Shortlist of urgently needed rules variants

[Zapp]

Gorbacz wrote:

Of course I'm expecting you to answer.

dirtypool wrote:

Yes we are absolutely expecting *you* to answer

Yeah, see, what you want me just meekly acquiescing to your change of subject.

But that's not gonna happen. The topic of discussion here is the urgent need of official rules variants for four specific areas of the core rules for those of us that find them lacking.

I understand you don't want to discuss that. That's fine. But common courtesy would dictate you starting a new thread to discuss whatever you want to discuss, instead of your blatant attempt at thread-jacking this one.

Cheers

PS. I'm sure you will both reply to this post in the hopes we will keep discussing what the thread should be about. Which again derails the topic. So this is all I'm going to say on this topic.

[Zapp]

dirtypool wrote:

Maybe you didn’t catch it, but Paizo just put out the book with official variant rules and none of them were patching issues as trivial as this.

Obviously the was the lack of relevant passages pertaining to these four issues that prompted this topic.

(Had they addressed the issues, I would hardly have started this thread, would I?)

[Zapp]

dmerceless wrote:

To be honest in this case my experience differs a lot. I've had one or two players frustrated about shields, but Incapacitation as it stands has been *very* unpopular in my games, and my players aren't exactly the forum dweller type. Quite the opposite. Most of them didn't even play 1e so it's not because of this comparison either. Incap is frustrating to some (maybe a lot of?) people. Though I resisted making significant changes to it because I know why it's there.

Thank you.

I'm also hesitating making homebrew changes. That's why I want Paizo to come up with something, because I trust them to make it work.

[Zapp]

Ubertron_X wrote:

What I also dislike about incap spells apart of all the mechanical early-on issues is the meta-gaming aspect of those spells, aka remembering or knowing "all" creatures levels will immensely help you landing those spells, especially if they are not unique.

"Do you remember that TPK enemy we fought as a boss earlier? Yeah, I do, why? Those creatures are level 7 so you can incap those in front of us now. Great news, thanks for reminding me buddy!"

Yes, one drawback of the mechanic is its on-the-nose meta qualities.

But that's not my main concern. My main concern is all them spells not getting picked by my players.

And for what? So the wizard can't shine once in a while? Please.

It would be so much better to give the GM the power to give plot armor to those creatures who really need it.

All creatures higher level than you? That's incredibly crude.

[Henro]

Zapp wrote:

I'm also hesitating making homebrew changes. That's why I want Paizo to come up with something, because I trust them to make it work.

No solution created by Paizo will ever be better suited to your own table than homebrew you make yourself.

[Zapp]

Themetricsystem wrote:

That's gonna be a hard no from me dawg. Incap is fine as printed, the only people crying about it are using unrealistic white-room scenarios where for SOME REASON they're always fighting singular creatures that are above their level that are going to melt like butter anyhow due to action economy. When you ARE faced with a singular creature that is above your level the Incap Trait prevents the battle from turning into just spamming spells that will trivialize the encounter instantly. I don't mean to be rude or anything but I've yet to see someone actually present an argument in good-faith that there is a problem with it at an actual game. If this were just simply removed it would cause 10x as many problems by destroying encounter balance from level 1-20 in that it would become functionally impossible to really challenge a group with a Boss should they have a Spellcaster without drastically raising their level and by extension how instantly deadly they are in their own right.

You COMPLETELY disregard that I suggest that any creature that meets your definition (=it being a problem that the wizard wins once in a while) should get the EXACT SAME protection granted by Incapacitation (for three saves at least).

So you'll excuse me if I just stop reading there.

[Zapp]

Loreguard wrote:

I have to say I am really disappointed with the response to this post. Zapp can come off as somewhat antagonizing from what I have seen in some threads, and yes, is definitely opinionated. While the first isn't normally conducive to good discourse, but the second is hardly in my opinion a bad thing.

