Glass Cannon Live Play revelations


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
Does anyone have a link to this podcast?

Link to the youtube version


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
thewastedwalrus wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
Seems from Jason’s reaction that rules on turning your horse into freshly made glue are not in the core rule book.

Most likely. Which reminds me: folks should really listen to this for themselves, because it is VERY funny. Erik Mona and the Glass Cannon boys are hilarious together and Jason makes a solid straight man on top of being an amazing GM.

"You fight with the ferocity of an orphan!"

"Can't be too careful when dealing with birds of the marsh." I was dying when Skid said this so seriously.
I'm sort of thinking "dire flamingos" might be my new default critical failure result on Survey Wildlife.

I. Am. Stealing. That.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
Does anyone have a link to this podcast?

Here's a link to it.

I would also recommend listening! These guys had me laughing to tears at a couple points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I just listened. Confirmed 1 action to switch grip.

Game balance wise it's completely fine. But they could have balanced the game around free action grip switches instead. I think that would have made a more fun game.

Now it's too entrenched in weapon balance, not something you can easily house rule away and keep the same balance :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think he Improv'd the whole Dire Flamingo thing off an audience member's tattoo which makes it even better.
And that is also why I have no time for anybody who can't stand Critical Failures on Knowledge Checks :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Dire Flamingo

Now I want to add an elemental template to make it a flaming dire flamingo...

Dataphiles

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Dire Flamingo
Now I want to add an elemental template to make it a flaming dire flamingo...

There is movement in the brush surrounding you. Pink flames begin to consume the dry weeds as a flaming dire flamingo bursts forth. The grass scorches where its one foot touches the ground. ROLL FOR INITIATIVE!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

I think he Improv'd the whole Dire Flamingo thing off an audience member's tattoo which makes it even better.

And that is also why I have no time for anybody who can't stand Critical Failures on Knowledge Checks :-)

He claimed to not have noticed the tattoo before making them up, but it may have been a subconscious observation.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cori Marie wrote:
I think the funniest part was Jason mishearing Orphan when the character was introduced

Yeah, that was almost a Pirates of Penzance gag.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
Seems from Jason’s reaction that rules on turning your horse into freshly made glue are not in the core rule book.

Most likely. Which reminds me: folks should really listen to this for themselves, because it is VERY funny. Erik Mona and the Glass Cannon boys are hilarious together and Jason makes a solid straight man on top of being an amazing GM.

"You fight with the ferocity of an orphan!"

the whole orphan stuff was hysterical

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
citricking wrote:

So I just listened. Confirmed 1 action to switch grip.

Game balance wise it's completely fine. But they could have balanced the game around free action grip switches instead. I think that would have made a more fun game.

Now it's too entrenched in weapon balance, not something you can easily house rule away and keep the same balance :(

5E is the same, with a 'hand economy'and arguments about what you can and can't do wit that. Thankfully in 5E you can just ignore that, and it'snot unbalanced (tho it invalidates a feat). I hope you can do the same here!


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

The second video was showing up in the playlist this morning, but then becoming a private video/unwatchable if you clicked on it. Its since disappeared completely.... Hoping its posted for real soon.....

Dataphiles

NielsenE wrote:
Hoping its posted for real soon.....

Should be released late-late Thursday night close to midnight.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Thanks for the update, guess I can stop reloading the page compulsively....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I heard that the second session was the best one, so I looking forward it too.

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
Thanks for the update, guess I can stop reloading the page compulsively....

If you're going by what morning you can listen to your podcasts from them:

Tuesday - Glass Cannon
Wednesday - Androids & Aliens
Thursday - Cannon Fodder (largely on hiatus, but they're doing one this week)
Friday - Patreon Content and assorted other things.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like they Glass Cannon is going to run a converted Emerald Spire in 2e. Joe O'Brian has a copy of the CRB and bestiary already. Combining my other revelation thread, let's plan a heist folks.


