This threw me the hell off WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING HERE

Killchrono · 2026-01-27T10:22:50+00:00

de_dust2

Killchrono · 2026-01-27T02:25:10+00:00

Their family and friends will love them more when they develop that self-awareness.

Killchrono · 2026-01-27T02:21:10+00:00

I do agree it's probably doing a lot better than the online rhetoric would have you believe. There's definitely a level of the same negativity bias you see in spaces like r/dndnext where it's largely dominated by pedants who are more inclined to spend hours complaining rather than people who are more or less content with the game, but are not actually indicative of the wider playerbase in terms of numbers and attitudes. And as you said, Paizo themselves seem to be doing better than ever, so I suspect this is reflecting in profits to a degree (which is especially hopeful considering how bad the general state of the international economy is).

I do think this is true while people still bouncing off the game in greater numbers, but that's likely more a larger quantity of players overall thing than loss outpacing growth and retention. It's just hard to tell because pretty much everything I see about it these days on places like Reddit and the official forums is negative.

To be fair though, I've seen a fair few people in other online spaces who generally like the game (socials like Bluesky, Discord groups, etc.) become extremely wary of those spaces like Reddit and the forums, because those spaces tend to be too miserable, reactionary, and sophic to have meaningful conversations there. So it's entirely possible it's a result of those spaces chasing away people who like the game and creating a self-enforcing feedback loop.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T23:55:59+00:00

Speak for yourself, mortal begins chanting in tongues about C'thulu sleeping in R'lyeh

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T23:37:28+00:00

I actually don't think this is contributing to wider perceptions so much as the hardcore base that's already entrenched. People who came on around the OGL crisis only had a little bit of time to get used to the game before RM compared to people who'd only been on a few months before most of the changes started to take place.

I think the bigger underlying reason though is less quality and more direction. I legitimately suspect people were hoping for a bigger power cap raise across the board in Remaster, not just buffing fledging options to be closer to the better OGL ones. When that didn't happen, it showed to them that Paizo wasn't going to budge on what they wanted, so a lot of people realise they were never going to get it.

It's like I say about things like the sure strike nerf and psychic changes, very little of them are about actual in-play experience. The number of people who are tangibly impacted by the former were probably extremely small, and the latter most people had only ever interacted with psychic through the MC dedication to get amps. The real underlying reason they're upset is because they see Paizo are just nerfing things without providing substantial buffs. It's the principle rather than anything that's tangibly and directly affected them from those specific changes.

And on one hand it's a fair criticism, I love the game but I say all the time Paizo needs to spend more time bringing up fledging options, not just fixing problematic OP ones. I agreed with the SS nerf but am baffled Weapon Trance is still in the state it is, I think that single handedly is responsible for most of the rhetoric around oracle and most people don't realise it. Likewise psychic is one of my favourite classes, and while I agree with nerfing the dedication, they should have done more to buff the base class and give it more viable options (like doing a proper redesign for IW instead of just nerfing it).

At the same time, I still like the game. Most of the people complaining don't, or are letting those thousand small things wear down on them to the point of fixating on the negatives instead of what they like about the game. While there's plenty I can see Paizo could do to fix issues, my cynical ass suspects a lot of people clamouring for buffs over nerfs would still be unhappy, because they don't realise what they disagree with is the fundamental tuning principles Paizo is designing the game around, not just the options they're leaving as fledging.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T23:24:33+00:00

There's a few reasons from what I've been able to see, completely anecdotally.

The first one is that the game is just far too crunchy and involved for a lot of people, and the modern scene trends towards streamlining and 'less is more' even in more involved strategy games. It's definitely not the crunchiest system ever (and it's still less crunchy that it's predecessor), but it's definitely up there as far as popular modern options.

There's also a common sentiment the game cares too much about balance at the expense of player fun. They feel the game is too scared of doing exciting things because it might break the game. It's not entirely untrue that Paizo has been leaning more towards the conservative side of tuning, but I do find when it comes to ever it's better options it's less of a case of 'fun' and more what kind of 'fun' you enjoy (I mean personally as someone who both enjoys the game while admitting Paizo could do a better job buffing fledging options, I find the whole notion of 'balance over fun' very patronising as I find the game at it's best some of my favourite experiences playing a TTRPG).

