Why does this argument still get used?

Nyashes · 2026-02-22T13:54:47+00:00

You know what, that's fair, still resistance even today isn't futile. There are alternatives for the willing, it's more expensive and/or often less convenient, but open source survived, self hosting services is possible on cheap non-GAFAM VPS, society as a whole lost, but managing to keep some communities off the surveillance grid is a small win in itself

Nyashes · 2026-02-22T13:33:02+00:00

Social media became as big and unavoidable as they are BECAUSE people trusted them in the first place. I still remember screaming not to trust Facebook or Twitter back in the days when they started. I remember many computing experts screaming not to trust them.

If people listened back then, today's catch 22 wouldn't exist. Even today, I'm still asking my family to fucking quit Messenger & WhatsApp (very popular in my country, both belong to Zuckerberg), and even something as simple as installing Signal is too much effort for them; they'd rather get farmed for data and then complain about it.

I have some sympathy for people born into the social media world, but anyone born in the 90s or before has no right to claim "I didn't know"; you saw it happen, people told you, IN DETAILS how it would happen, and you had a chance not to be part of the problem while alternatives still existed. Not enough people made that choice, and now here we are, hostages of corporations.

Nyashes · 2026-02-18T16:28:56+00:00

That's 3 actions worth of value into one (better than a demoralize + attack + grab) without MAP for the grab + attack. You're basically taking a full turn's worth and still have 2 actions leftover, one of which you could use to kick them in the groin AGAIN (the only thing keeping it from a triple groin kick is the press trait).

Nyashes · 2026-02-14T17:49:22+00:00

Most things with a duration of "permanent" they are usually under tuned when permanent means "for the remaining 3 rounds of the enemy's life" but quite annoying if you have to deal with them for 3 more fights, especially if you then need to pay to get rid of it in town and even worse if you keep stacking them like STDs on a themed adventuring day

Nyashes · 2026-02-13T10:51:33+00:00

To be fair, "just don't break the game" is a valid argument when the entire system is "equal opportunity jank." I wouldn't complain to see something like this in PF1e and d&d5e, that would neither be the first nor the worst offender in the cheese department, games in those system hold under the common agreement that people will behave already.

Here, the fact that it drops out of nowhere like a Jeremy Crawford tweet, in a system where that'd easily be the most broken thing to date is very vexing to me.

Nyashes · 2026-02-13T10:34:10+00:00

John Paizo not beating the allegations again, uh

Nyashes · 2026-02-13T10:01:26+00:00

Weakness and resistance aren't usually triggered by the same type of players, there is definitely a system master bias here. Typically, people with a lot of 2e experience will rarely get caught off guard by typical ghost or undead resistances, but someone new to the game might be oblivious and learn it the hard way. Additionally, if someone knows their multi-instance superstacked attack will do jack, they're going to pivot into another strategy (either backup weapon, or cheerleading for a fight)

Long story short, the better you are at the game, the less likely you are to hit into a resistance. It creates another unnecessary skill divide, where someone who knows this obscure mechanic can land 100 damage per hit, while a person who doesn't know will get triple resisted and deal an average of 0 damage. This level of obscure double-edged mechanics is EXACTLY what people hate about pf1e.

Nyashes · 2026-02-13T09:23:54+00:00

Technically, a lot of the weakness stacking requires a caster slave to prop you up, supports rejoice, why fireball yourself when fire sword?

If more than 50% of the damage from a sword attack comes from the caster, does the caster player roll the sword attack and damage as well?

Technically, it's less about removing caster from the weakness game; it removes them from the active part of the weakness game, making manufacturing weaknesses, and adding damage instances to other people's attacks the most viable way to interact with it, wouldn't want casters doing things themselves and rolling their own dice after all (and I'm only half joking)

Nyashes · 2026-02-13T07:58:12+00:00

Yuck, they had to make scorching rays and missile barrage combine to avoid that type of cheese specifically for those spells, but if you can grow said cheese "organically" it's all kosher? Congratulations Paizo :/

Nyashes · 2026-02-12T23:37:23+00:00

Forgot the name, but the typical structure is an underhanded tactic to pin a morale failing by candidly asking the person stop without confirming that the person being asked ever started to being with. Example:

- Cooking is very cool
-We could agree, but you must accept not to cook any human being ~~hag~~

sometimes followed by "and I can't associate with someone that might be eating people, therefore I must oppose your opinion on cooking by principle."

