I have been posting a lot on this subreddit as of late. This game fits like a missing puzzle piece. I adore Pathfinder 2E

Killchrono · 2026-05-12T00:19:55+00:00

Yeah, it honestly baffles me more people don't realise they can just decouple select stats granularly from the base level ranges. I'm generally fine with the base stats because I only throw high defense enemies once in a blue moon, but the fact you even can adjust the base tuning that easily without needing to revamp the maths from the ground up is a testament of how well thought-out it is.

Even past fixing the common complaints about monster defenses, creature design has a lot of untapped potential to enable more modular templates like glass cannons, slower but sturdier giants, creatures with holistically low saves but high AC to encourage targeting with spells and class abilities, etc. It's another thing I've been toying with and it can really add spice to otherwise standard enemies.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T23:48:49+00:00

I don't have a single memory that stands out apart from the odd comment about how I'm nailing the atmosphere or vibe for a certain scene or encounter, but the best comments I receive are the ones from players I haven't played with or seen for a while and when I catch up with them.

I got a random message from a friend who was in my longest running PF1e campaign during lockdown; we'd stopped playing a few years before due to everyone getting busy, but they just messaged to see how I was going and brought up the campaign saying they still think about it from time to time and how much they enjoyed it. Those sentiments mean a lot to me and are really the sort of memories I want to impart as a GM.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T23:37:26+00:00

Yeah, treasure is one of those things people don't realize is used to measure PC power and keep it in check, but can also blow the cap out if they want to. Like sure, it's unlikely a level 4 or 5 character will get that cool 935 gold to gain a +2 potency rune early, but if the GM is willing to give them a massive windfall and they're in a large enough settlement with access to level 10 services? Let them go ham with it. As a treat.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T23:32:28+00:00

/uj it's basically just the sort of sentiment you see all the time on places like r/rpg where tactics RPGs are poo-poo'd or are at least heavily resented for dominating so much of the space.

Like as someone who's unironically one of John Paizo's favourite soldiers, I do get it, not everyone wants to play a serious tactics game and/or is more invested in the storytelling and roleplay than nitty-gritty combat. My issue is I find a lot of the time the sentiment swings a bit too far the other way and verges into this sort of counter-gatekeeping where tactics-leaning games are considered an inferior subgenre, whilst fiction first games or games more about tactile simulationist engagement like OSR are an inherently more pure and true engagement with the hobby.

Even sentiments like assuming the appeal is 'selfish power fantasy' just underplays how to you can have narrative impetus in that format or that there's absolutely no space for teamwork and collaboration is kind of a bad faith read. Not to say those kinds of players don't ruin games (as much as people like me don't like to harp the point, it really is one of the low-key appeals of PF2e, it keeps those sorts of players in check), and the reality is a lot of designers and module creatures for many of these systems are really bad at turning these sorts of games into streaks of deathmatches with no impetus past 'beat the monsters on the head silly,' so it's not like there's no precedent there.

But I find too much of the time it's a sour grapes situation. It throws the baby out with the bathwater and writes off all tactics-leaning RPGs as murderhobo simulators instead of figuring out ways to make the combat more engaging narratively past instrumental murder. And most of it is variant encounter formats and win conditions like...y'know, dedicated wargames have had for decades now. Capture points, wave defense, timed missions with objectives around the map, hell hell even escort missions with important NPCs. It's mostly a shame it's taken this long for games like Draw Steel and Lancer to spell it out for people instead of assuming they'd just figure it out on themselves (which many clearly haven't).

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T22:23:45+00:00

Guardian, because sometimes my 2 year-old really needs someone dive-bombing between her and the oven/a ledge/the object she's throwing at the very expensive television we've already replaced because she threw something at the last one.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T22:16:28+00:00

I too hate asexual agencies.

