Search results

You’re welcome. And not really. Given your many, many, many hyperbolic posts around pf2 being a failure it’s often difficult to parse what actually is or not. I mean, is it a failure? Not really, beyond the confusion of my part as to whether or not it’s versioned (hence why I asked the...

Right. God that’s crazy ridiculous I thought it was literally part 1 and 2. It’s puzzling. They had this right in 1e

I have First round and second round for the crb there.

Yo You mean like where it’s listed on its site and it has collapsible sections titled errata part one and errata part 2?

If you find the moderate encounter too “intense” for your group (as In perhaps Paizo’s definition of what is expected from the player for moderate doesn’t match your group’s vibe), as a GM, use the weak monster template. The number adjustments from that will provide a good enough impact on the...

No I get that. I already have the second printing pdf of the crb. I’m on about a pdf of the errata itself. They did this for the first round and they’ve done it historically for 1e

Their second round of errata annoys me because it’s just presented in FAQ format whereas the first round was in a lovely formatted PDF.

Wait. Only the first round? So it doesn’t include the second lot (with the changes to how items are held on the person etc)?

Indeed. All the errata has reduced my CRB to a coffee table art book. Does anyone know if the pocket version includes all the errata in the printing?

Or indeed put off by tone and structure of an argument. I’d happily read a long, well structured post supported with evidence and reasoned conclusions drawn from it ( Such as the one you posted the other day with your thorough analysis of market trends). Happily, even if perhaps disagreeing...

Aye, I’m using it as a more generalised term to refer to the encounter balancing mechanism (of low, moderate, challenging etc) as two letters are easier to type.

And someone made a really good point about the encounter difficulty on Reddit last night that got me thinking. I think Paizo have really tuned the CR system, so you know what you’re getting. But that “default” is tuned to be quite challenging. You have to be switched on and engaged in a fight...

Dark dungeons is a retro clone of the RC. Note though: unlike OSE, it’s not a 100% faithful to the source material (or near as can be with ambiguities in text). There is a whole list of tweaks and changes the developer openly talked about. I’ve also listened to an old episode of the save or die...

Do It!!! It might not be your cup of tea, you might really dig it, find out! Also, you can’t admit to changing your mind on the internet, that’s heresy. You declare your opinion, argue it, repeating the same points over and over, completely ignoring alternative points of view and discarding...

Bear in mind OSE is a clone of B/X. Rules Cyclopedia is a clone of BECMI (minus the immortals There are some subtle differences between these versions of the classic games, but they are mostly compatible at the lower levels. Both have slight caveats. Whilst Rules cyclopedia is a compilation...

You are posting far too much rationality and common sense for this thread! You must cease immediately else the people claiming the sky is falling on this clearly broken system will not be able to continue making these claims and label the rest of us delusional. Ive been trying to say the same...

This is spot on and well done, thank you! I’m not sure any one was speculating Paizo has a hidden source of player numbers. The point of contention was merely that meaningful conclusions probably shouldn’t be drawn from Roll20 numbers.

Wow! I wake up to a lot posts! All of which are replies that show you have looked at what’s being said but not being read. I have to admit, it is definitely courageous to not only not accept the correction, but to double down on it in a succession of long rants where you try turning it round on...

Im not straw manning anything because I haven’t taken something said by someone, made a bizarre leap of logic and stated that as the argument to defend. I am in no way saying they are not for profit. I have never made that claim or said anything to the same effect. You made the statement that...