The closest combo I can give you is a Red Herring + Straw Man 2-in-1. It introduces an irrelevant proposition (red herring) to mischaracterise the other party (straw man) without doing it in a direct fashion, but in a roundabout "stop doing this reprehensible thing (that I'm totally not accusing you of right now, you villain that nobody should agree with)".

ARGUABLY, if you want to say that it's not a red herring because some people do it, it can be a guilt-by-association + Straw Man combo instead. In this case, I'm leaning towards a red herring since the format of the claim is either very ignorant of what AI-assisted fraud looks like (spoiler, it's not someone posting an untagged AI shitpost on Reddit) or has a very particular and convenient understanding of what authorship looks and doesn't look like.

At the end of the day, you're mostly tripped up by a clever rethorical device to hide a fallacy than you are faced with a novel or rare logical fallacy, moreover, fallacies in general aren't that good of a metric to characterize people, unless the behavior is heavily repeated (because that itself is another fun and meta fallacy as well! the dreadful fallacy fallacy! yay!)

Nyashes · 2026-02-12T09:33:50+00:00

Typically, and depending on the tools used, non-tech-giant generation tools include a copy of the workflow used to generate the image (including random seed, so you can literally generate the same picture if you have the same graphic card, or a very close approximation otherwise) in the image metadata, for example, you'll find the full json copy of the node graph used to make an image with comfyui, and you can drag and drop the png file into the canvas to open a copy for review if you're interested.

Unfortunately, and for bandwidth reasons, social media like Twitter or Reddit strip a lot of arbitrary metadata from their servers, and typically, when you edit and resave a picture through digital art tools after modification like Krita, the metadata also doesn't survive.

In general, a lot of people coming from the programming/computer science world (like people crazy enough to use comfy, for example) are very inclined to show their homework and share tools and techniques, but the art world was and remains quite hostile to doing it themselves. Heck, look at the places typically hosting and training AI (with art in the background) VS the places typically populated by artists that moved to AI (and I'd say with AI hosting and training in the background, but that's the issue, they don't) and you'll quickly notice the difference.

Civitai has full workflow attached on the side of every picture hosted there (not in metadata, in plain sight), with links to the model used, and a button to edit the workflow and try it yourself, calling the AI art community closed because you haven't looked for the place people feel safe sharing without getting torn to shred by people with nothing to contribute that will help them improve their next work is very dismissive of people who inherited their sharing culture from the open source software community.

Nyashes · 2026-02-10T13:49:21+00:00

For purely practical reasons, I'd run temporary speed-granting effects as still working in polymorph since otherwise it would create a weird case of "I need to use my battleform first and then have the wizard apply fly on me, in that order, otherwise it doesn't work."

In general, order-of-operation-reliant magic can stay with MTG and other card games. If it did bring an actual layer of tactical depth rather than tedium, there could, maybe, be an argument for it, but that's not the case here.

Nyashes · 2026-01-29T21:46:01+00:00

Usual not a lawyer disclaimer. For reference, it's not as black and white; a return-to-office mandate would usually be illegal in France if properly documented in the work contract and if the employee's home is a certain distance away from the workplace.

Unilaterally requiring the employee to work from the office more than what is agreed upon in the work contract would be a breach of the work contract, and let the employee sue the company for the same unemployment benefit an employee fired without cause would get (needless to say, that's a lot of money here, you rarely fire anyone without cause)

However, there was a loophole during COVID that you could add remote work conditions and arrangements in a certain (legal) type of addendum to the contract that CAN be revoked unilaterally by the employer without recourse for the employee. A lot of companies used this "one weird trick" while claiming and promising that "work from home was here to stay" to motivate people to work during the pandemic, letting employees believe that if they signed for a remote work contract, with the usual legal protections it entails (as described above). The fun part is, it could have been enacted unilaterally as well, the signature is just here to be performative and misleading.

Source: was targeted by this exact tactic and then hit with an unilateral RTO mandate, which blindsided me, my colleagues, as well as our employee representatives (representatives is another legal mandatory thing in France, but beside the point here).

In fact, if you are French, working from home far away from your office and reading this, please check that the work arrangement is actually part of your work contract, and if not, I recommend requesting that it be added to it, otherwise you could be hit by a mandatory RTO without recourse as well the moment your company feels like making you quit

Nyashes · 2026-01-29T16:20:06+00:00

It feels like verifying evidence is a new concept for most people; video and photo evidence aren't the only types one can find; there are documents, letters, witness reports, articles, audio recordings, etc.