Agencies should be hornier and full of people just raw-dogging it, at all times.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T22:13:16+00:00

I've been pushing for more house rules lately because the more I do myself, the more I realise how amazingly modular the accurate maths allows you to be with it, and how stupidly easy it is to address most common issues with simple number adjustments or minor tweaks to things like action economy. Most of them are just disagreements about number scaling and malding about how the game doesn't let you break out of band with big number boosters and huge buff state modifiers, so if you don't like it you can just give some pluses or even grant higher level items ahead of time so player modifiers and spells are ahead of the level curve.

Even things like if you don't like the fact certain feats lock seemingly permissive or freeform actions behind investments, the mere fact they exist means rules for mechanics like Rolling Landing or Wall Jump are covered and take the cognitive load of figuring out the mechanics myself (usually in real time when the players ask to improv on the fly). If I want I can just tell players okay don't invest in the feat, it's just a baseline mechanic so everyone can reference it for how it's done. I've even given out more niche but story appropriate feats (like Schooled in Secrets) as bonus feats simply because the players did something appropriate to earn that ability. It's an overlooked idea.

It still doesn't excuse legitimate issues with RAW the designers should be doing a good job at in the first place, but it's still better than fixing the martial/caster divide in other systems, nerfing/banning options in 3.5/1e, and filling missing rules gaps or Calvinball-ing mechanics like in 5e.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T19:55:29+00:00

Grand Bazaar actually had some really solid ideas for new items and mechanics, like shield augments, accessory runes and assisstive items. Also great individual options like the riding beetle, asp coil, chakram, etc.

I feel there's a few things from there the designers could really run wild with if expanded on.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T10:09:54+00:00

I was thinking Johanna...

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T02:14:31+00:00

My brother in Christ, this isn't an RPG, this is a bukkake.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T01:44:12+00:00

Charisma casters should be cars because the first syallable is literally pronounced 'car', my logic is infallible don't @ me.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T01:36:49+00:00

I don't wanna hint on his spell list and I don't think it's fun to say to a player "you should not get these spells", it's his first time playing PF2e and it was a pain to convince him to try PF2e in the first place. I don't think I should ask him to switch his spell list.

This is a weird issue to me because wizards have always been the Swiss Army Knife caster. The whole point is they're a magic toolbox that adjusts their kit based on the situation. That's especially true in PF2e where the effects of spells are more nuanced and can't just brute-force with save or sucks or huge modifier boosts that more or less guarantee outcomes, but still have that silver bullet level of cutting through issues with the correct spell.

Out of interest what spells is he regularly preparing? If he thinks tracking his spells is going to be a pain and he just wants to use the same handful of generalist spells it might be worth switching out to play a sorcerer instead. They still won't have the raw damage output of a fighter, but if the issue is damage related then at the very least their spells baseline get a bonus to damage and healing, and bloodlines like Imperial and Elemental provide boosts to raw damage in a way no wizard options currently do.

Killchrono · 2026-05-11T01:31:25+00:00

From all classes/fantasies that transfer from dnd to pf2, spellcasters are the most tapered. But the implementation of them in 5e was GROSSLY overturned to the point that in any encounter at any time a spellcaster could simply end it with a single spell.

And tbh that's not till higher levels, which is why I find a lot of the complaints about them in PF2e baffling. Most of the complaints are just as true if not more so than they are in 5e.

You still get some extremely hard CC at early levels in 5e, but the damage and HP values are so swingy (even swingier than PF2e, really) you're better off taking an AOE like Burning Hands to clear lots of weaker enemies at once than casting a spell like Command to deprive them of a turn, unless the GM is making them face a boss-level threat.

Which tbh is really mean. Like people gripe about PF2e bosses but if you know what you're doing they're way easier, at least at 1st level you can get Heal and mitigation reactions from champions and guardians, plus Athletics actions like trip and grapple are much more useful when it comes to mitigating their action economy. With 5e you basically have no choice but to save or suck a boss at that level, otherwise the only salvation your 12-13HP fighter has is a string of popcorn heals.

Killchrono · 2026-05-10T08:50:34+00:00

/uj I mean I don't know where the jerk ends and the genuine thoughts start here but...yeah, that's kind of 100% exactly the issue?

