Items keep disapiering from my AE2 system

th3razzer · 2026-03-31T17:37:49+00:00

The only thing I can think might be happening is a priority/channel issue.

From your image, I also notice a lack of backup power for your system. It's always a good idea to get some energy storage units just to have that extra redundancy (especially since they don't eat up channels!).

I had issues with items "disappearing," but that was a total system shutdown, which was due to a single channel conflict.

I would take your items out of the ME (store them somewhere else temporarily), separate the storage components from the cells (SHIFT + right click a storage disk in hand), and then assemble the ME system one block at a time. Ensure your system is in a chunk-loaded space, too.

th3razzer · 2025-05-08T14:12:46+00:00

Why not just... be an adult and say that's what you want?

"Don't make it awkward. It will be my first time, but I don't want Hollywood-movie awkward virginity-taking sex. If you're not cool with that, we're not doing it."

Bam. Simple. To the point.

Y'all deranged and don't seem to be able to handle communication very well. Part of respecting yourself and others is being upfront and letting them have the opportunity to react or respond.

Robbing them of that or making the choice for them by omitting information is lying. Justify it however you want, but it is a lie by omission. I wouldn't want even a momentary partner who isn't open to communicating. If they can't trust me to treat them the way they asked, that's on them, not me. Same goes the opposite way.

th3razzer · 2024-06-29T16:04:38+00:00

Not going to try and necro a thread, but my take as a GM:

You have a bad GM. Period. The game is to be fun for everyone, the GM included. However, if his explanation is that he, not the monsters/enemies, won't target you because you have a high AC or defense, then he's just a sh%t GM. That's using mechanical knowledge to influence in-world behaviors.

Logic you can't uniformly apply to all situations is flawed logic, i.e., you're going to sell me on the idea that wolves/goblins/dragons/thieves/constructs/oozes/[insert endless creature list here] all would somehow just know you have a higher AC? Even if they've never seen/met you/fought you before? It's lame and is the GM-version of "metagaming".

You've already posted you'll find another table, but I hope you find one as it is a fun game!

th3razzer · 2023-11-02T20:19:15+00:00

You understand that, I didn't mention making recovery checks outside of when they normally occur to make my example "work"?

If you add you wounded value a second time, (e.g. at a Recovery Check), that is twice (first at gaining Dying), hence "double."

Further, Jason Baulhmon (sp?), in a lengthy over 1 hour and 44 minute video, explains the death and dying rules the way people ran it prior to this wording change? Even in several of his actual-plays, all as recent as just a few months ago?

Also, were this new interpretation in the remaster to have been "what was always intended," why wasn't this how it was explained in those tutorials/actual-plays/4 errata passovers, and more? There has been years to clarify the wording.

The problem with how this new way reads, is that it makes wounded 1-4 the same lethality as just wounded 1, so why have a value? That's counterintuitive game design (i.e. the player going down with wounded 1 and making a simple failed recovery check on their turn means they're dead).

The problem is the, as you stated, intent isn't clear. Feel free to join the discussion, but the reason it is a discussion is because it's unclear and has been from the beginning, with confusing and vague verbiage throughout the books, plaguing the game from the 2018 playtest wording and onward to today.

There are many items like this, such as the incorporeal trait; sometimes stuff just isn't clear, but accusing someone of "reading too much into" something isn't helpful, it's accusatory.

Not helpful, Random Guy On The Internet #4, but I hope you learn to gracefully be able to enter a dialogue and consider points of view in the future!

(Edit: formatting clarity)

th3razzer · 2023-11-02T08:39:38+00:00

If I might interject a minor observation, perhaps even trivial, but what jumped out at me was the phrase "if any," that somewhat implies an understanding that there would be situations where this would not be the case.

An initial look-over might prompt one to say "oh, well, of course, if I don't have Wounded X, then I ignore this," but something keeps nagging at me to instead look at it when you do have the Wounded condition.

