So a Ring With 5 Resist to Acid / Cold / Electric / Fire Can Prevent Four Times the Damage Than a Ring with 5 Resist to All?

[25speedforseaweedleshy]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

This change suggests that Paizo had no idea how damage worked in their own game and is now just winging it after their first attempt at errata was so poorly received.

yes it is very stupid like the weakness clarification

it is like whoever writing those have no idea how pf2e work

there must be some staff turn over inside paizo

[Squiggit]

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Regardless of who's in charge, though, changes to fundamental mechanics should probably wait for the next edition, imho.

lmao that's so dumb though. Like if something isn't working right change it.

If there's an aspect of the change you don't like that's fair game but the idea that errata is somehow inherently bad is something I can't even wrap my head around.

[KlampK]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

There's no way that the design team didn't know that most of us were using the Foundry implementation; the best and easiest thing to do was to codify that. If they felt that might be unbalanced or otherwise less than ideal, they could print a sidebar that gives an optional rule for resist all as it currently works.

It may have been easiest but we do not know if it was best. The community threw such a tantrum at the first clarification that we don't know how that would have turned out.

I suspect the "Best" thing would have been halfway between the first clarification and how foundry was doing it.

[Nezuyo]

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Regardless of who's in charge, though, changes to fundamental mechanics should probably wait for the next edition, imho.

While I actually like this interpretation of IWR rules for being nicely consistent, in that Weaknesses/Resistances only apply once, no exceptions, on principle, I do somewhat agree.

#BringBackSpellSchools

[Bust-R-Up]

Squiggit wrote:

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Regardless of who's in charge, though, changes to fundamental mechanics should probably wait for the next edition, imho.

lmao that's so dumb though. Like if something isn't working right change it.

If there's an aspect of the change you don't like that's fair game but the idea that errata is somehow inherently bad is something I can't even wrap my head around.

Errata = balance patch, especially when the way people were already playing wasn't breaking anything.

[Bust-R-Up]

KlampK wrote:

It may have been easiest but we do not know if it was best. The community threw such a tantrum at the first clarification that we don't know how that would have turned out.

I suspect the "Best" thing would have been halfway between the first clarification and how foundry was doing it.

Quote:

That "tantrum" was because the new ruling fundamentally broke the game and clashed with how nearly everybody had interpreted the limited rules/rulings we had to work with. The feedback given after that ruling dropped could be boiled down to, "WTF, why didn't they just have it work like it always did on Foundry, but properly spelt out?"

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I'm not particularly concerned that Resist All has become Resist Any. I did rather like it better as "All" but knowing that ghosts were not designed with the assumption of their resistance knocking the wind out of multi-type attacks, it doesn't bother me that much. As long as Foundry automates it, I won't even think about it again.

That said, I do feel like Resist All should apply to the total damage of the attack, not to only one chosen damage type. It just seems a little messy and unclean to have to pick a specific damage type to resist when you could have resisted any of them individually. I don't like that, round to round, a ghost might be resistant to either the fire or the slashing damage of a flaming sword, depending which is more useful to resist this round. The ghost should simply resist all of the attack up to the limit. Since at this point, weakness is already applied, it's not usually going to matter which damage type gets 0'd first, and if it does you can edge case.

[Nezuyo]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

Nezuyo wrote:

While I actually like this interpretation of IWR rules for being nicely consistent, in that Weaknesses/Resistances only apply once, no exceptions, on principle, I do somewhat agree.

#BringBackSpellSchools

That "tantrum" was because the new ruling fundamentally broke the game and clashed with how nearly everybody had interpreted the limited rules/rulings we had to work with. The feedback given after that ruling dropped could be boiled down to, "WTF, why didn't they just have it work like it always did on Foundry, but properly spelt out?"

Bruv, I think you quote responded to the wrong thing, had me confused what you were talking about for a second.

Anyways, congratulations, the rules now basically work in the way Foundry has been doing it, though Paizo clearly thinks that means Resist All needed to be reigned in/changed to Resist Any.