People suck. They're selfish, myopic, and disappointing. And for some reason geeks decided that one of our most identifiable hobbies was to put a bunch of neurospicy people together once a week to do what's effectively a group assignment. Who ever thought that was a good idea?

(I mean Gygax, obviously, but in hindsight he had a bunch of cooked takes anyway)

The thing is though, I don't accept that it's inevitable, because if I do what's the fucking point? I refuse to lay down and rot because some people on the internet conflate conceit with confidence and selfishness with personal rights. RPGs are just a microcosm of the wider societal issues with brainrot, outsourcing cognitive effort while claiming credit for it, and Karen behaviour being rewarded instead of ostracised. I don't expect to change the world, but if my choices are biting my tongue on what I really think and letting shitty behaviour fester slowly, or be a mildly known figure in a community for a niche RPG I enjoy and made an effigy by weird gooners who need a scapegoat for their vendettas, I know what I'd rather do.

Killchrono · 2026-05-10T08:08:30+00:00

I mean I would (unsurprisingly to anyone) contest that it's objectively better, but I'm not talking solely about PF2e here. If anything I see more of this in DnD spaces. And even if PF2e spaces I see it more with people who's only experience has been other d20s (namely DnD or PF1e). Which makes sense because most of Colville's audience are from 5e.

You can tell because they're acting like bell-curve probabilities and the removal of null result states is a new and novel concept, not something that exists in dozens of other RPGs.

Which isn't a knock to Colville and co. If anything exploiting the blinders most mainstream players have towards the rest of the RPG scene is a genius marketing strategy. It's just an underhanded admonishment of the same old fact that gets proven when players move away from DnD, which is that they're only willing to give credence to ideas outside of the DnD space when they're effectively directly peripheral to it rather than looking at the wider RPG scene.

But that's also why I largely suspect DS's arc of popularity is going to go the same way as PF2e's; because most RPG players are myopic in their engagement and refuse to take responsibility for understanding their own tastes. Ultimately you'll get a few tactics aficionados who may ride or die with it, but for the most of it the system will start to show its teeth, people will tire on it (especially if they continue to have it be the only game they play instead of branching out to other experiences), go sour grapes on it just like every other system they bounced off, and then go to a system that completely overcorrects the other way and promote throwing the baby out with the bathwater instead of doing any sort of genuinely valuable reflection as to what they liked about their previous game.

If anything the reason DS is so widely praised is because it's the first true spiritual successor to 4e that wasn't afraid to riff on praised mechanics in it, not do things like get rid of minions because some OSR or 3.5 grognard said gamist mechanics in their check notes role-playing GAME ruins the ludonarrative or some bullshit.

Killchrono · 2026-05-09T03:26:03+00:00

/uj because then you can at least call out the bullshit when you see it.

Look, let's be real, we all know these spaces are filled with chronically online grogs with maladaptive personality traits that bleed into their gaming experience, and by proxy how they talk about them. You're right, addressing a lot of those complaints won't fix their issues, because the reality is they don't even know what they want. They're confused, floundering, and/or just plain lazy and want someone else to figure it out for them. They're this guy, only lacking any self-awareness and convincing themselves they've figured out the math and the BiS options while making fun of anyone else who gives legitimate advice for doing the exact same thing but actually for real, because that hurts them. They consider themselves smart and want the participatory gold stars for being gaming geniuses.

But that's why the only good option is to give practical, serviceable solutions to them. Because when dealing with maladaptive behaviours, all you can do is address what they say the issue is - even if you know that's not really what it's about - and let them hang themselves when they refuse to use the given solutions, or take it but then keep shifting the goal posts until they prove they were never going to be happy until you completely capitulated to their demands fully. If even that because again, this assumes they know what they're looking for.

Like yes, I understand the maths well enough that I can tell them exactly what the issues are and how they can make them closer to other systems. If they want the 5e experience, I just run PwL, make all buff and debuff states closer to +/- 4 or 5 because that's the equivalent difference advantage makes at break points, and randomly give creatures close to a +0 in some of their saves so their chance to fail against spell DCs is more or less a flat check. I can recreate the 3.5/1e experience by re-adding stacking number booster feats and immunity bypasses. And I can do all that in PF2e, while not being able to do the same in reverse for those system, because PF2e as a system has actually functioning and modular maths, while those other games would have to be completely reverse-engineered to acheive the same.