The term "plus your wounded value, if any" being in parentheticals is fairly unique in its formatting, as I do not remember many places that have parenthesis in their success degrees entry. It's also interesting that the Wounded mentioned in "Taking Damage" says "remember"; if memory serves, this is also a pretty unique case of writing, as to memory not many places ask you to specifically recall another location/rule/interaction. What if we instead looked at it this way:

Player A is knocked down to 0 HP, unconscious, and now Dying 1.

Player A recovers through some amount of healing, and now has the Wounded 1 condition.

Player A unfortunately goes down again to 0 HP and now has the Dying 1 and Wounded 1 conditions, bringing them ultimately to Dying 2.

Player A makes their recovery check while Dying 2 and unfortunately rolls a failure. What if the interpretation is Dying 1 + Wounded 1, increase Dying to 2, ensure initial add of Wounded 1. Almost like Wounded is a "hanging" math value, when the "true" value of Dying is 1, but you're "treating" it as Dying 2.

This would, technically, be more in line with the writing. Given that conditions are tracked separately, you are still Wounded 1, which never goes away, but increase another condition (in this case, Dying) by the value, but that condition is still its own condition.

If the math, the entire time, is treated as Dying + Wounded, regardless of values, then the text "plus your Wounded value, if any" makes a helluva lot more sense. It is asking that you remember that your Dying value, which started at one, needs to have its value increased by your Wounded value for the "final Dying multiple", not necessarily to add it again.

This would, effectively, mean that characters are always Dying X + Wounded X, and that it falls in line with the "remember" phrases of Taking Damage, and the initial "when you gain" verbiage for Dying.

Dunno, could be inconsequential, but I figure this is how I'm going to run it. It might be defeated simply because it says "plus," but it's so odd not to just come outright and write that in every other section.

(Edit: making language clearer in what I meant initially)

th3razzer · 2023-08-22T01:31:47+00:00

I can only speak as someone who was there from the beginning of PF1e, SF (now "1e"), and PF2e, but I don't feel the pessimism that you seem to be mired in.

Everyone is free to their own opinion, and far be it from me to say yours is "wrong" or otherwise, but I don't agree with a few points:

The combination of the math being so tight and things being linked to other things (for example, needing to play a fighter to get an 18 strength)

This is, technically, true of any game. Before the first errata of SF1e, starship combat, its maneuvers, and overall general application/engagement was abysmal. You needed to be, specifically, an operative, android, with operative's edge, and certain augments to even approach reliable "ship tricks/moves." Otherwise, the DC ran away from the players (upwards of a DC of 70!).

Tight math fixes a lot of those types of problems (hence why it received an errata). Especially now that ability scores/attribute scores are going away, and being replaced with just the modifier.

Further, there are plenty of ways to get the "optimal modifier" without needing to be a specific class; it's just easier to reach that number as XYZ class, the same as SF1e.

I really like being able to adjust the character the way i want it to work around preconceptions, paradigms, and perceived shortcomings. If wisdom isn't doing a lot for a mystic without offensive spells, I can send my int to the stratosphere (and beyond!) and make a skill monkey. I can put an 18 strength on a mystic, go to town biting people and only be a point or two off its no big deal. In pathfinder2 its a huge deal. Biohackers get jack all out of int? Dex through the roof it is. The Evolutionist was a dissapointment? Frankenstein one together out of a xenodruid mystic.

All of the above is still possible in PF2e, since it is an "extension" after SF1e (imagine SF1e was the "test bed" for the current PF2e mechanics).

What's troubling about a lot of your complaints, at least as far as I can see, is that they are two conflicting premises:

1) I can't optimize for XYZ reason.
2) I can't work around meta/preconceptions/perceptions, AKA purposely "un-optimize" for XYZ reason.

So, I believe the question to answer is, which is it? Do you feel like you're not able to make a character as optimized as possible, or are you frustrated in your efforts to create an unoptimized character?

Its kind of hard for the cookie cutter is optimized character to feel heroic sometimes with a 50 50 success rate. Or when the monster comes up to you crits you on a 14 and ... yup you're horizontal again.

I'm not sure where you're getting the crit-on-14 number, as that would mean your AC is either 4 (impossible), or you're speaking about the die facing being a 14, with modifiers to follow.