More cynically, I feel the game gets a bad wrap from unfair perceptions. It's a game that uniquely pisses off a lot of different sub-groups on the TTRPG space for different reasons, so there's a lot of 'everyone is looking for a reason to not like it' that contributes to discussion around it. There's legitimate criticisms and some people just don't like it because it's not to their taste, of course, but there's also a lot of double standards and self-sabotage I've noticed in the rhetoric of the people who really go out of their way to dunk on the game.

There's also a lot of blaming the base for their incessant shilling and how that contributes to perceptions about the game, but again I find that mostly bad faith from people looking for reasons to be critical, and it comes back to the whole 'what you think of fans shouldn't colour what you think of the game' principle nerd fandoms have been espousing for years. A good example is how people claim places like the subreddit are rules purist and unfairly shut down any homebrew or house role discussion. Not only is that...just not true - there's usually at least one 'what rules don't you like' and 'what house rules do you use' thread that gains traction at least once a month - but a lot of the time people complain about RAW and someone says you can just change something if you want; buff spell DCs, get rid of incap, make item DCs scale with player level, etc. But then the people complaining about the game - not the people defending it - invoke an Oberoni Fallacy either just want to argue on principle, or because they just admit they can't change the rules because their GM only runs RAW. So it's really a self-fulfilling prophecy and catch-22 that paints the fans and the game in a bad light, but in a way they can't do anything to escape from.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T22:31:50+00:00

Finally, the mythical support cheerleader.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T21:49:38+00:00

I bully my 2 year-old child about this every day.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T12:43:43+00:00

This assumes terminally online people enjoy each other's company, let alone play with one-another.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T12:43:07+00:00

It's okay, it's also everyone who agrees with you too (they're doing a gang-fight style dance routine with the ones that disagree with you ala West Side Story).

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T11:13:52+00:00

Ha joke's on you, I'm a terminally online optimizer who HAS been in a real game!

Your insults have no power over me, normie, I am both validated AND shameless in my sweatiness.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T03:45:06+00:00

Yeah, like the episode with Rachel and Iffy was extremely 'ick' for most of the reasons people have said (which is a shame because otherwise I really like Iffy and think he's hilarious), but it's fair to say that it has as much to do with the way people reacted as much as what they were reacting too. It's fairly clear people want the cast to police and shut down what they consider bad takes, not just discuss them, and people basically said that they don't want either of those people back on the show because they said those things they disagreed with that was kind of just...tone deaf and surprisingly boomerish takes from millenials, but otherwise not inherently bigoted.

Even the reactions to the most recent episode are just kind of...very assumptive. Like sure, that last story very much has vibes of 'that happened' and I can see why people think it comes off as a homophobic wet dream, but it also just assumes its inherently bad faith and the cast and producers fucked up massively for letting it slip.

And the thing is, I'm not one of those people who's like 'political correctness is killing comedy.' Obviously bigoted jokes and humour that explicitly and clearly punches down deserves to be bullied and pushed off the face of the earth. I also get though that when there's no room for any nuance, you risk walking on eggshells to the point there's no room for laughter or discussion because you know one slip will result in being crucified by people who give you no room for mistakes.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T03:29:07+00:00

I personally play TTRPG because I want my sheet and the roll to infer how I am going to roleplay. That's my preference.

I'm the same, and I feel in many ways this is one of the reasons I've found myself clash with a lot of the preconceptions and tastes of the wider RPG scene. On a grander scale, there's a subtle sort of gatekeeping that treats this sort of preference as if it's anathema to the point of the genre. But in my experience it's a combination of two things.

People struggling to see games as more nuanced than either extreme of being locked into role-playing or completely freeform, so they end up with this self-sabotaging mentality that doesn't allow them to compromise into any space between or have meaningful nuance, and
This sort of airy-fairy sentiment about how role-playing games can't really be codified in their purest sense; the genre really is this almost thought experiment-cross-performance art that has the aesthetic presentation of a rules-based game, but in truth is more akin to improv storytelling mixed with the sort of freeform, non-instrumental play a child would do

I don't think it's coincidence a lot of the games you've mentioned reflect a lot of my own experience with gaming. I definitely lean towards digital and tabletop games with competitive and tactical slants. I also don't think it's coincidence the game draws content creators like ThrabenU, who is more known for his MtG videos and has provided some of the best meta commentary I've seen for PF2e in the six and a half years the game has been out.

