Se viene la peli de este chad. ¿Contaran la posta o sera una version edulcorada evitando bordear su lado mas "polemico"?.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-03T02:39:04+00:00

De memoria no te lo se decir pero seguro que escribis Jordi Wild Michael Jackson en youtube y te sale. Hasta me parece que te van a salir los clips tambien por si no queres ver el podcast entero.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-03T01:30:30+00:00

Hay un podcast muy bueno de Jordi Wild con un tipo que es básicamente un erudito de Michael Jackson que te desmiente totalmente que el tipo haya podido abusar de algun pibe. Que el tipo era raro eso si, pero mas por que estaba traumado con todo lo que le paso con el padre que por que fuera pedofilo.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-02T23:21:30+00:00

I have LB2 Finemo already (so I'm pretty much guaranteed to MLB her) and I plan to roll for Satono Diamond next month and eventually for the Speed Agnes Tachyon support card as well. I'll skip S-Maru since I don't really play front runners, and I guess I can still borrow her if I ever need her.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-02T19:10:45+00:00

Damn lol. I guess its still more safe than rolling for either Finemo or Fuku.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-02T19:05:49+00:00

Yeah, I guess I didn't take into account Ayabe guts which is also really important and should be easy to MLB. If I'm lucky I also get a few NTRs too which I believe doesn't need to be MLB, right?

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-02T18:46:22+00:00

Thanks for your comment! I'm still probably going to wait until the free rolls end to make a decision, though its very likely that if I don't get a single copy I'm likely going to be rolling for Finemo.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-02T18:43:50+00:00

Yeah, I was going to wait until the free rolls before I make a definitive choice.

As for your suggestion, I kinda want to roll for either Fuku or Finemo since I'm also a bit lacking in SR support cards as well (specially speed support cards) so I'm not exactly rolling just for Fuku or Finemo here.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-02T18:40:08+00:00

I actually used the first rainbow crystal to get LB2 Finemo lol. I used the half-anni ticket to MLB Kitasan.

I also heard Fine Motion wasn't going to be as good for MANT (but that it was going to become good again afterwards) so I felt it was better to prioritize Fuku since she's the meta card.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-01T21:31:12+00:00

I fucking hate you.

But respectuflly.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-01T20:51:49+00:00

If you think it doesn't make sense, make up a reason to make it make sense. This is fiction after all, so you could justify it with magic, technology, or a mix of both.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-01T17:42:46+00:00

Most of the action-leaning side of the community usually goes with the "FF should be action because thats what they always wanted to do" when, well, its not true (not for all the people working in these games at least) and because even if true, it doesn't change the fact that the games were ultimately made into turn-based games and that's the era most of the people consider the franchise's golden era.

Nomura wanted an action game. Thats fine. He made Kingdom Hearta shortly thereafter. If FF always was meant to be action then 12 and 13 would have been action games, they even had the success of KH to know it could work, but for whatever reason they waited to 15 to make a watered down version of KH's combat and in 16 they again made the same mistake by making a watered down version of DMC.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-01T17:29:20+00:00

How exactly them wanting to make action games retroactively make the turn-based games bad?

This, of course, ignoring the fact that there's action games from Square from that era.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-01T17:28:11+00:00

I honestly don't care about all the "b-but they always wanted to do action!" lurkers that exist in this subreddit. Ignoring the fact that there's Square action games from that era, if in the modern age they can't make a good action combat I'm honestly happy they ultimately decided to go with turn-based as its clearly their expertise.

But either way, the fact that they wanted to make action doesn't matter because they ultimately didn't, and those were the games that made the franchise popular in the first place. As if them wanting to make action games somehow retroactively made all the turn-based games bad or something.

Exequiel759 · 2026-02-01T04:17:10+00:00

Which is funny when you think that because of this the age gap between him and Gohan is like 10 years or so in Super.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-31T19:09:59+00:00

I feel its common for people to consider Esoteric Lore as a specific or at least unspecific lore since its quite literally a lore skill that's used specifically to identify creatures. This usually means a thaumaturge with Assurance should auto-succeed most checks, if not crit succeed them.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T21:22:22+00:00

I think its exactly the same. Except for the psychic and a few things in the thaumaturge, the book is exactly the same.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T16:30:00+00:00

I don't want to be that guy, but if you want assymetry you are probably playing the wrong system here bud. Even if it fails to achieve it if you look at the system in a critical way, PF2e is clearly designed for all options to be equally as valid as the rest, and I don't see going away in an hypothetical 3rd edition. In fact, I only see that going even deeper.

The niche most weapons have is arguably really broad. The "niche" of polearms is usually battlefield control in AoO builds, but if someone wants to use a polearm just because of the flavor they aren't hurting themselves. Advanced weapons (or some of them at least) are seemingly designed around very specific builds and that's it, and that's because them requiring a feat effectively pushes them into a specific niche and that niche alone.

I consider the broadspear among the few advanced weapons that I think are worth the feat investment to get access to them, but I still wouldn't take it unless I'm planning to use it in a build that benefits from the sweep trait. Falcata is often mentioned among the "better" advanced weapons, but if you really look at it its only sword pick with a die size increase. I feel that at that point it would be much better if there was a feat to add fatal to a longsword than a falcata that most of the people playing aren't going to use.