And the harshness of all your posts on the topic shows why the Paizo team doesn't really interact with people anymore, I feel for them.

[Bust-R-Up]

Nezuyo wrote:

Bust-R-Up wrote:

Nezuyo wrote:

While I actually like this interpretation of IWR rules for being nicely consistent, in that Weaknesses/Resistances only apply once, no exceptions, on principle, I do somewhat agree.

#BringBackSpellSchools

That "tantrum" was because the new ruling fundamentally broke the game and clashed with how nearly everybody had interpreted the limited rules/rulings we had to work with. The feedback given after that ruling dropped could be boiled down to, "WTF, why didn't they just have it work like it always did on Foundry, but properly spelt out?"

Bruv, I think you quote responded to the wrong thing, had me confused what you were talking about for a second.

Anyways, congratulations, the rules now basically work in the way Foundry has been doing it, though Paizo clearly thinks that means Resist All needed to be reigned in/changed to Resist Any.

And the harshness of all your posts on the topic shows why the Paizo team doesn't really interact with people anymore, I feel for them.

Yup, my bad will edit that post.

[Bust-R-Up]

Nezuyo wrote:

Anyways, congratulations, the rules now basically work in the way Foundry has been doing it, though Paizo clearly thinks that means Resist All needed to be reigned in/changed to Resist Any.

And the harshness of all your posts on the topic shows why the Paizo team doesn't really interact with people anymore, I feel for them.

I'd be less harsh if the devs gave us anything in terms of insight into these changes. It's not hard to write a quick blog post talking about the changes, letting us know why they made them, why other issues aren't being addressed, and teasing what's coming next. People hate them, but look at how WotC handles things with heads of departments engaging with the community all the time. That is the expectation, and Paizo is failing to meet that.

[KlampK]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

Nezuyo wrote:

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Regardless of who's in charge, though, changes to fundamental mechanics should probably wait for the next edition, imho.

While I actually like this interpretation of IWR rules for being nicely consistent, in that Weaknesses/Resistances only apply once, no exceptions, on principle, I do somewhat agree.

#BringBackSpellSchools

That "tantrum" was because the new ruling fundamentally broke the game and clashed with how nearly everybody had interpreted the limited rules/rulings we had to work with. The feedback given after that ruling dropped could be boiled down to, "WTF, why didn't they just have it work like it always did on Foundry, but properly spelt out?"

I don't think the retracted clarification did fundamentally break the game. I do not deny that there may have been some abilities/spells designed under the "community" rule that could break the game.

The retracted clarification fit in better with what was actually written in the rules than the community rule.

rules wrote:

This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material.

The above, for instance, doesn't make any sense when (unless i missed something) in the original bestiary only a single linworm is weak to both a material and a physical damage but there are plenty of creatures weak to an energy and physical damage

[Bust-R-Up]

KlampK wrote:

I don't think the retracted clarification did fundamentally break the game. I do not deny that there may have been some abilities/spells designed under the "community" rule that could break the game.

Allowing one character to deal hundreds of damage per strike by triggering weaknesses that the party itself is able to create fundamentally breaks damage math, and telling players "just don't do that" goes against the entire ethos of PF2. If you can't see that, I'm not sure we have anything further to talk about.

[WWHsmackdown]

As a frequent GM, I'm very happy that instances of damage, resistances, and weakness are now running how I always played it: one time adjustments. The idea of adding or subtracting damage multiple times, necessitating separately portioning out each type of damage to accurately add/subtract the appropriate modifiers, sounds like a pace grinding amount of busy work for the GM; the juice from that busy work squeeze looked like MY encounters melting faster or the odd resist all monster becoming a slog. I'm glad I never ran these things as written and honestly don't think the extra minutes of dice portioning and napkin math amount to a more enjoyable experience. It's a healthier streamlining. Player options getting caught in the crossfire and coming out less powerful is an unfortunate casualty, but I'll take it.