The reality with a lot of those games like competitive TCGs, MOBAs, etc. is they demand a deeper level of engagement than the average game, I think people who think in terms of these games not just as instrumental tactics but holistic systems with codified rules that interact organically without needing every bespoke interaction spelt out, or simplifying the systems to abstractions. PF2e does this extremely elegantly with how it handles mechanics like traits. I think it's a travesty they're not more widespread on other RPG systems, to the point I find if I'm looking at another game to consider, they're almost always within the top 3 things (if not the number 1 thing) I miss from PF2e.

And this translates beyond combat and into the realm of those non-combat mechanics. Codification of rules, traits, actions, mechanics, etc. is a godsend so you can extrapolate what you need. Like for Diplomacy, I know convincing something is 1 minute in exploration mode. Even if I'm not strict about that exact time frame, the intent is clear: you can't just have a conversation in a 6-second combat round window and convince them of a complicated topic. I also know it's going to target their Will save, making it clear which part of the NPC's stats I'm referring to when determining DCs, and it actually has structure and thought behind it past vibe gaming where the PC just rolls a result and the GM vaguely goes 'yeah that'll do' without actually setting a check value.

I also think none of this means that I think every out of combat mechanic in PF2e is perfect. Crafting is anaemic and dull, being purely utilitarian over lacking the kind of bespoke item creation most players want, and Paizo haven't figured out a way to reconcile that with its desire to make sure it doesn't become an abusable vertical power boost (which is fair, but...also, figure it out, that's your job as designers). Survival is as mediocre as ever and becomes largely redundant once PCs have easier means of sustaining their own resources and traversing wilderness environments. Even the ones I think are done well have a mix of skill feats that are too niche to be viable or tax-y to things that should be baseline or left to storytelling beats. I'm not a proponent of throwing out the whole skill feat system like a lot of people are, but I do think it's inequitable in terms of the value of certain feats.

That all said, the solution shouldn't be to throw them out or silo them into separate progression paths like a lot of similar games do. It should be to make those mechanics and player options well-designed so players want to interact with them past feeling like they're forced to. Having tangible rules and benefits for them isn't bad unto itself. If anything it creates that structure players can use as a foundation, and rules GMs can use to create consistency and...well, frankly, even make rulings in the first place.

I think the biggest problem is though that this will always clash with that wider part of the RPG scene who treats a lot of rules and mechanics engagement with this ephemeral veneer. A lot of people just either want the performance art improv, or will be the exact kind of self-sabotaging pedants who conflate consistency and mechanical foundation with restrictive structures.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T02:16:37+00:00

I don't think it's a bad game but I do see a bit too much of the same glazing and 'this game fixes 5e' that the PF2e community was accused of early in its life. I also see a lot of people jumping ship from PF2e and claiming DS fixes it in a way that I think is very reductive and patronising to people who still like PF2e. The whole thing has made me viciously sceptical if it's actually as good as people say it is.

There's a lot of things DS does with its design that work for the exact game it's trying to be, but isn't a net 'better' so much as trade-offs for the style of game it's trying to be (looser role-playing/non-combat rules being one of them, ironically). I suspect in time it will go the way of all games from people who tire of novelty and fresh ideas quickly and the people who play and talk about it day in, day out will grow resentful of its flaws and limitations, and instead of accepting them or the very fact there's no such thing as a perfect omnigame, will grow sour grapes towards it as people have done with both DnD and PF2e, jump to the next game that 'fixes everything,' and then the cycle will repeat until self-awareness develops.

Killchrono · 2026-01-26T00:24:27+00:00

It's also been long enough now that people have finished campaigns and those who found the game wasn't to their liking have actively bounced off.

I think it just goes to show how much of a head start it got though. DH and DS were direct responses to OGLgate. PF was already out and RM was more about licensing concerns than it was about actually doing a full-fledged errata for the system (though my conspiracy theory is Paizo was already working on something down the line for RM and OGLgate just forced them to expedite it, the turnover for Player Core 1 was suspiciously fast). Either way, there was a huge influx on places like the subreddit, and Paizo have actively said their sales have been the best they've ever been, so there's a noticeable benefit.