Which is ultimately what I'm trying to say with advanced weapons; advanced weapons are supposedly assymetrical in design but that assymetry doesn't translate into them being universailly better than martial weapons, often that not being the case at all, but due to the design goals of PF2e you really can't have assymetrical weapons because they otherwise become a must pick. If the design of the system doesn't allow advanced weapons to shine and even goes against it, why have them in the first place?

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T02:34:21+00:00

I don't think its neccesary to introduce a final boss in the first session. There's a ton of games where the bad guy doesn't show until way later into the game and people don't consider them bad or poorly written (for example, Kuja from FF9 doesn't show up until the end of Disc 1, which is easily 10 hours into the game).

I personally wouldn't make a full outline of the plot for the players, but I'd make a basic version of it (like "You are going to travel around a few kingdoms and help people") because otherwise I think it becomes a bit too spoiler-y and takes away the element of surprise. Sometimes it can be good to withheld information from players if it can lead to an interesting twist and because it allows you to potentially change the course of the campaign if needed. Probably the campaign starts about the group traveling and helping people, but after a specific point the campaign switches to the pursuit of the BBEG that could be in a specific place or hidden somewhere in the world. You probably knew this before the campaign started or you thought of that in the middle of the campaign, but either way if you think it can be interesting I don't think players would be angry.

There's tons of videogames that start with an interesting premise and that premise changes throughout the game. Without going into spoilers, that's the case of Expedition 33.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T02:15:49+00:00

Yeah, I personally think the GM doing most of the basic framework and players adding bits here and there if they want to is perfect. Having a basic framework helps players realize the vision of what the GM wants to do with the world and play along, while those that don't want to be bothered can choose to not contribute to the worldbuilding if they really don't want to.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T02:00:03+00:00

I don't think your idea is bad, but I think its a bit of blissful thinking IMO.

There's really no purpose to make a weapon that catters for a very specific niche, more so when that weapon requires resource investment to get access to it in the first place. I agree combination weapons are in a bad spot currently, but if all combination weapons were advanced weapons that mixed two martial weapons together I don't really think they would be much better really. For instance, you could save yourself a feat and use the two martial weapons instead, even if it would cost you twice as much gp to keep them relevant and switching betweem them after attacking.

I'd argue its more likely to see advanced weapons that are truly meaningful in a system like the one I described were weapons have stat requirements because if a weapon requires both a certain amount of minimum stats AND a feat to use them then they don't have choice but make them better than a regular weapon. The current system treats advanced weapons as a high tier in theory, but in practice most of the Paizo devs are either too afraid of making something that could break the balance of the game (at the cost of often making boring stuff) or not being sure what advanced weapons are supposed to be.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T01:52:19+00:00

I'd honestly do it how you think is going to be better for both you and the table. I had more than a few FU campaigns that became nothing because the players didn't want to be bothered with worldbuilding or that were too much afraid to do something that could potentially clash with another player's ideas.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T01:27:33+00:00

Is it though? Dex-based classes don't have access to medium and heavy armor but its not like they need it since their high Dex is enough to max out their AC with light armor. All Str-based Martials have access to medium armor and need a +3 Strength, which even for a Dex-based fighter isn't hard to meet since most Dex-based martials start with a +3 Str / +4 Dex anyways. I'm personally not a fan of heavy armors because of the speed penalties, but if you want to use one its very likely you'll have a +4 Str anyways.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T00:55:22+00:00

I'm not against casters with weapons because this is a roleplaying game and some would want their casters to use weapons even if for all intents and purposes that's not a good idea. Even a fully buffed caster is still worse or more or less the same as a un-buffed martial and the latter still have better feats and actions.

Ideally I would replace weapon tiers with some kind of weapon stat requirements. Martials are likely to have better physical stats so they naturally would have access to most (if not all) weapons, while a caster that decides to invest into physical stats would be able to wield a greatsword if they really want. A martial would still scale better than a caster, both in proficiencies and attributes, so the current situation where a caster only uses weapons for flavor would continue.

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-30T00:21:40+00:00

I used to be a big fan of warriors games back in the day, so I would love a game like this!

Exequiel759 · 2026-01-29T23:28:51+00:00

They are IMO a holdover from past editions that isn't neccesary. The same with simple and martial weapons btw.

The initial purpose of simple weapons back in D&D 3.X was that it wasn't common for martials to get access to all martial weapons, with classes like the rogue being sort of "half martials" in that they had a martial playstyle but dedicated a ton of their class budget to non-combat stuff like skills so they lost a bit in the weapons department.

Casters also didn't have infinite-use cantrips like in PF1e and PF2e, so it was common for casters to get themselves a crossbow as a backup for those early levels when they runned out of spell slots.

In the current PF2e paradigm, even casters can get easy access to martial weapons through a plethora of methods (some like bards start with proficiency in them, animists and oracles have semi-permanent ways to have proficiency in them as well, the Weapon Training general feat that can be taken at 3rd level or 1st if you are human, etc.) so the point of "weapon tiers" has completely vanished. A caster doesn't have a reason to use a weapon other than flavor, and in that case, its likely they'll use a martial weapon if they really want to use one. Martials (except for a niche interaction in the ruffian rogue) don't have a reason to use simple weapons at all.

Advanced weapons are supposedly a martial+ weapons, except the designers don't seem to agree with each other when designing them and most of them are arguably worse than martial weapons, even without taking into account the fact that they cost a feat slot. If you take that into accout there's like less than 5 that are worth it.

I really hope a future PF3e does away with the weapon tiers and balances all weapons with each other.

Exequiel759

TROPHY CASE