[Easl]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

I'd be less harsh if the devs gave us anything in terms of insight into these changes. It's not hard to write a quick blog post talking about the changes,

They literally did this. https://paizo.com/blog/spring-errata-2026

IMO about 75% of customer rules clarification requests are answered in the books or Paizo errata posts - people 'ask the internet' NOT because Paizo is lacking in rules language but because people would rather get the answer spoon fed to them instead of reading a book. Though 'instance of damage' is an exception to that general statement.

Quote:

Allowing one character to deal hundreds of damage per strike by triggering weaknesses that the party itself is able to create fundamentally breaks damage math

I'm somewhat skeptical of that. While it is easy to come up with white-room examples that allow PCs to beat some opponent more easily than we would like, the majority of play being L1-10 and pick-up-game society play means the problem of 5-fire-instances-on-fire-weakness-in-round-one just doesn't actually happen that often. These boards are a very skewed sample of overall players; dedicated many-games-at-once fans + folks who find rules discussions interesting. The fact that this group can invent mental scenarios where the rules don't work well, does not mean the game is 'fundamentally broken'.

[WatersLethe]

I just have a sneaky suspicion that the change isn't that big a deal and will turn out to be a net benefit the vast majority of the time.

[NorrKnekten]

Thats basically what I gather, Yes any theoretical advantages are gone from a player perspective but those only ever mattered if the creatures had multiple damage types, and typically only against single attacks as all resistance to players is rare.

But on the other hand now you arent severely punished for having spread out your damage types should a ghost or similar pop out.

Incorporeals already had a similar defensive statting compared to skeletons but those in practice usually only a single type of damage in most scenarios.

[gesalt]

It is pretty funny how many people are getting bent out of shape over what is essentially a minor champion reaction nerf, and a minor martial buff.

[Balkoth]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Yes any theoretical advantages are gone from a player perspective but those only ever mattered if the creatures had multiple damage types

Prior to the remaster, this seemed to be most common on fiends and similar outsiders doing extra alignment damage, making Champions particularly good at defending against them, which did make thematic sense.

NorrKnekten wrote:

Incorporeals already had a similar defensive statting compared to skeletons but those in practice usually only a single type of damage in most scenarios.

Ah, Skeletons are another problem. Skeletons get "Resistances cold 5, electricity 5, fire 5, piercing 5, slashing 5" (or better).

Meaning if you hit a ghost with resist 5 all with a sword that also deals 3 fire damage, 4 cold damage, and 2 electricity damage it'll reduce the damage by 5 slashing damage.

But if you hit a skeleton it'll ignore not only the 5 slashing damage, but also the fire/cold/electricity damage.

[Bust-R-Up]

For the record, I think this change is pretty minor, and I wouldn't mind it nearly as much if it didn't show us that, behind the scenes, the current dev team doesn't have any more of a clue how things work than we do. If we got more frequent and in-depth insights from the team, similar to how Mark Rosewater and Gavin Verhey talk to the community about MtG, design goals, what has worked and what hasn't, what's coming soon, etc. I'd be more willing to accept changes that match that shared vision. Instead, we're left in the dark, and then we get an awful ruling, backpedalling, and then a ruling that introduces a balance change, all in short order.

To top it all off, this is after the team missed an errata period that they set for themselves. I don't think it's unfair to say that this doesn't feel like the work of a well-oiled machine. It feels like an understaffed team that has too much work and not enough time to make a quality product.

[Easl]

Balkoth wrote:

Ah, Skeletons are another problem. Skeletons get "Resistances cold 5, electricity 5, fire 5, piercing 5, slashing 5" (or better).

Meaning if you hit a ghost with resist 5 all with a sword that also deals 3 fire damage, 4 cold damage, and 2 electricity damage it'll reduce the damage by 5 slashing damage.

But if you hit a skeleton it'll ignore not only the 5 slashing damage, but also the fire/cold/electricity damage.

So you're L16, you've just got your weapon potency +3 rune and chosen which third property rune to add to your sword...and you chose Shock. It used to stink against both ghosts and skeletons, but uh oh now the errata has come out, it only stinks against skeletons. Time to sound the alarm?