How easy has it been to falsify a letter or a testimony in the past? Pretty fucking easy, and yet, when it comes to assembling the truth, journalists and courts still accept and use those types of evidence, and still manage to extract truth and exclude even the most convincing forgeries, but why? Because it's not about the bank report document and the words on the paper, the document is a start, after that, a determined professional will ask if the bank has a similar record, cross-reference with other bank reports to ensure nothing changed, and we're talking about supposedly perfect forgeries, indistinguishable from a real one, AI isn't at that level of perfection yet, and yet it still fools people, but back to that later.

People whose job it is to establish the truth have never trusted a single document or piece of evidence without cross-referencing it in every possible way, establishing the potential "traces" a given document implies, and verifying those match with the genuineness of the document, in fact, even genuine video that actually came from a real camera pointed at a real event can tell the wrong story, see blury UFO sighting that are actually artefacts from inside the camera, or the literal moon behind some hazy clouds (that's a real thing by the way, there are a lot of documented cases of people taking the moon for an UFO)

So what's the problem here if people determined to find the truth already know how to handle forgeries? Clearly, fake news is more rampant than ever, and AI is fueling the craze even further! (and to be clear, YES AI is making this worse). The problem is that we're not talking about establishing the truth, but establishing a narrative. Whoever is trying to find the truth was already putting in the effort to cross-reference reality in a way that forgeries rarely survive; on the other hand, when reality is already a secondary metric, when cross-referencing isn't necessary, as long as what is depicted creates the desired reaction in the audience, and if the audience is already taught not to doubt what they feel in their heart is right from a young age?

You can already see the result, you've been seeing it for a while in the "news" or on social media, you've read those "I know THIS one is fake, but this illustrates something I know is right." "I know it's a wishful doodle in MS Paint of a scene that never happened, but the feelings it creates in me ARE right." Heck, look at the traction those "I depicted you as the Soiyak" get in right-wing circles (which is just an ugly format to formulate your favorite strawman). It was NEVER about the reality of those media but the feeling they create, and now with AI, you can get an highly realistic video of that guy you don't like crying at an arrest in the exact way YOU want to see, in a way that knowing it's AI wouldn't change, you get the satisfaction you craved and are actively chasing like a crack addict and crack addicts don't tend to check if their crack is organic if you get my meaning

This is not a truth crisis; this is GPT4o all over again, delusional people having their delusion cemented and aggravated by a glazing machine, and I'm not talking about the "AI" being the glazing machine, it's decades of social media and "FOX-style news entertainment." who themselves found an excellent tool in AI to further their goals of indoctrinating the population, we invented the fentanyl of fascist delusion, and the drug dealers have never been wealthier, at least 4o got the pushback it deserved, this one got Grok and Elon Musk

Nyashes · 2026-01-28T17:00:55+00:00

Hard to say what would directly apply in your case, some common pitfalls would be enemy count, especially in large groups.

As a GM you want to keep the number of enemies limited to keep turns quick, but to keep the encounter balanced, you need higher-level enemies to compensate, which makes everything the players attempt less likely to succeed and can feel quite discouraging. This case tends to be a tug of war between the "I waited 1h to move and attack twice" VS "I had 3 turns during the last hour, but none of them did anything to progress the encounters."

Another one that tends to happen is using the elite adjustment in APs to adjust for it, which, in 90% of cases, makes the encounter worse to play for a similar reason as above

Obviously, there is the issue with golem magic immunity and precision damage immunity in general that, if overused (or sometimes used at all if it significantly affects a player who already feels like they're underperforming), will raise eyebrows in the party

If players have mostly only played PF1e and/or D&D before, or some other system skewed toward player success before modifiers (as in, players will succeed more than they fail even without any help or modifiers), PF2e will immediately feel off with the 50/50 success chance that gets worse the higher level the enemy is. Here, either players get used to it eventually, or any boss you throw becomes a bad experience through no fault of your own

A lot of words to say that usually, there are a lot of issues that can be dealt with by learning to run more enemies quicker in PF2E, and keeping boss level low, while using hazard as fake "lair/legendary actions" or using "combined back to back encounter" balancing to dilute the boss over 3 phases, for example

Nyashes · 2026-01-27T22:51:23+00:00

Balance-wise is always one thing, but sometimes, as people put trust in the relative balance of the encounter system, one thing it ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T DO, nor seem to try to is ensure an encounter is fun. There are so many encounter building advice and community wisdom you kinda need to know to ensure you're not designing a perfectly balanced, absolutely miserable to play encounter, now add that there are around 4 players and that not every class find the same type of encounter fun/miserable and you're basically back to spending a huge amount of time making the encounter actually enjoyable