However, the post was actually relatively concise, and to the point, expressing what Paizo could hopefully do covering several items. Each of the items are things that I believe I've seen some significant threads on, so they aren't things that aren't without some controversy, and block of people interested in alternatives. So I really feel the post was rather well crafted, and not rude at all.

Thank you.

[Ruzza]

Adding my name to the list of people that Zapp doesn't speak for.

Zapp since this is now in the Homebrew section and people are (correctly, in my mind) pointing out that you would be better served by homebrewing solutions to these perceived problems, why not take this as a chance to look for suggestions for the forum-goers? Turn this thread around and stop picking fights.

[Henro]

(Maybe I should try adding some righteous indignation to my own homebrew threads? Seems to work wonders for getting people to engage and provide their thoughts)

[Gorbacz]

"Paizo made the official rules a cruel joke but I trust them to make excellent unofficial variant rules" is the best summary of this thread.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

Yeah, see, what you want me just meekly acquiescing to your change of subject.

But that's not gonna happen. The topic of discussion here is the urgent need of official rules variants for four specific areas of the core rules for those of us that find them lacking.

Your statement would imply that the urgency of the need for these rules variants is due to many people desiring these specific rules. The request that you identify the total numbers of people requesting it speaks directly to your subject of the urgency that YOU addressed in your initial post.

And - as always - you’re not a moderator Zapp. We can engage with your thread in any way we wish.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

Obviously the was the lack of relevant passages pertaining to these four issues that prompted this topic.

(Had they addressed the issues, I would hardly have started this thread, would I?)

Rules variants are for giving you different modes and styles of play, they amend the rules in ways that balance the math differently or alter character progression - none of these issues requires a rebalancing of the rules that underpin the game. That is why they weren’t included in the GMG.

You also have failed to meet the burden of proving that anyone more than yourself really desires these four “issues” to get addressed by variant rules.

Frankly though. I suspect even if these had been included in the GMG you still would have started this thread - it would just be about what four issues were your most recent points of minor annoyance that you presume must also be a problem for the player base writ large.

[Fumarole]

People who don't like the incapacitation trait would do well to remember that it applies to the party's foes as well. It shows up 51 times in the first Bestiary and 58 times in the second. It was stated elsewhere on the forum by one of the devs (Mark I think?) that it is more to protect the players from their foes than the other way around. A key example mentioned earlier in this thread is a pack of ghouls remaining a real threat to PCs even at level 10 and above (with the trait only a critical failure is a threat in this case).

[HumbleGamer]

Fumarole wrote:

A key example mentioned earlier in this thread is a pack of ghouls remaining a real threat to PCs even at level 10 and above.

Fireball!

[TwilightKnight]

Zapp wrote:

Maybe you didn't catch that but I prefer official variants.

What I find interesting is that you are asking for rules variants which seems to suggest you don’t like the existing ones, which means you know better than the designers yet you want the same designers to “fix” the rules to fit your belief of what they should be even though they have already indicated what they think the rules should be by what was published. That’s an odd dichotomy, IMO.

[The Raven Black]

1) is only an issue at low levels as others have mentioned.

2) I am not sure is such an issue. Maybe reduce Electric Arc damage by one step if it is that OP.

3) Something there which is annoying but hardly game-breaking, or even fun-breaking IMO. My easy fix would be to put the first threshold at 75% of the HP rather than the current 50%.

5) Some interesting stuff posted already.

All of this may be somewhat annoying to your party, which I can understand and sympathise with, but it clearly does not need Devs' attention, at least that is what the majority of contributors here feel, including myself BTW.

I hope you can find some interesting fixes among the ones proposed in this thread.

[Zapp]

dirtypool wrote:

We can engage with your thread in any way we wish.

As long as you extend me the same courtesy and don't ask me to engage in *your* subject at the same you refuse to engage in mine.

Or, in other words, if you work to derail the thread, don't expect me to play along.