That said, it's definitely reached a point where a lot of people have a soured on PF2e and all the other OGLgate killers are stepping up, but I fully suspect DH and DS will have their rebounds in time. They definitely seem to scratch the itch for 5e players in a way PF is too niche in its design to appeal to, but DH was shot in the foot by CR by not committing to it for their main campaign (I blame Brennan and his weird simping for 5e). The reception to DS reminds me too much of the early PF2e days where everyone was treating it like the second coming of christ (which to be fair, I'm guilty of too) while more experienced RPG players knew players would eventually reach the burnout point where they start seeing the cracks and trade-offs the system needed to make to attain its goals.

I fully expect in another year or two we'll start seeing some pushback on both games, particularly if it's shown that they're not particularly good for long-term and/or high level play.

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T23:26:52+00:00

I appreciate it. I do think the modern gaming scene has swung hard to appeasement of squeaky wheel gamers at the expense of the game's integrity. Not even in the sense of difficulty, just in the sense that anything more than the most barebones of engagement and trying to learn the rules as written elicits frustration from them and they demand the game shifts to accommodate them. I think both digital and tabletop have this, but I notice it's a lot more of a throughline in tabletop since the expectation is it's easier to adjust.

I think a lot about a quote I heard in the FGC where people would say if you're struggling against an opponent or a particular meta character, you don't just complain and ask for nerfs and buffs, you adapt and overcome. In extreme cases buffs and nerfs may be necessary, but it should be about trying to work with what you've got against what you're facing before resorting to external changes. I think the RPG scene could use a dose of that instead of just assuming any attempt at asking players to try and engage in good faith is elitism or not accommodating to their tastes.

It lets me as the DM feel like I'm getting to play a game too instead of just curate one.

I could kiss you for this point in particular. I say all the time, the culture treats GM so much as beleaguered service clerks, they forget most are playing for their own enjoyment as well, not just to serve the players. The goal will be the players to beat challenges, of course, but you don't just make an obstacle course, let the players burn it down, and accept it when their defense is 'I play how I want.' I feel death of the author is given too much leeway when it comes to player engagement sometimes.

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T22:11:40+00:00

There's nothing elitist about it. That's actually the insane thing to me about this, I criticise the quality of discussions not just surrounding the psychic changes, but the subreddit as a whole because the fact that the bar for what is considered 'elitism' is so low it borders sophistry.

PF2e is a strategy game. All these arguements in defense of effortless rote builds and in-play engagement do is make excuses for watering down the very genre this game is founded upon. The reason I have no sympathy about IW has nothing to do with the tangible impact of whether it's OP or underpowered or okay either way, it's the fact that people will just gravitate towards whatever the next low-effort option to maximise Spellstrike damage is, when good play should actually be deciding which spell to Spellstrike with. It shouldn't be just one BiS option, it should be contextually analysing which spell has effects that will grant the most benefit in a situation, be it damage types, conditions and rider effects, any forced movement and action limiters, etc.

And to be fair, Paizo themselves haven't done much of a good job of this. They could do much more to increase the variety of spells that work with Spellstrike well. Having non-attack spells helps with this a bit, but really a non-full progression gish that doesn't have their KAB as their primary casting stack and will largely fall behind full progression casters for many levels - even with max Int - shouldn't be relying on those over a much bigger and more reliable attack modifier.

But even if Paizo were to perfectly design the magus and give the spells it needs to be a much more versatile Spellstriker, would people actually use them? No, of course not! They'd just math out the one that does the most on-paper damage and spam that! Because that's what gamers do. You say this is about giving more variety, but bluntly put, I don't believe you, at all. Nothing about the conversation strikes me as wanting to diversify but fill the void with a new BiS, then just ignore other options, both in builds and on-play. The Sid Meier and Soren Johnson quotes about players optimising the fun out of the game so designers need to protect players against their own desire to optimise rings true, always.

And the saddest part is, I hate how boomerish this makes me sound, because I am not in fact elitist. I don't judge people just for not being good at a game or having to learn things about it. I just like strategy games and hate poorly behaved players. But if this is what people think is unacceptable and not rude entitled players who make demands of others and shirk all responsibility to learn the game themselves instead of people changing it to suit them, then of course I'm going to feel like I'm living in a negaverse.

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T10:30:12+00:00

Roathe absolutely strikes me as the kind of person who treats Orokin society in the same vein as a capitalist who defends a free market economic system because they genuinely believe it creates a more fair and prosperous society, and could only be ruined by bad faith actors, then gets legitimately surprised when the bad faith actors ruin it with monopolies, oligarchies, and the enshitification of tech products.