Well, no. APs are usually typically somewhat transparent in the types of threats you'll be facing. If you chose Shock instead of Ghost Touch or Vitalizing in a campaign featuring skeletons and ghosts, that's not a system or GM problem, it's a player choice. OTOH if you're in a home campaign, the GM is designing encounters knowing what you took. So if you encounter a ghost or skeleton, it's because the GM wanted you to encounter them. Again, not a system problem. And in the case of a GM running an old AP, who just saw their next encounter get much easier because it featured a Resist All ghost, well they have a choice to make: run it RAW-with-errata and allow it to be easier, or run it pre-errata to preserve the 'original intent' of the encounter. Either way they do it, it's not a terribly difficult choice to implement.*

It is a change. Paizo in fact recognized that, and explicitly noted that the change to Resist All is going to change the difficulty of some past written encounters. But I'm not seeing it as a major problem given that GM-player-AP interactions around an actual table are rarely so unflexible as white-room scenarios we can construct in our heads.

*I guess if you're playing on Foundry and you want to implement the rules change right away, it's a problem. You'll have to wait for the Foundry devs to implement it, or hand-jam damage to get the right result. But Foundry isn't Paizo; they aren't responsible for that problem.

[Tridus]

WatersLethe wrote:

I just have a sneaky suspicion that the change isn't that big a deal and will turn out to be a net benefit the vast majority of the time.

You're right. It's bad news for Champions and Amulet Thaumaturges in fights where enemies do multiple damage types at once, which while not rare, also isn't the typical case (except in Spore War where it happens a LOT).

It's good news when fighting incorporeal enemies without Ghost Touch weapons or any other creature that has resist at all.

Overall? It's an adjustment but it'll be fine. Champions still work when enemies are only doing one type of damage (that is the most common case, after all) so while it's a nerf, it's not a crippling one.

We now have a situation where resists and weaknesses never double-dip, which makes sense.

[Tridus]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

Nezuyo wrote:

Anyways, congratulations, the rules now basically work in the way Foundry has been doing it, though Paizo clearly thinks that means Resist All needed to be reigned in/changed to Resist Any.

And the harshness of all your posts on the topic shows why the Paizo team doesn't really interact with people anymore, I feel for them.

I'd be less harsh if the devs gave us anything in terms of insight into these changes. It's not hard to write a quick blog post talking about the changes, letting us know why they made them, why other issues aren't being addressed, and teasing what's coming next. People hate them, but look at how WotC handles things with heads of departments engaging with the community all the time. That is the expectation, and Paizo is failing to meet that.

Dude, you've been all over this thread asserting that the devs don't know what they're doing and don't understand the game. That's how you opened this, and you're still doing it.

Why would any of them want to interact with someone this hostile? No one needs that nonsense in their life.

You are literally contributing to the problem of lack of interaction with these ridiculous hyperbolic attacks and then decrying the lack of interaction. It's absurd.

[Easl]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

I want developer blogs like this: https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/commander-brackets-beta-upd ate-february-9-2026

Paizo revenue 2024: $12 million (though it doubled in 2025!). Paizo workforce: 125 people.

WoTC revenue 2024: $1.1 billion. Workforce: between 1,000-5,000, exact number not reported.

Of course D&D has the ability to offer blogs, streams, etc. that smaller companies cannot. Doing that costs them a much smaller fraction of their labor and operating budget. You're basically complaining about how the corner store doesn't have WalMart's services.

Quote:

Why does Paizo even write level 11+ if, according to you, nobody ever plays them, and balance issues that show up at those levels don't matter? The fact is, the ruling created the possibility for the most broken builds in PF2's...

High-level balance issues do matter, of course. There are many loyal players who play those levels. None of that negates the point, however, that the majority of play isn't going to involve flaming shock cold silver weapon vs. immune to A resist B C weak D E, so a rules change that mostly impacts such complicated situations isn't going to impact the majority of play. And the situation becomes even less dire when you step out of the white room and remember that GMs have the ability to tweak encounters if they don't like the way the revised resistance works.

