tool. Of which there are many, and they are popular and presumably help Paizo sell more product.

Seems, to me, to be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The Compatibility License would allow more or less 2/3rds of these things. But if it had any options you could select, it wouldn't be able to include stuff that involved Golarion IP. It would have to be edited or removed.

Tldr; Pathbuilder.

Yeah, it seems as though some clarification would be extremely useful (especially after the OGL kerfuffle), in terms of who can use what and who can do what with which assets.

I'm not a content creator or database maintainer at the moment but I feel very bad for them having to keep up with changes of this sort.

...And, for example, where does it leave virtual tabletop support for legacy/OGL options in addition to ORC options?

Quote:

With published adventures, a GM can not only save a lot of time in preparing for a game or a campaign, but also find inspiration in them or learn how adventures are written, both of which help a GM get better at their craft

I completely agree! And with Foundry modules the time saved is even greater, thanks Paizo!

Yes, I unfortunately do not have the capacity right now to create a home brew campaign or adventures. I tell people, "I run pre-written content for a reason!"

And I am so grateful for it, as well as the premium online content (because otherwise creating tables to my satisfaction becomes the limiting factor in the online games I can run). I can say with certainty, without published adventures I would not be able to GM, and...I do love GMing!

And just a note on the business of it, though it's not my area of expertise: I would imagine that more people actually playing the games means more players buying stuff...So yeah, seems smart to me...

Kringress, I'm going to tell you the same thing I told my VAs. Don't worry about getting everything perfect on day one of the Remaster. We've had a whole bunch of pages of errata that dropped on Day 1. No one is going to get it all perfect. If you make a mistake, fix it the next time.

Don't feel you have to audit all the characters. Take this in baby steps. The old characters do not have to retrain. Start with the simple stuff: the recall knowledge, the changes to cantrips, focus points, etc. The good news is that there is now errata that you can print out and bring to the table if you need it.

We're all going to make mistakes during this transition, and it is okay. We all can learn the new rules together as we go.

Hmm

I'd like to underscore the above. There's no point to let the remaster changes get in the way of playing or enjoying the game. I just got my PDFs the other day, haven't really had a chance to read them or even look at them very much. Haven't really worked them into my characters, or into games I'm GMing.

Am I going to give it a good go and do my best? Yes, absolutely. But probably 95%+ of the game has not changed. Is there a risk of missing a few details? Yes. But that happened routinely pre-remaster anyway, in games I've played and in games I've run. There's no expectation of perfection, nor would such a thing even be possible.

Here's a boon idea that might have legs:

Say I want to make an elf fighter from Kyonin that uses an elven curve blade. Unfortunately, to get access to that weapon in PFS, I have to take a feat. There's no reason for my fighter to take the feat, other than PFS access to a couple of elf weapons. A bit silly.

So how about an AcP boon for access to a single uncommon ancestral weapon of the character's ancestry? For the same AcP cost as say, an Avid Collector boon.

The two that I would personally like to see are access to Revenant background, and access to the knapsack of Halfling kind (not the Greater version that allows teleportation, for Reasons).

The former is just another way to get negative healing and interesting character concepts (I have one in particular I'm keen to try), and the latter just because I think it's cool. I think the knapsack in particular is a good candidate for a specific boon because the boon could grant access to only the lower-level version rather than the Greater version as Avid Collector would.

Alright, maybe

But I still feel forced to play PFS instead of coming to PFS with genuine interest

Forced to deal with ACP instead of being allowed to play an uncommon ancestry in a non-PFS game or even allowed to use that battlezoo dragons book that is supposedly popular yet I can’t find a place to use it, since a lot of people only recruit for non-PFS games in PFS as others have said

How can we fix this?

You can GM your own games and do whatever you want in them. That's what it comes down to. If you're looking to play in others' games that they are offering, well, their house, their rules.

I don't recommend going to someone else's house and dictating to them what they will cook for you to eat.

How much do you allow RP in your games? Would you allow us to have detailed character introductions or other things?