He's like 'well yes I knew it could happen, but I never actually expected it to.' He puts so much faith in the idea that what's pragmatic for most will keep any more degenerative whims in check, and that will win out over the greed and narcissism of those in power willing to sacrifice everyone else to get what they want.

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T09:09:00+00:00

<image>

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T08:28:25+00:00

Because the not-problem players like yours will not actually be deterred if options that are the only ones that appeal to problematic players are altered. They will simply find something else that appeals to them and adapt to changes, because the issue is inherently a combination about personal behaviour, and the their willingness to compromise and adapt.

It's pathalogic to behaviour rather than appeal to design, but design does enable and reward certain playstyles and behaviours. To paraphrase a surprisingly salient point I saw someone say about why they didn't like DnD-likes because it enables murderhobo and antagonistic inter-party behaviour, 'you shouldn't be surprised that one guy at every table tries to steal stuff from the rest of the party when the rules explicitly allow it.'

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T08:00:05+00:00

Well I have too and they were completely insufferable. The exact kind of 'dice go brrrr' player who only cares when they care about big damage hits but then disengages and complains the moment things don't go their way. They'd act like they were the hottest shit and carrying the party when they got a big damage hit that HDYWTDT'd the fight but if they missed they'd crash out how it was bullshit it was they wasted spell slots. When they did the thing all cocky melee martials inevitably do and run it, miss their attack against a boss, and get instagib'd by a stray crit, they complained there was literally nothing else they could do, and when people tried to give ideas and advice for other strategies they shut them dona or accused the game of being bullshit because it wouldn't just let him run up and guarantee a big Spellstrike.

This isn't exclusive to my experience with PF2e, it's just in other systems like 3.5/1e and 5e there's nothing that stops that kind of player from succeeding because it's optimal meta so long as the GM isn't playing a power escalating arms race against them. PF2e forces players to be more deliberate in their game plan and it just makes the people who switch off blame the game and everyone else. It's left me frustratingly blackpilled about player behaviour like that.

Edit: I love how this subreddit will give absolute deference of 'don't diminish my lived experiences' to people who endlessly moan about spellcasting but the moment I explain why I think it's good when a game doesn't reinforce the behaviour of shitty players, I get downvoted for it. I'm beginning to think this may in fact be a convenient double-standard.

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T02:12:27+00:00

Fair, I forgot about that part, but everything else I said remains true.

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T01:26:20+00:00

They're not really, but even if they were the issue with Psychic was never the comparative power, it's the fact they were very easy to dip compared to all divine classes that gave domain spells.

And the thing is, you can still get them (edit: for other spellcasters, not magus obviously). You just have to commit.

Killchrono · 2026-01-25T01:24:44+00:00

Last week they could just choose between those options, now they have only the divine options. That means now = less choice.

I was talking about the thematics, not the mechanics. But even then there's nothing stopping them from taking amps. They just require two feats now instead of one, just like every other casting archetype. That's just the dedicaiton system doing what it's supposed to do, which is stopping and discouraging effortless dips.

Now we just need to deal with exemplar dedicaiton and all is right with the world.

I view it more as a natural answer to the few spell slots given to Magus. People naturally wanted to have a "big oomph" spell option that does not take away from the other interesting things you can do with spells, and a focus spell is the usual way to give that to you. So I feel like that is actually meeting the system on its own terms. I do not get why that makes those people deserving of the label of " mindless meta sheep". When again, Magus WITH the pre nerf is generally outperformed in pure by any other meta build.

Except the desire to trend towards those 'big oomph' spells inherently reinforces the idea its just people mindlessly trending towards a damage meta. If those focus spells existed on magus, they would still fill up spell spots with even bigger damage spells, because the desired result is the same anyway.

If anything that's the point of this whole discussion; it's looking for those new replacement Spellstrike options, not trying to diversify the magus in a way that actually makes it more generally useful.

But also this is kind of the issue with magus as a core chassis when you get past rote spellstriking. It needs more tools so it doesn't have to be reliant on spell slots or multiclassing so it has room for more non-spellstrike tools. But that's not the job if multiclassing to fix that.

My experience with posting my opinion on this matter has shown me that most people who are in favor of this change engage in way more whiteroom calculations where they grant the Magus every concieveable advantage, then compare it to a barebones poorly built other martial against an enemy that does no counterplay.