[KlampK]

Tridus wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I just have a sneaky suspicion that the change isn't that big a deal and will turn out to be a net benefit the vast majority of the time.

Overall? It's an adjustment but it'll be fine. Champions still work when enemies are only doing one type of damage (that is the most common case, after all) so while it's a nerf, it's not a crippling one.

We now have a situation where resists and weaknesses never double-dip, which makes sense.

I do agree that the change will be fine. Whether or not it was for the better we won't know for a while.

I just dislike this more than the retracted because I felt the retracted explained some of the odd things put into the rules. Where this more one doesn't.

[Roadlocator]

Tridus wrote:

Bust-R-Up wrote:

Nezuyo wrote:

Anyways, congratulations, the rules now basically work in the way Foundry has been doing it, though Paizo clearly thinks that means Resist All needed to be reigned in/changed to Resist Any.

And the harshness of all your posts on the topic shows why the Paizo team doesn't really interact with people anymore, I feel for them.

I'd be less harsh if the devs gave us anything in terms of insight into these changes. It's not hard to write a quick blog post talking about the changes, letting us know why they made them, why other issues aren't being addressed, and teasing what's coming next. People hate them, but look at how WotC handles things with heads of departments engaging with the community all the time. That is the expectation, and Paizo is failing to meet that.

Dude, you've been all over this thread asserting that the devs don't know what they're doing and don't understand the game. That's how you opened this, and you're still doing it.

Why would any of them want to interact with someone this hostile? No one needs that nonsense in their life.

You are literally contributing to the problem of lack of interaction with these ridiculous hyperbolic attacks and then decrying the lack of interaction. It's absurd.

If I may summarize, interaction is a privilege, not a right

[The Raven Black]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

For the record, I think this change is pretty minor, and I wouldn't mind it nearly as much if it didn't show us that, behind the scenes, the current dev team doesn't have any more of a clue how things work than we do. If we got more frequent and in-depth insights from the team, similar to how Mark Rosewater and Gavin Verhey talk to the community about MtG, design goals, what has worked and what hasn't, what's coming soon, etc. I'd be more willing to accept changes that match that shared vision. Instead, we're left in the dark, and then we get an awful ruling, backpedalling, and then a ruling that introduces a balance change, all in short order.

To top it all off, this is after the team missed an errata period that they set for themselves. I don't think it's unfair to say that this doesn't feel like the work of a well-oiled machine. It feels like an understaffed team that has too much work and not enough time to make a quality product.

Paizo has been hit pretty hard by first the OGL debacle and then the Diamond distributor disaster.

And they do not have WotC's deep pockets backed by Hasbro.

I just hope they can get their financial health back, which will definitely improve their ability to interact with the community.

That said, that they were willing to get back to errata, tackled such a big workload including very long-standing issues such as instance of damage, and adapt quickly to the community's reactions to those, speaks volumes of their admirable will to keep on working with us all to make this game even better.

[WatersLethe]

Also, I'll take Paizo's down-to-earth, feedback-influenced, working-with-the-community approach over WotC's "playtests are just advertising" approach to everything any day.

[Rue Dickey]

Hey folks! We appreciate feedback, but please refrain from personal or professional attacks against Paizo employees and community members!

[BigHatMarisa]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

...Why has this most recent errata still made rules errors, i.e. By RAW DaS still can't benefit from hero points because it isn't a skill check, so what was the point in removing the luck trait from it?

For the record, the Fortune trait on Devise a Strategem DID matter, and the removal of it from the action altogether does actually have impact.

Player Core pg. 401; "Fortune" wrote:

A fortune effect beneficially alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll. If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use...

(emphasis mine).

As Devise a Strategem WAS an action that "altered your roll" (by either replacing it with a set number in Attack Stratagem's case or giving it a flat bonus in Skill Stratagem's case), you could not use Hero Points for either case because there was a Fortune effect already applied to it. It never mattered that the roll it altered was made later in the round and not immediately as part of the action. Fortune effects can be placed on actions that have delayed effects and work as written.