[Zapp]

The Raven Black wrote:

I hope you can find some interesting fixes among the ones proposed in this thread.

This thread was not intended to contain homebrew. It was a call to action regarding official rules.

[Rysky]

Zapp wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

We can engage with your thread in any way we wish.

As long as you extend me the same courtesy and don't ask me to engage in *your* subject at the same you refuse to engage in mine.

Or, in other words, if you work to derail the thread, don't expect me to play along.

You were asked to provide evidence for a rather spurious claim that made your stance seem more encompassing in who had it, rather than just speaking for yourself.

That is very much not a derail.

Claiming other people are trying to troll or derail just as a way to squash dissent, however, is against forum rules.

[The Raven Black]

Zapp wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I hope you can find some interesting fixes among the ones proposed in this thread.

This thread was not intended to contain homebrew. It was a call to action regarding official rules.

It has been answered. I get that the answer is not to your liking. I am sorry for that. But it has been answered.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

We can engage with your thread in any way we wish.

As long as you extend me the same courtesy and don't ask me to engage in *your* subject at the same you refuse to engage in mine.

Or, in other words, if you work to derail the thread, don't expect me to play along.

You claimed in your statement that there was a demand from a “sizable portion” of the player base for these “variant rules”. You were asked to prove your own claim. This is both the talking bag and I engaging with you and your thread on the terms that you laid out

This is not threadjacking or derailing, it is asking you to back up your own assertion.

[CrystalSeas]

Zapp wrote:

This thread was not intended to contain homebrew.

But Paizo staff think that's where it belongs. Moving the thread to 'Homebrew' is about as clear as they can be about it.

And if you're going to claim to be the spokesperson for "a sizeable portion of your customer base," and "many gamers", then you really need to explain how you came to hold that leadership position.

What data do you have that "many gamers" think these are 'real issues'? Having never heard anything about these issues until you posted, I'm pretty sure you're making that up. If not, where's your data?

And can you provide the statistics for how big their customer base is and what percentage think this would be an improvement? Again, I think you're making that data up.

Your arguments are bogus, your data nonexistent. You certainly haven't been able to rally those people you claim to speak on behalf of to post in this thread. If you want to lead a "call to action", be sure you've got the troops behind you to support all your arguments.

Otherwise, post as your own self, speaking on your own behalf. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You're free to post your own beliefs and feelings and check to see if anyone else agrees with you. So far, more people have disagreed than agreed. That's pretty telling.

[WatersLethe]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Zapp wrote:

This thread was not intended to contain homebrew.

But Paizo staff think that's where it belongs. Moving the thread to 'Homebrew' is about as clear as they can be about it.

To be fair, I and presumably others flagged this for being in the wrong forum, so the staff that moved it may have been prompted by us.

[CrystalSeas]

WatersLethe wrote:

To be fair, I and presumably others flagged this for being in the wrong forum, so the staff that moved it may have been prompted by us.

To be even more fair:

Staff have to read a thread, or at least the OP, when they're deciding the appropriate forum to move a post to. The inflammatory title alone would be warning to staff that they needed think carefully about handling this thread.

All the flagging in the world doesn't cause a thread to be moved. It just alerts staff that it needs to be evaluated.

And then it's a two step process:
1) Is this thread really in the wrong forum?
and
2) If it is, what is the most appropriate new forum to move it to.

Staff thinks the best forum for this thread is Homebrew.

[Gortle]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Zapp wrote:

This thread was not intended to contain homebrew.

Your arguments are bogus, your data nonexistent. You certainly haven't been able to rally those people you claim to speak on behalf of to post in this thread. If you want to lead a "call to action", be sure you've got the troops behind you to support all your arguments.

Otherwise, post as your own self, speaking on your own behalf. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You're free to post your own beliefs and feelings and check to see if anyone else agrees with you. So far, more people have disagreed than agreed. That's pretty telling.