Joe’s Emerald Spire 2E campaign is still a few months off so we’ll have the core rulebook in our hands long before then. But it’s still awesome that the GCP will have a fortnightly 2E campaign. It’s just going to be Joe and Troy with a new crew. They need to record this during the day Skid, Matthew and Grant won’t be available as regulars.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

oh gross. so in this second episode the table of like 10 men went all in on a blatantly sexist joke—and everyone I've seen talk about the ep is calling "the funniest episode ever"

anyone wonder why this hobby does such a horrible job including folks? jfc

the only thing I'm learning from these things is that glass cannon is exactly as awful as that splash image suggests

and the absolute worst part? Paizo partners with them and then in the moment Jason and Erik decide to play along and Jason, at least, decides to *add on*? ugggggh

shame on Paizo for participating in, promoting, and perpetuating such awful stuff.

(To be clear, what sparked this complaint is the unfortunate material that starts around 23:25.

I am 100% not interested in discussing this, do not @ me. It is not meaningless or "just a joke."

If that is your first thought, it is wrong and you should think again and more carefully. Quite the contrary, jokes have particular social significance: this kind of behavior draws a line about who and what kind of talk is welcome, and who and what kind of talk is not.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
tqomins wrote:

oh gross. so in this second episode the table of like 10 men went all in on a blatantly sexist joke—and everyone I've seen talk about the ep is calling "the funniest episode ever"

anyone wonder why this hobby does such a horrible job including folks? jfc

the only thing I'm learning from these things is that glass cannon is exactly as awful as that splash image suggests

and the absolute worst part? Paizo partners with them and then in the moment Jason and Erik decide to play along and Jason, at least, decides to *add on*? ugggggh

shame on Paizo for participating in, promoting, and perpetuating such awful stuff.

(To be clear, what sparked this complaint is the unfortunate material that starts around 23:25.

I am 100% not interested in discussing this, do not @ me. It is not meaningless or "just a joke."

If that is your first thought, it is wrong and you should think again and more carefully. Quite the contrary, jokes have particular social significance: this kind of behavior draws a line about who and what kind of talk is welcome, and who and what kind of talk is not.)

This isnt really the forum to be discussing what you feel about jokes, can we please keep this pathfinder related.


Case in point.

I encourage anyone who might be tempted to such a dismissive reaction to take a moment to reflect. To reiterate:

tqomins wrote:

anyone wonder why this hobby does such a horrible job including folks? jfc

(I am 100% not interested in discussing this, do not @ me. It is not meaningless or "just a joke."

If that is your first thought, it is wrong and you should think again and more carefully. Quite the contrary, jokes have particular social significance: this kind of behavior draws a line about who and what kind of talk is welcome, and who and what kind of talk is not.)

I will not post again on this topic. I've said what I needed to say.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

12 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I realize that the poster here does not want to debate the criticism about the joke, and I can respect that, but I'm having a difficult time parsing what the reference is here. Is it the horse naming bit? It's poor taste, but we certainly didn't dwell on it and I tried to steer the game away from it immediately. Tqomins, feel free to send me a message if I'm grossly off the mark. It was not our intent to offend.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with tqomins in principle as a general point.

That said, having listened to the specific joke (and none of the rest of this...I plan to listen to the whole thing, but I haven't had time), I'm not sure I know why the joke was sexist. Or particularly funny, for that matter.

I suspect more context is necessary to get a better idea of what's going on with said joke (and I'll try and listen to these to get said context tonight).

I will say that Jason's interjection was purely 'Well, if the celebrity whose name you were using was a subscriber, they're not any more.' which strikes me as an unobjectionable joke to make in its own right, and as he notes seems to have been intentionally steering the conversation elsewhere.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it not massively unhelpful to any kind of discourse to walk in, through down a complaint and then refuse to discuss it?

It is also not helpful to basically say, if you don’t understand the problem then I am not going to tell you - you have to work it out for yourself

It has succeeded in getting a response from one of the (very busy) people involved so seems to have had its desired aim but doesn’t seem like the sort of post conducive to a forum - which is an area for discussion . Admittedly this particular thread is not the place for that either...

I actually thought until checking the time stamp that this might have been referring to going all in on the bridesmaid joke as that was played for far longer and is not something associated with males. But apparently it is not that ?