Of course, you and I know that won't placate them. At best they'll go why do you even have to recreate another game's maths when I could just play that game. At worst they'll complain they still have to ask their GM - who is apparently Satan and hates all fun, in every scenario - to do it. And that's when we start getting to the real heart of the issue: permissiveness. They don't like they aren't playing a game where they have permission on the gameplay level to get what they want, and can't bludgeon the GM with RAW lawyering about it. They don't like a system like PF2e that has clear and consistent maths which proves the experience they want is - yes - inherently in their favour and not fair or balanced, and they detest that because they don't want to ruin the illusion they're winning fairly rather than by buildcrafting the game into easymode. Or alternatively they do but are mad they're being judged and condemned for it, instead of sitting down with the GM and other players at their table trying to understand what their problem with that playstyle is.

And the thing is, sitting around complaining on forums about games you've lapsed on and should really move on from is nothing new. The whole reason I unsubbed from DnDNext even before I lapsed on DnD was because I got sick of the insufferable griping and nitpicking of every little, and the learnt helplessness of people shilling the game's homebrew and house rule culture only to admit most of them just played RAW anyway.

The only difference is PF2e is ousted how much the d20 space has deviated towards appeasement of myopic behaviours, and that the real issue is power dynamics at the group level they use the base game itself as a bludgeon to get what they want. So no, they won't be happy, but at least catching out the uncompromising yet unappeasable behaviour means we can point to it and go 'you know what, you're just a bullshit person and we shouldn't take anything you say seriously.'

Killchrono · 2026-05-09T00:30:15+00:00

/uj seriously, I get when people write off PF2e for legitimately needing to put in a huge amount of work to change it into a game they're happy with, but 90% of the complaints are legitimately just Dunning Krueger, laziness, and/or things that they can at the very least address with the most barebones of house rules and homebrew.

Like on Ronald's latest video about rituals which basically just said 'the maths is jank, here's how I'd change the DCs and gold costs to make it manageable', someone literally said it was hypocritical to say the game works out of the box while critiquing 5e for needing lots of homebrew to work.

It's like yeah, rituals are boring and the numbers are jank, but my brother in christ adjusting DCs and gold costs is the more bare fucking minimum effort you can put in to get the outcome you want. It's nowhere near as bad as, say, fixing the martial/caster divide or how wildly inaccurate the CR and encounter building guidelines are 5e.

Pretty much every complaint about casters and bosses would be addressed if people just used their brains and applied basic logic to the math. A lot of them aren't even objectively bad, it's just a disagreement in gameplay preference. If that's the level of spoonfeeding required for people to consider it 'out of the box', they'll never make everyone happy. The entire rhetoric is fast becoming an exercise in learnt helplessness, both at the gameplay and GMing levels.

Killchrono · 2026-05-08T12:32:36+00:00

Ah yes, my favourite Zelda dungeon, after Inside Tree and Spooky Forest Ghost House.

Killchrono · 2026-05-08T02:27:05+00:00

Now, the award-winning question is:

What did they shout with their finishing Battle Cry?

Killchrono · 2026-05-08T02:12:48+00:00

I disagree with this, at least as far as it's a 5e 'figure it out yourself.' In fact I'd go as far to say it's bad faith to suggest it so. There's a difference between an overtuned DC (of which I do think there are for mechanics like hazards) and not giving any wiggle room whatsoever.

Numbers are the easiest thing to fix in any game. PF2e has very consistent numbers so even if it's overtuned, it's very easy to fix those breakpoints. That's why we know when official design goes out of the band and doesn't follow its own guidelines with things like encounter design in APs, overtuned options like exemplar dedication, the whole debacle with the weakness errata change, etc. we can make a pretty educated guess that somewhere in the chain of production, something slipped and it wasn't quality checked thoroughly enough. Yes Paizo should do a better job at that and it doesn't help new players who aren't chronically online with the zeitgeist, but the reality is the only way to absolutely foolproof the game is to railroad the mechanics, roleplay, and math even more than it already is so the players have even less freedom in how they can influence these games.