There are people making the same points. The volume of people on the forum is not a great indicator of the wider gaming community. On going sales figures would be the real data that count - but that is not easily available to us.

But there is consistent noise on the forums on the first 3 of his points so you are quite wrong to dismiss them.

The reality is, it is hard to get a unified concensus on any issue. But that shouldn't stop us from discussing them. Paizo is always going to have their own opinion(s) and factors they may not wish to discuss.

A call to action should probably start as a politely worded concrete proposal on a singular issue. May be even a forum vote. I don't see anything close to that yet. So discussion or home brew is where these ideas should be.

[thenobledrake]

WatersLethe wrote:

To be fair, I and presumably others flagged this for being in the wrong forum, so the staff that moved it may have been prompted by us.

The most we could have done is draw attention to the thread - it's still the staff making the choice to move or not to move, and where to move if moving.

[Zero the Nothing]

I think they need to patch the Interact action to draw a weapon and provoking Attacks of Opportunity. I think its fine for Interacts for drawing other items like potions or wands, but drawing your weapon? Sheath a weapon, I'd say yes. Drawing your weapon just shouldn't do that. Especially for the Quick Draw action.

Also Interacts to parry. It just seems counterintuitive.

[thenobledrake]

Zero the Nothing wrote:

I think they need to patch the Interact action to draw a weapon and provoking Attacks of Opportunity. I think its fine for Interacts for drawing other items like potions or wands, but drawing your weapon? Sheath a weapon, I'd say yes. Drawing your weapon just shouldn't do that. Especially for the Quick Draw action.

Also Interacts to parry. It just seems counterintuitive.

Parrying involving an Interact does seem counter-intuitive to me too, but when it comes to drawing items...

There's no place to draw a line between this drawing provokes but that drawing doesn't that doesn't result in even less intuitive results than the current case of reaching for any item provoking.

To illustrate: if drawing a weapon doesn't provoke... why would grabbing a potion? Both can be set up with just as much ease to grab onto. You could even have both in the exact same container, but grabbing a dagger from your bandolier doesn't provoke while grabbing a potion from your bandolier does?

But then if you rule that drawing from a bandolier doesn't provoke, but drawing from other places does... does that count sheaths? And what difference is there really between sliding something out of a bandolier and grabbing it out of a belt pouch?

Then the next logical step is something like only provoking if you have to get something out of your backpack, but the action of getting your pack off your back that you have to do first already provokes, so since you aren't likely to have enemies be able to make multiple attacks of opportunity in a round you've effectively just ruled that drawing items doesn't provoke at all - taking off your backpack does.

Leaving "grab stuff = provoke" as the most intuitive, even though some folks might thing it's not "fair" or whatever that reaching for a weapon while someone already threatens you provokes.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the solution to Electric Arc might be as simple as "make electricity the most commonly resisted element in PF2" (like fire was in PF1).

[Winkie_Phace]

Gorbacz wrote:

Hey folks,1 let's be fair: the OP did get one (1) favourite to his post.

From an account that favourites *anything* remotely critical about PF2 :)

Oh hey! You inspired Samurai too! It's good to see the homebrewers banding together. I think I've heard faint rumors about Samurai having some house rules (and they have over 40 years of game designing experience!), so hopefully there's something in there that'll be to Zapp's liking.

[PossibleCabbage]

The weirdest thing about this thread is that specific rules interactions are not what you would want "variants" for. Variants for "I want to play a game where this [top level] thing is different" (e.g. no alignment, dual-classed characters, permadeath, etc.) The solution to "this specific mechanic is not to my liking" has always been "change it to something you like best."

At most, you might get an "optional rule" for something like "shields work differently" but never a variant.

[Winkie_Phace]

Yeah. It sounds more like they want a video game patch. And while I'd be all for more digital integration, they aren't quite there yet. Hell, considering we have archetypes that specialize in both shields and totems coming out in a few weeks, I think at least two of these problems essentially are getting patched.