Now that the fortune trait was slid into only the Attack Stratagem portion, you can actually use Hero Points on Skill Stratagem rolls RAW.

[Balkoth]

Easl wrote:

So you're L16, you've just got your weapon potency +3 rune and chosen which third property rune to add to your sword...and you chose Shock. It used to stink against both ghosts and skeletons, but uh oh now the errata has come out, it only stinks against skeletons. Time to sound the alarm?

It's weird that the ghost is only resisting one type of damage while the skeleton is resisting several, yes. That a Flaming +1 Striking Sword is very close to identical to a Ghost Touch +1 Striking Sword against a Ghost with Resist 5 all. That spelling out a bunch of resistances individually winds up being better than resist all.

Is is the end of the world? Of course not. That doesn't mean it's a good change or an explained change.

[Bust-R-Up]

Easl wrote:

Paizo revenue 2024: $12 million (though it doubled in 2025!). Paizo workforce: 125 people.

WoTC revenue 2024: $1.1 billion. Workforce: between 1,000-5,000, exact number not reported.

Of course D&D has the ability to offer blogs, streams, etc. that smaller companies cannot.

If this is such an expense, why can smaller companies manage it?

https://rtalsoriangames.com/#
https://www.zoominfo.com/c/r-talsorian-games-inc/479287123

https://www.youtube.com/@catalyst-game-labs/videos
https://www.konaequity.com/company/catalyst-game-labs-4388801284/

Paizo is over twice as large as the largest of these entities and seems unwilling to even match their community outreach, much less exceed them, as we would expect the second-largest TTRPG brand on the planet to do.

Quote:

Doing that costs them a much smaller fraction of their labor and operating budget. You're basically complaining about how the corner store doesn't have WalMart's services.

It doesn't seem to stop the mom and pops from stealing Paizo's lunch money. Also, there's a reason why Walmart, Amazon, 7/11, etc. plough other smaller companies under. Why go to Mom'n'Pops, where you pay extra, have a limited selection, and they don't take Amex or Discover, when you can go to a place that better serves your needs?

Quote:

High-level balance issues do matter, of course. There are many loyal players who play those levels. None of that negates the point, however, that the majority of play isn't going to involve flaming shock cold silver weapon vs. immune to A resist B C weak D E, so a rules change that mostly impacts such complicated situations isn't going to impact the majority of play. And the situation becomes even less dire when you step out of the white room and remember that GMs have the ability to tweak encounters if they don't like the way the revised resistance works.

Your example suggests that you don't know why the old ruling was broken. It wasn't broken because you could hit with multiple different elements at once; it was broken because you could stack half a dozen of the same element on a weapon, force an enemy to be weak to that element, and absolutely destroy them with that extra damage.

[Bust-R-Up]

Roadlocator wrote:

If I may summarize, interaction is a privilege, not a right

It's also a wonderful tool for community building. There's a reason why most gaming companies have weekly developer blogs, YouTube channels, and a social media presence. If you look two posts above, I show that two companies smaller than Paizo both manage a better level of audience engagement.

[Bust-R-Up]

BigHatMarisa wrote:

Bust-R-Up wrote:

...Why has this most recent errata still made rules errors, i.e. By RAW DaS still can't benefit from hero points because it isn't a skill check, so what was the point in removing the luck trait from it?

For the record, the Fortune trait on Devise a Strategem DID matter, and the removal of it from the action altogether does actually have impact.

Player Core pg. 401; "Fortune" wrote:

A fortune effect beneficially alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll. If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use...

(emphasis mine).

As Devise a Strategem WAS an action that "altered your roll" (by either replacing it with a set number in Attack Stratagem's case or giving it a flat bonus in Skill Stratagem's case), you could not use Hero Points for either case because there was a Fortune effect already applied to it. It never mattered that the roll it altered was made later in the round and not immediately as part of the action. Fortune effects can be placed on actions that have delayed effects and work as written.

Now that the fortune trait was slid into only the Attack Stratagem portion, you can actually use Hero Points on Skill Stratagem rolls RAW.