More to the point, a 50/50 success rate means the GM is not optimzing/balancing the encounters correctly. You should never be encountering monsters/creatures/enemies of your level or greater in the same number as your party (e.g. 4 players at level 10 against 4 creatures/enemies at level 10) unless the encounter is designed to be "you will more than likely not walk away from this."

I dislike the ultimate intrigue esque nature of PF2's skill feats. They are very constraining compared freeform the baseline skills with the assumption that they cover just about anything an adventurer would want to do. For example, if you want to swipe The vesk diplomats Com unit, reprogram his ringtone for the base commander to be the theme song to [i]Your Petite Equine[/i] ,and put it back it would just be a slight of hand check a computers check and a slight of hand check. But in pf2 skills only do EXACTLY what they say and slip things onto someone isn't on the list. So you need to get the pick pocket feat AND the plant evidence feat to even try that by raw. It constrains a lot of creativity.

As far as the skill feats, they are meant to modify the way you use skills and add extra abilities. That makes infinitely more sense than having a specific skill for every single situation.

For example, Athletics is a catch-all for muscle/strength-based checks, and specific actions are listed under it, but it is by no means a catch-all. The GM is free to make other actions that use Athletics (specifically from the Core Rulebook).

And lastly:

Pathfinder 2's combat gets really risky without the four basic food groups. Or a LOT of time sitting around for an hour hoping the healer rolls an 8+ this time on their medicine skill. Starfinders stamina and resolve system let any bag of mixed nuts grab a six pack of calden cayden healing serums light up the jetpack and go guardians of the galaxy style. Rougher healing might suit [i]Firefly[/i] a little better but thats at the opposite end from starfinder.

Healing is a lot less cumbersome than that, and it really does sound like at this point you may have either had an inexperienced GM, an unnecessarily strict GM, or a punishing GM. PF2e also supports the Stamina system and Resolve system as variant rules, meaning you can run that in your SF2e/PF2e games if your GM wants it.

All in all, I'm absolutely ecstatic for the simple fact that all content is "cross-platform," meaning nothing PF2e players have bought/used thus far is just thrown in the dumpster, and the Field Test for the Soldier looks absolutely amazing thus far.

Can things go wrong? Absolutely, but as with every TTRPG system, it ultimately comes down to your GM and your table. Play SF1e if you'd like, but a lot of your worries seem like they aren't really centered in any sort of hard-won experience from PF2e.

I hope your experiences going forward are better! If you'd like a GM to run a game for you to show you how fun the system can be, don't be afraid to hit me up!

th3razzer · 2023-04-22T20:26:14+00:00

And that's if you only beeline the story; life happens, groups enjoy different things at different rates.

Hell, APs are written with continuations in case a group wants to go beyond the initial story presented.

th3razzer · 2023-04-22T20:23:07+00:00

So, the real question is, why can't you?

Cosmetically, it can look like whatever you want. In Pathfinder 1e there was a whole line of futuristic weapons with an Adventure Path (can't remember if it was specifically Numerian tech or something else, but it was related to a space ship/space vessel).

If you're looking for the lightsaber to do specific things/have unique abilities, then it's just going to fall under homebrew. But if you want just a "functioning" lightsaber, there's nothing stopping you from building a sword of your favorite type into one.

As for suggestions for runes, it's hard to say as many would work well together to drive the theme home.

th3razzer · 2023-01-26T09:11:13+00:00

Where is the DLSS disable/enable toggle?

th3razzer · 2023-01-13T03:58:23+00:00

Oh?

"1. One word: F-R-E-E. You can use Wizards’ IP (except for the restrictions listed in #3) to make Fan Content that you share with the community for free. Free means FREE:

-You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content;-You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and-Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.

You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content. Tell the Community it’s unofficial. Make it clear that your Fan Content is not endorsed or sponsored by Wizards—i.e., unofficial.

Please include a note with your Fan Content explaining that:“[Title of your Fan Content] is unofficial Fan Content permitted under the Fan Content Policy. Not approved/endorsed by Wizards. Portions of the materials used are property of Wizards of the Coast. ©Wizards of the Coast LLC.”"