[Zapp]

Gortle wrote:

But there is consistent noise on the forums on the first 3 of his points so you are quite wrong to dismiss them.

Thank you.

Quote:

The reality is, it is hard to get a unified concensus on any issue. But that shouldn't stop us from discussing them. Paizo is always going to have their own opinion(s) and factors they may not wish to discuss.

A call to action should probably start as a politely worded concrete proposal on a singular issue. May be even a forum vote. I don't see anything close to that yet. So discussion or home brew is where these ideas should be.

No, a perfectly valid option is to pass back the buck to Paizo and trust them to come up with variant rules that *enough* gamers will find interesting.

There is zero need to shunt this to homebrew, or rather: feel free to suggest homebrew solutions to any or all of the issues I raise, but that should be done in a separate thread.

Unfortunately, if you criticize the RAW you're likely to get shunted into homebrew. Not only does this drastically lower the visibility of your post, it also drowns you in the sea of homebrew suggestions. That's a real problem since it discourages sincere discussion of RAW rules.

The Sturdy Shield thread is a fortunate exception - it is a long thread that makes it absolutely clear the current implementation is insufficient to many people, and indeed it is on my list as well.

More threads discussing the RAW should be allowed to live in the General and Rules forums, without involving the notion of houserules.

To be clear: I did NOT start this thread to discuss houserules.

I started this thread for those of us wanting to flag to Paizo there are (at least) four areas where the initial rules publication fall short for many gamers. I even specifically linked to a houserule thread where Incapacitation suggestions could be posted. Flagging this thread as belonging in houserules is a way to sweep the subject under the rug.

[PossibleCabbage]

PF2 rejects the notion of "RAW" full stop.

The intended (and complete) solution to "the way I read this rule doesn't work for us" is "change it to something different then." FAQratta is a thing of the past; PF2 is specifically modular and mechanically transparent so it's easy to patch whatever issues you encounter yourself.

[vagrant-poet]

Zapp wrote:

To be clear: I did NOT start this thread to discuss houserules.

We got the variants we're going to get for probably a good long time. You achieve absolutely nothing by trying to get not-houserule solutions to your problems. That is pretty clearly through given where this thread was moved.

Zapp wrote:

I started this thread for those of us wanting to flag to Paizo there are (at least) four areas where the initial rules publication fall short for many gamers.

You absolutely, wholly, and completely do not need to generalise your concerns. You, not anyone else, immediately derail your goal of having a way to play that annoys you less by generalising your concerns. It has done nothing but undermine you in every thread I've basically ever seen you post in here. It does not add gravitas, it is not an red-flag to draw DEV(tm) attention. It is not a useful rhetorical device for you. You'll have a much nicer time if you talk about your issues with problems you have, because you actually have authority and experience to back that up.

Zapp wrote:

I even specifically linked to a houserule thread where Incapacitation suggestions could be posted. Flagging this thread as belonging in houserules is a way to sweep the subject under the rug.

No-one but Paizo staff can do this. Forum users here cannot in any way move the threads, or get them moved to a specific forum.

That's your answer.

You will not get official dev support for the issues you, and some undeterminable number of others, but importantly you are facing.

You cannot change that.

You CAN either houserule them, and look for feedback on houserules that would work. OR I guess continue as you are, or try to find a game that agrees with you more. There are so many games, though I suspect none of them will be perfect because your quibbles are often specific technical concerns, and its hard to find a perfect game for anyone's taste for that kind of stuff.

So I'd recommend engaging earnestly with houserules, you might actually get something out of it.

[Winkie_Phace]

Zapp wrote:

To be clear: I did NOT start this thread to discuss houserules.

I started this thread for those of us wanting to flag to Paizo there are (at least) four areas where the initial rules publication fall short for many gamers. I even specifically linked to a houserule thread where Incapacitation suggestions could be posted. Flagging this thread as belonging in houserules is a way to sweep the subject under the rug.