Like there’s this GM in RFC called Sebastian (who made me feel a little better about doing PFS, even though I still feel forced into PFS and not feeling completely sure about it yet) and according to their words they are a “ huge proponent of spending some more time introductions, after players have started, I tend to ask deeper probing questions, to encourage them to go a bit deeper and explore their characters, things like:
- "The Grand Lodge has files on your character, please give me 2 positives and 1 negative entry Old Muttonchops was written in your file"
- "What's your ideal mission, the one you never seem to get, yet always want. Do you want to be sent to a fancy dress party, into the unclaimed wilderness or to other mysterious places?"
- "Your character has been in the Society for quite a bit, how have their experiences shaped them, are they happy with their recent missions? What accomplishment are they most proud of?"
...there are others, but my main approach is to motivate players to think about aspects of their character that they have not been considering.“

While I’m sure you don’t do anything like Sebastian, I’m wondering if for games I play in with you, you could have room for detailed introductions or general role play outside of combat and things?

As long as everyone is having fun and the pace isn't bothering anyone, I just let it take its course. The game I recently started has been going for around 3 days maybe, and while we did get off to a slow start for RL reasons, we are only just starting to get out of the introductory RP. I've been enjoying their conversations.

So the answer is, yes. I'm relatively new to it but I find that PbP/PbD is very conducive to RP. I recently played a PFS scenario with a central influence encounter via PbD, and it was awesome. Others who played in that game also said that influence encounters are really enjoyable via PbD. We had a great time.

I "allow" as much RP as the players want in my games, but it's a bit of a delicate balance because I'm new to it so I'm still trying to figure out pacing. I also don't yet know most of the players so I don't yet know their styles or what they enjoy.

umopapisdnupsidedown wrote:

You're welcome to join if you want. I just started running another one but I'm happy to run one just for you, if you want to give it a try.

I’m temporarily banned from Cayden and other discord PFS places due to what I’ve said in these forums about PFS

Oh. Well in that case I guess I can't offer a PbD game for you then, until you get un-banned. You're welcome to join a game though, once that gets cleared up. I wouldn't want to force you to play PFS if you don't want to, but if you do, great.

For my part, I like both playing and GMing PFS, so that's what I do. I don't get paid to GM, it's a volunteer gig, so I offer what I want to offer. And of course I want players to enjoy the game I offer, just as I want to enjoy the experience (the GM is a player too).

So I'll just be over here enjoying the game if anyone needs me.

Lesrek wrote:

You keep saying this and venture officers keep telling you that you are mistaken with how inflexible you perceive society play to be. At some point you need to realize that it isn't society that is the problem, but how you view it. And again, you keep making these grand assumptions without ever having played a society game. Please, I am asking you to stop commenting on society play and what it is like until you actually have some experience with it.

Edit: Also, are you actually interested in society play? Just today another beginner game was posted on RfC and yet again, you did not sign up for it. The vibe I am getting is that you don't actually want to play society, you just want to use it as an excuse to complain about something. That has been your most consistent interaction with society as a program.

I was actually wanting to join that game but I didn’t have a character ready

If you're interested in playing, I've started running PbD games on Cayden's Keg Discord and was thinking of giving Bounty #8 another go. It's not my favorite bounty but it's probably my second favorite. And Bounties are a low-stakes introduction.

You're welcome to join if you want. I just started running another one but I'm happy to run one just for you, if you want to give it a try.

Giving a whole list of extra signature spells seems a bit much. I'd go with the latter. If you want to cast a heightened spell from your shadow reservoir it needs to be present in the reservoir at that level and only spell slots of that level can be expended to cast it

I'd say retraining is also doable, just like repertoires, since it doesn't say anything about daily preparations

resertoire... repervoir... nah neither of those work for a portmanteau

also I like your username

"Repervoir" has a bit of a ring to it, to be fair.

Nice, thanks all for your responses. The sorcerer-esque interpretation was my initial one, but then I thought, "Wait a second..." I agree with your commentary, it makes a lot of sense and is internally consistent with other parts of the game, so I'll go with it.

Re: username, the board keeps telling me I can change my username until I make ten posts. I keep telling the board, "I'm squatting on this username until I die."