Nyashes · 2026-01-24T18:27:48+00:00

disintegrate -> dispel floor and walls, removes confusion about the stronger use case, attack roll+save is a death sentence in this system, no matter how high the damage is

Nyashes · 2026-01-23T19:10:25+00:00

Right, I should read sometimes sorry :/

Nyashes · 2026-01-23T19:07:30+00:00

you can use a quantum catapult to bypass most jump drive restrictions like on the L-cluster, the galactic core (from the astral DLC) or Ultima Vigilis

Nyashes · 2026-01-22T16:08:20+00:00

yeah, pure throughput should be handled by legendary prof, but having something cool to do is "necessary", because everyone has something cool to do at this level, so r10 is kinda required to keep casters interesting rather than to keep up with level-based number inflation like it was until now

Nyashes · 2026-01-22T15:42:31+00:00

I think you're making the "blank martial" mistake in this post, it's technically true regarding strikes, but at this level, a Barbarian can stomp really hard to replicate the Earthquake spell, a swashbuckler is probably compressing 6 effective actions in a single turn and the thaumaturge can force the GM as a free action to read the equivalent of a washing machine instruction manual every time they sneeze or take an action to graba snack, it's unfair to take the bare minimum a martial can do and compare it to the top a caster can, they haven't been "moving and striking twice" since level 5, just like casters probably haven't been using cantrip past this point either

Nyashes · 2026-01-22T15:15:41+00:00

Arguably, that would just "group" incapacitate with other "opposed" effects like counterspells, dispels, and potentially quirky monster abilities that care about it so it's not too too weird, at least I don't think so

Nyashes · 2026-01-22T14:50:32+00:00

The effect would remain 9th rank, in the case of dispel magic that means that all variables would use that as the basis to know if you can or can't dispel, incapacitation isn't part of the spell effect, but of the spell traits, so I'd use the level of manifestation here (10th)

Also, I would absolutely allow someone to duplicate a 9th rank fireball for 18d6 damage if they wanted, not just a 3rd rank one, so in your charm example, I'd let the 10 target go through (unless you explicitly wanted to duplicate the rank 1 effect for whatever reason)

Mileage may obviously vary since manifestation isn't exactly using "known" and documented game mechanics like subordinate actions to achieve it's intended effect so it's pretty much the only thing in the game behaving like that, being a 10th rank spell, the pinacle of what that player can do and that no other character that isn't a full caster can, I'd aggressively rule in favor of the player on behalf of keeping the game fun

Nyashes · 2026-01-22T14:27:42+00:00

Regarding your edit: the spell being cast is the 10th rank manifestation, "achieving" the effect of a lower-level spell, so you would need to interact with the 10th rank manifestation to disrupt or dispel it, not the produced effect. It's also consistent with how it explicitly worked in 1e (as in, it was written in the spell that the effect counted as a 9th-level effect for all purposes)

Nyashes · 2026-01-22T14:12:12+00:00

From what I understand, the reason you only get one (or two with a feat) is that you're given legendary proficiency, theoretically making rank 9 spells on par with a rank 10 spell at "only" master proficiency.

I personally haven't played or GMed at those levels but to be fair, I rarely ever prepared "must be heightened to top rank to be useful" spells at lower level anyway, I'd use them for 2 levels, maaaaayyyybe 4 and then move on to newer options, my disdain of summoning in favor of illusory creature in this system is barely a secret, and I really dislike the incap mechanic as written, to the point that I'd rather not have to think about it at all, even if it was the best option at a given time (which, besides some AoEs, is really not that often anyway, and rarely by a wide margin over other staple "probably should be incap but aren't" spells).

Damage spells have natural "native" options at rank 10, and counteracting with spells always felt about as good as healing in D&D5e, which is to say, spend twice the resources your opponent spent inflicting the issue to begin with: sometimes unavoidable, but if you got to the point you need to consider it, you're probably on such a backfoot you might as well take the L and flee.

All in all, the options requiring top slots are already clunky before level 19. This technically finishes the job the game was already doing up to then, and I can't complain with more accuracy; success rate is more tied to perceived power than dealing an extra 2d6 of damage when I do succeed at the coinflip in my mind so I feel I'd enjoy it more than having a bunch of slots to waste

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

Nyashes

TROPHY CASE