So we've seen the ranger with +15 for nature and the cleric with +15 for religion. It doesn't seem like they have any skill boosting items, but the ranger might have 16 Wis and a +1 item.

Have we heard any attack rolls or save DC's? It seems like save DC's don't have an item bonus

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lanathar wrote:
But apparently it is not that ?

They did the Sara Jessica Parker horse "meme".

Douchey for sure, but as for sexist? Maybe? I don't know that "meme" has always confused me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't finished listening to it yet but it seems there are a few new little tidbits. I think the ability Joe's character has to roll skills untrained etc is new? Very possible I missed it in the playtest though.

Also I love the glass cannon guys, when I was unsure whether Pathfinder was for me or not I started listening to them and became hooked.

Liberty's Edge

citricking wrote:

So we've seen the ranger with +15 for nature and the cleric with +15 for religion. It doesn't seem like they have any skill boosting items, but the ranger might have 16 Wis and a +1 item.

Have we heard any attack rolls or save DC's? It seems like save DC's don't have an item bonus

The first episode demonstrates the Barbarian's attack bonus as +16 (they get an 18 to hit on a natural 2), which sounds right if they're an Expert by that level (+4 Str, +7 Level +4 Expert +1 Magic Item).

We heard a Class DC of 23 in the first episode (which is consistent with Trained, at +4 Ability +7 Level +2 Trained).

For spells, the Sorcerer is mentioned as having a Save DC of 25, which is consistent with Expert (exactly the same math as above, but two higher for Expert).

And Save DCs don't have an item bonus, but at 7th neither do Saves.

AC seems to be between 26 and 28 (with the 28 being on the Champion). Assuming armor provides the same as the playtest that sounds right (7 Level + 7 combined armor and Dex +2 or 4 Proficiency).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
But apparently it is not that ?

They did the Sara Jessica Parker horse "meme".

Douchey for sure, but as for sexist? Maybe? I don't know that "meme" has always confused me.

Oh, is that the joke? I wouldn't call that sexist (I've seen male celebrities people think look funny come in for similar jokes). It's tasteless, but not sexist per se, and when doing live comedy some tasteless jokes are unfortunately gonna happen some time.

So I agree with tqomins in regards to sexist humor, but not about whether this particular bit is sexist.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It seems Rangers do have access to spells, maybe a use of the focus mechanic?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
It seems Rangers do have access to spells, maybe a use of the focus mechanic?

Almost certainly. They've said before they were gonna give Rangers Focus Spells.


Didn’t he say he had druid multiclass focus ?

Also it sounds like the volley property making bows less accurate at short range has remained - something that doesn’t make sense to me

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Didn’t he say he had druid multiclass focus ?

Seems plausible. Haven't heard that part yet. Ranger's gonna get Focus Spells in its own right at some point, though.

Lanathar wrote:
Also it sounds like the volley property making bows less accurate at short range has remained - something that doesn’t make sense to me

Volley does indeed still exist, as a reason why longbows are worse in close than shortbows are. It's been reduced to 30 feet, though, which is a lot easier to work around than 50 feet was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
It seems Rangers do have access to spells, maybe a use of the focus mechanic?
Almost certainly. They've said before they were gonna give Rangers Focus Spells.

Seems to be a multiclass.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
It seems Rangers do have access to spells, maybe a use of the focus mechanic?
Almost certainly. They've said before they were gonna give Rangers Focus Spells.
Seems to be a multiclass.

Yes listening back through i missed that explanation, so it seems that rangers are purely martial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah be have Druid dedication, he says at the 2 hour 25 minutes mark of the video, an that was so he could have some spellcasting.

This confirm that Rangers are pure martial in the core book, maybe in the future will have one Hunters Edge that give focus spell.

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
But apparently it is not that ?

They did the Sara Jessica Parker horse "meme".

Douchey for sure, but as for sexist? Maybe? I don't know that "meme" has always confused me.

SJP (like one of my friends) looks perfectly fine in person and in video, but does not photograph well. Which I've always thought was weird. In SJP's case her face is a little long and narrow and it's exaggerated in photographs. Thus the horse "meme".