I speak for many gamers who think this is the proper place for your thread.

[thenobledrake]

Zapp wrote:

...fall short for many gamers.

Should my rebuttal be "but for many gamers, they don't fall short." or "I think you mean some gamers."?

Hypothetical ahead: what if the number of gamers that agree with your "fall short" claim is only the literal dozen that have made complaints on this forum? Should Paizo do as you requested and immediately prioritize these variant rules? Is it reasonable for Paizo to not make an effort in this area unless they see significant numbers of people wanting variants for these rules?

I pose that hypothetical because it seems to me that you are convinced that your own opinion is so widely spread as to be genuinely more worth Paizo's attention that everyone's whose opinion can be expressed as "nah, do other stuff, please."

And because I'm pretty sure if I were the one claiming plurality, you'd be demanding the very citation of proof of numbers that you've refused to even respond to yourself.

Also, you got moved to house rules because you were talking about changing the RAW - the rules forum is for discussing RAW as-is. It's that simple, as soon as you say "...but what if it was different?" your "thread discussing the RAW" no longer lives in the rules forum because that kind of discussion is the entire point of the house-rules section so it lives there.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

I started this thread for those of us wanting to flag to Paizo there are (at least) four areas where the initial rules publication fall short for many gamers.

This is you, once again, referring to a large group consensus that agrees with you. So the number of those gamers is either a.) off topic as you claimed earlier and you shouldn’t mention them again of b.) on topic and you need to define who these many gamers are and give an idea of their numbers.

You don’t get to have it both ways.

[dirtypool]

thenobledrake wrote:

Also, you got moved to house rules because you were talking about changing the RAW - the rules forum is for discussing RAW as-is.

You’re giving too much credit, this didn’t start in the Rules forum, it started in the General Discussion forum. OP argues that almost everything belongs in the General Discussion forum and that being moved anywhere else is to “silence his criticism”

[Gorbacz]

I'm getting the impression is that the underlying problem is that the OP has different views on those 4 items than his regular group, so he wants his fixes printed in an official book so that he can then hopefully have an easier time enforcing them at his table, as they could reject his "fanmade houserules" but maybe if they get bludgeoned to death with a hardcover Paizo book they'll be more malleable.

In that case, we're once again looking at an attempt to use rules to solve a people problem, and that never works.

[Salamileg]

Zapp wrote:

Unfortunately, if you criticize the RAW you're likely to get shunted into homebrew. Not only does this drastically lower the visibility of your post, it also drowns you in the sea of homebrew suggestions. That's a real problem since it discourages sincere discussion of RAW rules.

The Sturdy Shield thread is a fortunate exception - it is a long thread that makes it absolutely clear the current implementation is insufficient to many people, and indeed it is on my list as well.

The Sturdy Shield thread, the multiple threads on wizards (one of which was over 1,000 posts long), the "Are Casters Behind the Curve" thread, this thread on Incapacitation , as well as your own thread on cantrips. To say that criticizing the RAW is likely to get you moved to here is just false. Half the forum is criticizing the RAW, it's honestly a pretty negative space.

[dirtypool]

Salamileg wrote:

The Sturdy Shield thread, the multiple threads on wizards (one of which was over 1,000 posts long), the "Are Casters Behind the Curve" thread, this thread on Incapacitation , as well as your own thread on cantrips. To say that criticizing the RAW is likely to get you moved to here is just false. Half the forum is criticizing the RAW, it's honestly a pretty negative space.

I don't think it's too far a walk to say that those threads (by and large located in Rules) are legitimate and free flowing conversations about rules engagement. The things that get shunted are the pet peeve posts, the "this doesn't work at my table so it must not work at any table" posts and yes the "I demand you fix this rule for me" posts.I

[CrystalSeas]

Zapp wrote:

Flagging this thread as belonging in houserules is a way to sweep the subject under the rug.