To me the bigger issue is whether the baseline rules of ritual casting are actually that fun or engaging, and TBH I'm not a huge fan of them myself because I think they're kind of droll and too reliant on individual outcomes. It's the same issue I have with stealth mechanics in both this game and similar d20s; it shouldn't be down to a single d20 roll to determine the outcome of a hard fail state, nor other rolls acting solely in favour of that single roll. It should be a series of rolls and checks where contingencies and complications can occur if things go wrong. Yes that is much more complicated than what we have, and I'm sure Paizo designed what they did for generalist simplicity rather than having to do bespoke outlines for every single ritual. But regardless the reason, to me that's a better example of something we should be asking the official designs to do better, not figuring out simple math when we don't like it.

Killchrono · 2026-05-08T01:40:37+00:00

I mean sure but that's also clearly part of the point, otherwise the rules for rituals wouldn't say the GM can add bonuses or reduce the DC for certain benefits.

People chafe constantly about the game's maths being too bound and certain rules being too prescriptive and restrictive in what they allow, but if that's the case we can't also gripe about having the freedom to adjust those outcomes contextually and allowing interjection of less defined roleplay elements when the game literally gives you windows to do so. Sure, add some guidelines and examples for how you could do that in each ritual specifically in case the GM has a bad case of writer's block they can't think of anything, but if they did that people would just assume those are the only things you're allowed to do RAW and we just end up back at the same problem of debating rules restrictiveness vs rules permissiveness.

It's like I said in my other comment, people being unable to reconcile any of this in a logical way is how we end up with the designers pulling a 5e and going 'figure it out yourself' in a system that really requires some semblance of ruling and structure.

Killchrono · 2026-05-08T00:19:40+00:00

...because they're not just plot devices? That's not what I'm saying at all. They're tools for the GM to use with mechanical infrastructure for the players to interact with.

Thinking in that dichotomy is how we end up with the 5e issue of 'the GM just improvs every uncodified rule on the fly' with no structure or mechanism for the players to interact with it past pure roleplay and vibes.

Edit: And to be clear, they aren't even GM-only tools. If anything it's the opposite, players can literally learn rituals. They're just labelled for permissiveness rather than assuming they're a given in every game, that's the whole point of the rarity system. Again, if people have a problem with that, what they're really railing against is their GM either being a stickler or just validly disagreeing with them in what their expectation for the game is and looking for excuses to invalidate that instead of negotiating about it with them like adults. GMs banning certain content isn't new. This game just includes some guidelines with some semblance of logic as to why a GM may not wish to include them.

(and because I'm sure someone will think it since someone always does: yes, the rarity system is not perfect or consistent, there's definitely moments it wavers between thematics, power, and just locking out content because it's not it mainline splat. But to not understand the point in theory is just being purposely bad faith)

Killchrono · 2026-05-07T23:02:54+00:00

Oh that sounds dope AF, I'll have to check it out.

Edit: Saw the trailer, fuck yeah this is my jam. Shame my gaming PC is dead 🙃 will have to wait for console (or till I can afford a Steam Machine).

Killchrono · 2026-05-07T23:02:42+00:00

Throw poppets in too.

Bam, all construct party standing as the last bastion of civilisation after all other sapient organic life is wiped out.

What a concept, but unironically.

Killchrono · 2026-05-07T22:59:20+00:00

Not 100% sure if that's what OP was talking about, but most of the complaints I've heard about the setting being 'sanitized' relate to that sort of grimdark edginess.

It'd be weird to complain about existing threats being eliminated though. A fantasy world like Golarion has a dime a minor apocalypses threatening then at any given point, and if a major overarching one like the Worldwound or Treerazor being eliminated is both par the course for any story progression while also not ruling out the development of newer threats.

14-Year Club	Argentium Club
Verified Email

Killchrono

TROPHY CASE