It would be like making jokes about a male actor whose face is a little odd and comparing him with an otter.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kyrone wrote:

Yeah be have Druid dedication, he says at the 2 hour 25 minutes mark of the video, an that was so he could have some spellcasting.

This confirm that Rangers are pure martial in the core book, maybe in the future will have one Hunters Edge that give focus spell.

I mean, it's entirety possible that there are class feats that give the Ranger a focus pool and something to do with it, though they wouldn't be included in the core chassis: much like the monk. But that could also be something introduced at a later date, if it didn't make it into the CRB.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

Yeah be have Druid dedication, he says at the 2 hour 25 minutes mark of the video, an that was so he could have some spellcasting.

This confirm that Rangers are pure martial in the core book, maybe in the future will have one Hunters Edge that give focus spell.

I mean, it's entirety possible that there are class feats that give the Ranger a focus pool and something to do with it, though they wouldn't be included in the core chassis: much like the monk. But that could also be something introduced at a later date, if it didn't make it into the CRB.

I find it very thematically appropriate for a ranger to multiclass into druid for spells as they were always a dabbler in druidic practices anyway.


So that monk had a damage bonus of +1 if they didn't mess up (I hope they did) which means they don't have weapon specialization by level 7.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, just because he has Druid Dedication doesn't mean that Ranger doesn't have focus spells, just means that particular ranger does not. Given there wouldn't be anything outside of the character listed, we can't make judgments regarding that yet.

The joke was certainly in poor taste, but I wouldn't say sexist - it's missing the generalization needed for that. Jason's response is really all that can be expected in that situation - it's a pretty clear "right, let's move on", and it's not like he can stop in the middle of a live cast to go "hey, tasteless joke there, would you mind not doing that".


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Dang it, the Glass Cannon page post doesn't seem to have the audio working yet. But I just found it on youtube for the joke.

In regards to the joke I haven't heard yet: It is hard to say what people should find sexist, and even harder to say what they should find offensive. And I will say my biggest critique of the GCP has always been that they aren't as woke as some the other big actual plays and their humor (especially early stuff) sometimes makes me cringe. They've gotten better about it as their audience has grown, but they still have some missteps. It isn't wrong for someone to be so turned off by a misstep that they don't want anything to do with the content anymore. I also think it isn't wrong for other people to be able to acknowledge a misstep and move past it to still enjoy the rest of what the content has to offer. Neither side is bad people, but where that line is will vary a lot.

Davido1000 wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

Yeah be have Druid dedication, he says at the 2 hour 25 minutes mark of the video, an that was so he could have some spellcasting.

This confirm that Rangers are pure martial in the core book, maybe in the future will have one Hunters Edge that give focus spell.

I mean, it's entirety possible that there are class feats that give the Ranger a focus pool and something to do with it, though they wouldn't be included in the core chassis: much like the monk. But that could also be something introduced at a later date, if it didn't make it into the CRB.
I find it very thematically appropriate for a ranger to multiclass into druid for spells as they were always a dabbler in druidic practices anyway.

Indeed, the ranger spell list had few options that weren't also druid spells, and even fewer that would make sense in PF2. (Instant Enemy obviously won't return.) By contrast, the monk's ki powers are unique options that don't already exist for other classes.

And being able to prepare a small number of spells at a delayed progression is much closer to the PF1 ranger casting than focus spells would be anyway. Being able to "Batman" their lone spell slot for a particular natural hazard that day was pretty much their thing.

Also, Rangers can now cast fireball this way, which was pretty exciting for our ranger in the playtest who was built to emulate a specific PF1 ranger.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Please do not let the tangent about the joke distract the thread any further.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

Indeed, the ranger spell list had few options that weren't also druid spells, and even fewer that would make sense in PF2. (Instant Enemy obviously won't return.) By contrast, the monk's ki powers are unique options that don't already exist for other classes.

And being able to prepare a small number of spells at a delayed progression is much closer to the PF1 ranger casting than focus spells would be anyway. Being able to "Batman" their lone spell slot for a particular natural hazard that day was pretty much their thing.
Also, Rangers can now cast fireball this way, which was pretty exciting for our ranger in the playtest who was built to emulate a specific PF1 ranger.