That is such a narrow change as to feel like a troll, and I'd be willing to bet that RAI was to allow for DaS to be rereolled with a hero point. It's too bad that we're stuck guessing at what's RAI when RAW runs into a snag.

[Tridus]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Why would any of them want to interact with someone this hostile? No one needs that nonsense in their life.

You are literally contributing to the problem of lack of interaction with these ridiculous hyperbolic attacks and then decrying the lack of interaction. It's absurd.

You do realise the interaction I'm asking for is bi-monthly blog posts and/or YouTube videos, right? I don't care if a dev is active on Bsky/X/Facebook or comes down to these forums and answers my questions directly. Paizo just utterly fails at creating a bond between designers and players, even though it wouldn't take much effort and is such low-hanging fruit that much smaller studios manage it. The idea that fans of a game don't deserve to hear from developers is alien to the entire industry, and Paizo is one of the only holdouts.

The lack of communication and clarification fosters resentment, as we never know if our concerns are being heard. Look at how quickly the tone shifts when James pops in and clarifies why something was released in a less-than-ideal state. If the rest of the team, or even just a handful of team leads or social media people, would give us insights into what's going on, that would be a huge positive. It even seems like Maya is willing to take this task on, but has been unable to get the information needed to do so.

If the devs want to shut me up and prove that they know ball, the easiest thing they can do is show up and shoot some hoops.

So your plan is to be hostile and antagonistic, then blame them for it, and say that if they want the abuse to stop, all they have to do is engage to you on your terms to prove something to you?

I'm a parent and I've encountered this kind of behaviour before. Trust me: giving in doesn't work.

The sheer gall of it all is astounding. Like this example:

Quote:

That is such a narrow change as to feel like a troll, and I'd be willing to bet that RAI was to allow for DaS to be rereolled with a hero point. It's too bad that we're stuck guessing at what's RAI when RAW runs into a snag.

You asked what the point was, someone answered, and you responded by coming up with an assumption and then using that assumption to attack the devs.

The idea you think this is what the devs will want to spend any time whatsoever engaging with is comically absurd.

[BigHatMarisa]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

That is such a narrow change as to feel like a troll, and I'd be willing to bet that RAI was to allow for DaS to be rereolled with a hero point. It's too bad that we're stuck guessing at what's RAI when RAW runs into a snag.

Not really here to debate the RAI, was just clearing up a misconception I saw about DaS having a "rules error" as well as the errata for it. :)

DaS's Fortune trait was always a RAW-consistent trait and its transference to specifically the Attack Stratagem does have gameplay consequences, however minor. The arguably more impactful change to the ability was the rewording to allow ranged unarmed attacks (and explicitly disallowing bombs).

[Bust-R-Up]

Tridus wrote:

<snip>

If community engagement is so hard, why does every other company in the space do it better than Paizo? It's not that hard to write a blog post. Let us know what you're working on, how you feel about the state of PF2R, what's working, and what you wish had been published differently. The usual stuff that's expected within this space and that's delivered by almost everybody aside from Paizo.

[Errenor]

WatersLethe wrote:

Also, I'll take Paizo's down-to-earth, feedback-influenced, working-with-the-community approach over WotC's "playtests are just advertising" approach to everything any day.

Paizo also obviously has their own vision and intent towards the game, as even this change shows (contrary to what some people here spout). While what people say about WotC looks very much like: "we only do what gives the best publicity and hype".

[Ravingdork]

Speaking as someone who has played a champion from level 1 to 20, I'm quite happy with the new balance point.

I think a great many people will come to see the benefits of the new paradigm in due time.

I do find the decision to apply the resistance to a single chosen damage type, rather than to the total sum of damage, a little curious though. Wouldn't that mean you won't benefit from your full resistance in some edge cases?

[Balkoth]

Ravingdork wrote:

Speaking as someone who has played a champion from level 1 to 20, I'm quite happy with the new balance point.

I'm also playing a Fighter in a Free Archetype game with the Champion Archetype. I am also not worried about the balance for the Champion reaction. It's still good.

