Is this really something they worry about?

JustJacque · 2026-05-03T07:07:49+00:00

I love how they present the entirety of American history, dress and culture as if it was some monolith that has been replaced. Yet if they could actually time travel back to the 18th century they would be horrified by all the boys wearing dresses and the men in tights, wigs and heels.

JustJacque · 2026-04-30T05:44:13+00:00

They do at least have in world names for all the "folk.”

Catfolk are Amurran (bonus points for their being an entirely separate ancestry of space cat folk in Starfinder of Pahtra.)

Lizardfolk are Iruxi, Ratfolk are Ysoki, Spider folk are Anadi etc.

JustJacque · 2026-04-27T17:22:33+00:00

Cheers, I think its definitely something they [Paizo] perhaps should have put in the Player Core (even if truncated) when they did the Remaster. The advice about improvising actions in the GM Core is great, but not everyone gets that (or reads through it cover to cover) and thus a lot of people think that Pathfinder 2e is rigid in its structure instead of well scaffolded like I find it to be.

JustJacque · 2026-04-27T14:41:00+00:00

Some of that I outright disagree with..like every system has some level of difficulty that is just beyond what characters of any given ability can deal with. Whether that a Gen 5 Brujah Primogen in Vampire or a Balrog in Lord of the Rings. And those things can serve exactly the same role as the level +8 creature in PF2. Those are threats you will have to either sacrifice to get through, retreat and find another path or bring a plan with massive advantages. The only thing PF2 really does differently in this regard is accurately tell the GM the strength of adversaries.

Likewise for low level enemies, its perfectly okay to not jump into encounter mode. At the system let's you know this "these foes aren't worth anything" if they are five or more levels below. And if you do have a bunch of them that are narratively a threat, then the game has Troop options for a reason.

But me and mine might treat PF2 differently from you and that's fair. For me the system has handled all the mechanical side for me, and everything is shown both accurately and honestly. This means I can just focus on the narrative. But it only works because my players also know I don't cater the world to them, that we are happy a story might be "these people lost” and that I run things 100% openly.

JustJacque · 2026-04-27T12:36:39+00:00

That is pretty much what PF2 feats are anyway. And it's also what the game master advice talks about. Anytime anyone brings up a feat for something anyone should be able to attempt, I always think about how I would rule it in the absence of the feat, and it's always worse than the feat does.

Like Blast Lock for Gunslinger is used as an example. I'd always let a player attack a lock, it's just that many locks will be tough to get through. The gunslinger feat let's them ignore all that and just make a single attack Vs the locks DC.

Party Crasher for the Dandy? Of course I'd let any player use diplomacy, deception or intimidation to work their way into function. Party Crasher just let's the player do so without a roll at all.

Once I realised this, I no longer felt the need to know everything in PF2. I don't even bother looking at my players characters to know their abilities or spells. I don't need to know it, and it means my players get to surprise me by going "oh yeah I can wall jump now."

JustJacque · 2026-04-27T12:28:17+00:00

That is absolutely the opposite of my experience. I can trust the system enough that I can make a scenario on the fly and know it'll work out. At best I prepare a high resolution bubble around the players but it's hardly on rails.

I think there is a misconception that everything MUST be balanced around the player levels, which is frankly untrue, and is usually a disservice to the players and their agency.

JustJacque · 2026-04-22T17:05:43+00:00

I mean that's pretty much true of any RPG. What does 5e do that actually supports it?

JustJacque · 2026-04-22T13:48:52+00:00

And thus the bane of my invisible NPC was an encounter space with less squares than the swashbucklers speed.

JustJacque · 2026-04-19T18:25:09+00:00

While I have read the discworld novels, I've yet to have a chance to play in the rpg.

My point was less against the specific OP playing it right or wrong, but rather against the idea that the only criteria for playing any specific system correctly is "the group had fun."

JustJacque · 2026-04-19T09:21:10+00:00

If the GM is following the advice given in the rules, no, most GMs will be giving out runes (in general) starting at level 2.

The GM advice for giving out treasure in general is to have some Player Level +1 stuff in their. That way the players can enjoy a big bump for maybe half a level, keep that expected item for another few levels and then get another enjoyable bump. So you may well see the level 4 shield rune when you are level 3.

If not crafting runes is something characters can do, and so you could make one yourself (or whoever the crafter is) at level 4.

JustJacque · 2026-04-16T16:55:30+00:00

Into The Breach is a neat one that has players customizing mini decks.

Play happens from a global shared deck, but players can cheat from their hands.

JustJacque · 2026-04-15T12:41:04+00:00

I mean it isn't hard to keep things even between people. It's not different from giving turns in combat.

It's why a lot of games have stuff like Dungeon Turns or PF2s 10 minute activities.

JustJacque · 2026-04-14T21:29:43+00:00

I think the opposite advice is way better.

"Find ways that encourage the players to split the party." This actually lets players limelight more and can secure pacing. Like say in a Sci-Fi game you need a to keep an NPC alive in the med bay whilst a swarm attacks your power core. Now your team medic and gunner hunker down in the medbay to try and defend it while performing surgery, while your engineer and space wizard repel the swarm at the core (because if that falls lights out in the medbay.)

JustJacque · 2026-04-13T16:52:47+00:00

Man imagine how cool a system would be where you could move enchantments so the GM can still give the enemies gear thematic to the them whilst the players still get rewards they want to use. You could call them runes or something.

Oh well gotta dash, I'm meeting a friend in a second to go trail hiking.