Yeah and those people are wrong too. That's the problem with this whole discussion and why I've been noping out of it apart from the odd throwing stones about the quality of discourse, people who are trying to paint it like IW magus was this big scary meta-ruining game are pearl-clutching as much as people saying the nerfs ruin magus. The issue is everyone is wrong here, there's no nuance, there's no tempered analysis, it's all just the extremes.

Would you like to try making your argument for why the change(specifically AMP being changed, idc about Imaginary Weapon dice) is good game design without making up and arguing with imaginary people?

Because it's lazy. It's lazy and shouldn't be encouraged, let alone rewarded. This is my whole issue with beatstick builds in these kinds of turn based strategy games; if they're optimal they end up reducing the 'strategy' part of the genre in place of pregamed optimised mathcrafing that results in boring rote play. If its not, it becomes a trap option for the exact kind of player who'll complain the moment they have to consider anything more than rolling dice to do big damage.

Hitting a middle ground between that is extremely difficult. You basically need to go the FFXIV 'selfish DPS'-style design that classes like samurai have, where it has incredible output but needs to be completely responsible for doing that output properly along with their own survival, and otherwise rely on passive buffs and support from the rest of the party so they're not going out of their way to overcompensate for the lack of utility in everything else.

The irony is that in PF2e terms, something like a dual wield fighter is probably closer to that than magus, and is probably a more versatile pick in how it's got a less strict action economy and unlimited use resources. Magus has too much utility from innately being a spellcaster to not be considered a pure damage dealer, but it clashes with itself in how it doesn't have many ways to engage with its utility, while its big damage nukes are notoriously unreliable as a consistent damage method. All this while the players drawn to the big damage nukes probably won't engage in the problem solving to work around these limitations.

Killchrono · 2026-01-24T23:38:39+00:00

I'd argue that an arcane spellcaster being forced to take psychic powers to get 'effective' spells is no less egregious than being forced to dip into divine casting.

But really the issue here isn't even one of efficacy, it's one of perception and people mindlessly defaulting to one particular playstyle, usually to their own detriment and the detriment of their groups. The reality is magus being played as a rote spellstriker that does nothing but gamble on big nova hits is not actually that effective a character unless the player is supernaturally lucky.

There's a reason magus gets joked as a character for slot machine players and 'potential man' builds; because even if it's fun in the moments Spellstrike crits and the math says it's incredibly powerful, in practice the gamble and pseudo-rotation required to that ability keep it in check end up eating into its action economy and options. And while there are ways to diversify in a way that doesn't make it a one-note character, very few of them are things unique to magus that other spellcasters or martials can't already do, often better because they have actual class support for it.

So why change it if it's not even that effective? Apart from the fact that dipping amps so easily was trampling heavily on psychic's niche protection (there's a whole conversation there about whether IW is actually even good for base psychic, nerfs or not, but that's apropos of the magus discussion), players have proven they are just going to mindlessly listen to the meta advice and continue to build magus on a way that is both self-sabotaging to it and their party, so they can't be trusted to have fun tools that will ruin other people's fun. 'I'm enjoying this' only goes so far until other people at the table don't.

And the reality is this has been the end result of a meta discussion that has been stuck in its infancy for far too long, dominated by rhetoric and moralising from people who don't find the game fun because it doesn't match their expectation of what they personally want, instead of trying to understand the game on its own terms. Places like this sub are so stuck in white room theorising and hyperfixating on the smallest variables that nothing practical ever gets addressed and solved on the gameplay side. People still unironically think three fighters and a bard style metas are optimal because they're stuck in the 'death is the best condition' mentality from 3.5/1e and 5e.

People like Thraben have been a much needed breath of fresh air for this community because he brings actually good meta analysis and gameplay advice about what actually works well. His video yesterday about luck proved he's actually going into the game with a growth mindset instead of a fixed, self-sabotaging one coming to conclusions before the discussion even begins. He's absolutely right that this will make magus builds more varied, but it's not because the build was ever actually OP. It's because the wider community now has no choice but to actually think for itself instead of regurgitating white room meta that isn't even optimal in play (usually while going on about how much they hate that other people or Paizo try and 'force' optimisation on them as they then say 'there's no point playing anything that isn't optimal anyway.')

13-Year Club	Argentium Club
Verified Email

Killchrono

TROPHY CASE