Ravingdork wrote:

I do find the decision to apply the resistance to a single chosen damage type, rather than to the total sum of damage, a little curious though. Wouldn't that mean you won't benefit from your full resistance in some edge cases?

Yes. Or in other cases you might have resist 15 but choose to resist 3 damage (rather a 20+ damage portion of the hit) to avoid triggering a weakness (that was an error on my part, weakness triggers before resistance) or avoid regeneration turning off or something and "waste" the other 12.

Those scenarios are what I find problematic.

[Gortle]

Bust-R-Up wrote:

If community engagement is so hard, why does every other company in the space do it better than Paizo?

That is too harsh. Paizo are better than all the larger gaming companies.

They do make an effort.

[HenshinFanatic]

Balkoth wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I do find the decision to apply the resistance to a single chosen damage type, rather than to the total sum of damage, a little curious though. Wouldn't that mean you won't benefit from your full resistance in some edge cases?

Yes. Or in other cases you might have resist 15 but choose to resist 3 damage (rather a 20+ damage portion of the hit) to avoid triggering a weakness or avoid regeneration turning off or something and "waste" the other 12.

Those scenarios are what I find problematic.

Wait, I thought the order of operations went Immunities, Weaknesses, then Resistances are accounted for.

[Balkoth]

HenshinFanatic wrote:

Wait, I thought the order of operations went Immunities, Weaknesses, then Resistances are accounted for.

You are correct. Was not awake enough yet.

Still a factor for stuff like regeneration being turned off.

[Unicore]

Fun fact, Paizo has had rules developers interact more frequently with players in the past. In fact the whole situation of everyone interpreting instance of damage differently than was RAW to begin with was a developer jumping in to provide clarity. People took that informal errata as errata for years, and it was clearly not what the development team over all thought the ruling should be, but, clearly, trying to formalize the FAQ to explain what it should be in all cases turned out to be difficult and take a very long time, only for the community to essentially decide to reject the RAW so vehemently, that we are just now getting a consistent RAW on this ruling.

Now I love Mark Seifter and his interactions with the community, but clearly, one developer just jumping in to answer questions and present “this is how I run this” as company policy has created rather far reaching problems for the company. Much smaller companies might have one person who is the rules person (like Seifter is now for RFC), and what they say is company policy. That person is also probably doing a lot of unpaid labor to sell the brand because the brand is their baby. That is not a healthy labor practice though, and rules people don’t need to be spending their time and energy on customer service, which is what interacting with the community is. And when development hours run short, and the company can’t afford to pay for it, errata, the thing generating income, is pretty naturally going to be the thing that gets pushed back.

[WatersLethe]

If I were an under-paid nerd working in the TTRPG space the very last thing I would want to be doing is writing blog posts justifying everything I and my team design in an attempt to mollify the very same people who will be the first to jump in an argue with me about the justifications.

I'd much rather spend my time working on game design making content I and our customers are excited about.

The fact that we do get as much communication, livestreams, and blogs as we do is pretty sweet. They already read and respond to our community concerns better than basically any other company, and go far out of their way to do robust playtest for new content. I'm not sure how much value add there is to have them also babysitting us on the forums and in even more blog posts as well.

[Easl]

In the case of our most active campaign, the change in immunity to crit hits may have more impact than the Resist All change. We have no Champions, but getting those non-doubling crit effects could be big. Time will tell.

WatersLethe wrote:

I'd much rather spend my time working on game design making content I and our customers are excited about.

And as a consumer, I'd much rather those underpaid nerds spend their time creating new content rather than writing or videotaping commentary on old content. Video especially; it burns me up that they often take 1 hour to provide information that could be communicated in a 30-second half-page text read. Commercialization has made it worse; now creators are incentivized to blather on.

[yellowpete]

Easl wrote:

In the case of our most active campaign, the change in immunity to crit hits may have more impact than the Resist All change. We have no Champions, but getting those non-doubling crit effects could be big. Time will tell.

That wasn't a change, was it? I think you always got fatal/deadly etc. regardless of crit immunity