I was going to say that my issue with going Multiclass Druid for Ranger spellcasting was that you end up bound by the Druid anathema, which is something Rangers didn't have to deal with before; it ought to be be fine for a Ranger to cast spells with a chain shirt on, for instance. But reading the transcription in the ALL Multiclass Archetypes thread, its not clear to me if the only anathema you are bound to is the one specific to your circle, or if that inherits from the base class of standard Druidic anathema. For example, teaching Druidic to non-druids should still be a no-no. Anyway, it's a pretty minor thing, and certainly easy to house-rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Indeed, the ranger spell list had few options that weren't also druid spells, and even fewer that would make sense in PF2. (Instant Enemy obviously won't return.) By contrast, the monk's ki powers are unique options that don't already exist for other classes.

And being able to prepare a small number of spells at a delayed progression is much closer to the PF1 ranger casting than focus spells would be anyway. Being able to "Batman" their lone spell slot for a particular natural hazard that day was pretty much their thing.
Also, Rangers can now cast fireball this way, which was pretty exciting for our ranger in the playtest who was built to emulate a specific PF1 ranger.
I was going to say that my issue with going Multiclass Druid for Ranger spellcasting was that you end up bound by the Druid anathema, which is something Rangers didn't have to deal with before; it ought to be be fine for a Ranger to cast spells with a chain shirt on, for instance. But reading the transcription in the ALL Multiclass Archetypes thread, its not clear to me if the only anathema you are bound to is the one specific to your circle, or if that inherits from the base class of standard Druidic anathema. For example, teaching Druidic to non-druids should still be a no-no. Anyway, it's a pretty minor thing, and certainly easy to house-rule.

TBH I wouldn't even assume the metal armor thing is still an issue for normal druids, given all the changes to armor and previous restrictions that have been lifted. It never made much sense to me anyway and I wouldn't be surprised either way if they just ditched it for the final version. I mean it is a bit of a sacred cow and all, but no more so than the changes to the Paladin/Champion.


The Sorcerer used lighting bolt dealing 4d12 damage, so some spells lost some damage from the playtest buff, probably rebalance because of the lost damage of the runes for martial.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
The Sorcerer used lighting bolt dealing 4d12 damage, so some spells lost some damage from the playtest buff, probably rebalance because of the lost damage of the runes for martial.

The buffed spell damage was also... really good. Like, I enjoyed it, but man those fireballs were nasty. And with enemies failing saves more often, it isn't shocking that the damage numbers took a hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
The Sorcerer used lighting bolt dealing 4d12 damage, so some spells lost some damage from the playtest buff, probably rebalance because of the lost damage of the runes for martial.
The buffed spell damage was also... really good. Like, I enjoyed it, but man those fireballs were nasty. And with enemies failing saves more often, it isn't shocking that the damage numbers took a hit.

Yeah, I'm kinda glad to hear that. I loved it at first but after it was in action for a bit I felt that some of those boosts were a bit much. Especially if you're a GM like me who enjoys throwing level+4 enemies out as bosses...

It compounds unpleasantly atop The high DC and spell level access. XD

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
The Sorcerer used lighting bolt dealing 4d12 damage, so some spells lost some damage from the playtest buff, probably rebalance because of the lost damage of the runes for martial.
The buffed spell damage was also... really good. Like, I enjoyed it, but man those fireballs were nasty. And with enemies failing saves more often, it isn't shocking that the damage numbers took a hit.

Yeah, I'm kinda glad to hear that. I loved it at first but after it was in action for a bit I felt that some of those boosts were a bit much. Especially if you're a GM like me who enjoys throwing level+4 enemies out as bosses...

It compounds unpleasantly atop The high DC and spell level access. XD

Yeah, umm, we tried it at one point with the higher damage and the higher DCs vis saves and PCs and monsters alike were getting wrecked by area spells. That said, some of the spells, particularly at higher levels or a few that we found were too low to start with in the playtest while iterating 1.5, kept portions of their increases from update 1.5. The damaging spellcasters in my War for the Crown game are still cleaning up shop; the math changes help them see a lot more failures and critical failures.

51 to 100 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Glass Cannon Live Play revelations All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.