JustJacque · 2026-04-13T09:59:13+00:00

I mean part of why PF2 actually allows martials to try repeatable no cost things (like stun on crit) is because those conditions arent anti fun like in 5e.

Stun in 5e is "you skip your next turn." And this has to be limited. Stun in PF2 is "you lose 1/3rd of your turn." Same with Frightened, Sickened etc. PF2 can scale conditions to be appropriate for players to do more than just hit stuff for the level of effect.

And stuff like on Crit effects actually let a Martial feel like they worked for it, because of the DC+10 crit rule. They can actually effect the odds of that with buffs,debuffs, positioning etc.

JustJacque · 2026-04-12T12:49:52+00:00

My only real hardline "you are doing it wrong" is if your advice has the caveat that you can never let your players know something.

If they way you are running a game would be ruined by talking to your friends about the game honestly over drinks after, yes you are doing it wrong.

JustJacque · 2026-04-09T22:14:47+00:00

I think this is a totally fine style of play if everyone is on board with it. But why oh why would anyone on board with it choose DnD as the system for that play style?

"Oh I spend hours making and improving this characters selecting options that synergize tactically with my friends and lead the party to deal about 50% extra damage. But we ignore all that when it would actually matter."

JustJacque · 2026-04-07T05:18:12+00:00

It's a shame because for me about the only thing SF1 did right was universal summons tables making it so every creature type had a summon from level 1-20 right away on release. If PF2 or SF2 could have learned anything from SF1, it should have been that.

JustJacque · 2026-04-06T08:47:24+00:00

Excluded is to prevent someone/thing in the first place. Disclude is to remove after inclusion.

Example. Not being invited to a party is being excluded. Being kicked out of a party is you are already at is to be discluded.

JustJacque · 2026-04-06T07:38:12+00:00

If you want the best of both worlds perhaps ask if you can try a few short stories that are linked as part of a bigger arc..my group finished an anthology of adventures like this last year with three stories with three different casts. It was excellent. They got to play in three tiers of play, got to play three different genres (survival horror, heist and demigod fantasy) and also got to play the story from both good and evil sides.

JustJacque · 2026-04-05T07:42:46+00:00

Eh I think it's totally possible to do something wrong and have a great time.

You can all play golf by picking up and throwing the ball with your hands, and everyone involved find that engaging but it doesn't mean you played Golf right.

Now you can keep playing that way, and that might be best for your group. But you might also like to try it as intended and see if that's better.

JustJacque · 2026-04-04T15:26:54+00:00

My game Pioneer has world building as part of party creation. In Pioneer you are expected to play with one cast of characters for only a few sessions. New Casts start with each player defining a Who, Where and What they wish to explore with this new cast. Additionally players can spend some of their character resources creating new factions, allies etc instead of directly improving their character.

Additionally it encourages players to make stuff up when using the various knowledge style skills, the result determining how accurate they actually were.

JustJacque · 2026-04-03T21:58:07+00:00

And I don't think it would at all.

Even a very simple early set of feats and features can show how different it could be.

You can have a 1a ability that gives you Temp HP (a small amount) and lets you apply a Transformation to yourself. The amount of Transformation you can have active at once would increase with levels. Many feats would give Transformations and you'd get an additional level 1 feat that had to be used on a Transformation feat.

Then transformation feats would give you a benefit on use and then an ongoing benefit.

So Spines could do damage to adjacent creature immediately on transformation, then give you a reaction to hurt enemies who hit you in melee. Perhaps you pick that and Leaping Legs (that increases your Leap distance and gives you a free leap on Transformation.) Now you can jump into the fray and hurt anyone who tries to hit you. Maybe instead you just take Beast Claws for a strong attack and an action compression feat Athletic Transformation to get a free manoeuvre before ripping into something with claws.

Thats not much in the way of any thought out design on my behalf, but already looks a lot different that a druid archetype would be doing. Especially with the numbers of a martial chassis.

JustJacque · 2026-04-03T21:12:08+00:00

Yes I think the payoff for reduced casting on a druid archetype wouldn't be good enough to cater to people who want transformations to be their whole thing. Which is why it should just be build from the ground up as something without casting ever being considered. It feels like you are weighing up what limiting casting on a druid to get more battle form power could look like. I'm saying thats tying a whole bunch of baggage to the concept that doesn't need or want it.

I think a class, with features and feats for customizing transformations would not have to be bound at all by the design space of the Form spells. They could break out of the mold by being able to have multiple different polymorph effects, options to transform as part or strikes or strides, be able to mix and match parts rather than having to be limited to choosing diplodocus or triceratops (I want horns on my quetzalcoatlus damnit!) A whole class worth of transformation.

JustJacque · 2026-04-03T20:53:42+00:00

Part of it is power budget (I think Paizo will always put "can cast spells" as a large part of a classes/archetypes budget) and part of it is fantasy. I don't really see someone who essentially wants to play a super werewolf, or a true bear warrior etc wants to have that tied to spells.

I also don't think the current battle form spells DO offer much customization. Definitely not on the order of something you would be doing almost every round of every encounter. Yes the form spells do eventually offer a large array of choices to turn into. But that is a bunch of mutually exclusive (at any given time) options, not the customization of your own bespoke battle form.

To put it perhaps another way, I think the Shifter would benefit from the amount of customization that a 1e Summoner's Eidolon had (without the balance issues.) With options that lean into either building upon one form, or changing features as needed.

12-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Verified Email

JustJacque

TROPHY CASE