No one can flag a thread as "belonging in houserules".

The only option is This thread is in the wrong forum There is no way for anyone to suggest where the thread should go. All that happens when you use that flag is that staff reviews the thread.

[Steve Geddes]

Zapp wrote:

The topic of discussion here is the urgent need of official rules variants for four specific areas of the core rules for those of us that find them lacking.

I understand you don't want to discuss that. That's fine. But common courtesy would dictate you starting a new thread to discuss whatever you want to discuss, instead of your blatant attempt at thread-jacking this one.

The thing is “I’d rather you don’t address the issues Zapp raises but rather work on something else” is discussing the putative need for variants - namely by disagreeing that such a need exists. It’s clearly not the cacophony of support you envisaged, but it is on topic discussion.

Historically, there have been changes Paizo have made and after the fact they’ve said “well people asked for change and nobody seemed to be asking we leave things the same”. That means when people ask for change we disagree with (on an opportunity cost basis) it is important and on-topic to raise those disagreements.

I’m not going to deny you the right to ask for them, but I’m also going to object to changes I don’t support, because I’ve lost out previously by remaining silent when others were lobbying for change.

As a matter of practical advice, I’d recommend you avoid speaking for a large cohort and just speak to your own preferences. “Lots of people think....” is an easy argument to shoot down as it’s not easily justified or quantifiable, plus is challengable on the grounds that “lots of people” invariably think the opposite.

In contrast, “I think...” is undeniably true (granted it doesn’t have the same rhetorical impact).

[Mark Norfolk]

Purely anecdotal of course, but as a retailer I get the impression that most gamers buy the rules for a D&D/Pathfinder/CoC/Shadowrun etc, take it home and have fun with their friends, with no concept of this, or other forums or the perceived inadequacies of their game of choice. They play it as is and have a good time.

Like savages.

I would hypothesis that the 'many gamers' label belongs to this group. Those poor, poor fools.

[Gorbacz]

I run Pathfinder for 3 regular and 1 irregular group. Grand total is 22 people there.

3 have Paizo.com forum accounts.

1 has ever posted here.

The forum is a self-selected, highly literate, invested, intelligent, knowledgable and horribly tiny and unrepresentative segment of the customer base. Most "ordinary" players don't even know about errata, FAQs, the history of Crane Wing or other things that are natural and obvious for a veteran forum-goer.

[Steve Geddes]

Gorbacz wrote:

I run Pathfinder for 3 regular and 1 irregular group. Grand total is 22 people there.

3 have Paizo.com forum accounts.

1 has ever posted here.

The forum is a self-selected, highly literate, invested, intelligent, knowledgable and horribly tiny and unrepresentative segment of the customer base. Most "ordinary" players don't even know about errata, FAQs, the history of Crane Wing or other things that are natural and obvious for a veteran forum-goer.

Awww...sweet.

I can selectively read like all good forumites... ;)

[Gorbacz]

Well I did ulitamtely decide against adding "stubborn, traditionalist and technophobic" to that list. Witness my benelovence, it is infinite.

[MaxAstro]

Have to admit, I'm apparently not "many gamers" either, nor is my group. The Incap trait has definitely resulted in the party bard avoiding taking some spells as Signature spells, but she still has taken multiple Incap spells and gotten a lot of mileage out of them. Synaptic Pulse is one of my gold standard "2e spells done right", and it's Incap.

Shields I think is really just an issue of needing more magic shields at different levels. I've found myself homebrewing some shields, but mostly for the niche of "my fighter really likes her spined shield but is level 12 now and needs a shield that keeps up a little better".

Electric Arc is a good cantrip but I don't think it's game breaking.

What even was the fourth issue? Oh yeah, talismans. Eh, they are fancy-looking potions. Pathfinder has always had a surplus of "meh" consumables, and talismans are less "meh" than many we've had before.