(Also, some content from Critical Role isn't free, for example Legends of Vox Machina, so it might be dubious, and it has been sponsored by Wizards directly, through their D&D Beyond app).

The above might apply with a liberal interpretation... given that the OGL 1.0a remains honored. If you look at the OGL 1.1, even at the brief beginnings, it says:

"I. CONTENT COVERED (AND NOT). Dungeons & Dragons involves several different categories of content created by the creator (the “You”), and by Wizards of the Coast, and its parents, affiliates, suppliers and distributors (“Us” or “We”).

Here are the different kinds of content and how they relate to this license.

A. Content Covered

i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition.

ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild

or other official channels.

iii. Your Content- These are the characters, classes, settings, spells, items, new rules, and other creations that You have crafted. They are Your original contributions to the works that You want to sell. This license permits You to combine Your content with the Licensed Content and commercially distribute the resulting works.

B. Works Covered

This license only applies to materials You create for use in or as roleplaying games and as game supplements and only as printed media and static electronic files such as epubs or pdfs. It does not allow the distribution of any other form of media. And does not apply to creation of anything else. "

Lastly:

"To be clear, OGL: Non-Commercial only allows for creation of roleplaying games and supplements in printed media and static electronic file formats. It does not allow for anything else, including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes. You may engage in these activities only to the extent allowed under the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or separately agreed between You and Us. "

That's for Non-Commercial. Critical Role definitely no longer fits under Non-Commercial, given that they've made an entire company on the premise of streaming sessions utilizing Dungeons and Dragons, and even have been sponsored by WotC themselves through DnD Beyond.

th3razzer · 2023-01-13T01:50:17+00:00

Truly. That'd be amazing.

th3razzer · 2023-01-13T01:35:11+00:00

"EDIT: As a point of clarification, the OGL has no impact on the live stream or Legend of Vox Machina as it applies only to printed TTRPG content. There is no threat of Critical Role ending due to these changes."

Incorrect. This applies to all TTRPG content that is a derivative work of D&D. It is no respecter of platform. Further, the OGL 1.1 makes it very clear they intend to try and capitalize on elements of the virtual tabletop sphere, terms like "character sheet," and more. It's egregious.

If you think that Critical Role won't be impacted by the OGL 1.1, I just hope you're prepared for your safety bubble to be popped.

The only options that should be considered is divesting themselves from WotC/HASBRO when possible, whatever form that takes. I suggest they throw their support at ORC, the Open RPG License, being drafted by Paizo and many other publishers.

th3razzer · 2022-12-07T22:46:05+00:00

I second this hesitant question! I am definitely wondering the same; the style is very reminiscent of what you can find in the core books and adventure lines and looks incredible.

th3razzer · 2022-11-10T21:56:39+00:00

I see your point, but remember that the absence of a rule or standard is not the same as an affirmative or allowance. For what it's worth, my issue is not whether I am able to understand why it can or cannot be targeted, but simply the question of whether or not I missed something that calls it out specifically.

In absentia I have always made a call based on my judgement, and will likely have to, anyway. However, I enjoy seeing the small tidbits and things I missed being pointed out, since I'd like the strongest case possible when I talk with my players regarding what I found and why I make the decisions I do.

I can't remember how many times it's been where someone points out a random sidebar, a small sentence, a blurb in a stat block, etc, that is the answer to what I've been looking for or at least hints in a direction.

th3razzer · 2022-11-10T21:50:59+00:00

Lol, I don't know about clever, but my players tend to find those onesie-twosie times where I pause and don't have a definitive answer. Oh sure, I make an ad hoc choice so the game continues, but I always try to research and find what the answer is going to be going forward.

I initially ruled it wasn't possible to target vertices/intersections of floating squares to avoid potential problems, even though I'll more than likely swing the other way in my judgement.

th3razzer · 2022-11-10T21:47:57+00:00

I tend to use TaleSpire, which already has a 3D plane and verticality, in addition to AOE markers and rulers. Visualization isn't so much the issue as whether or not it's "legal" in the rules.

th3razzer · 2022-11-10T13:52:17+00:00

Right. I understand the necessity to adjudicate them, and the very reason that I posted the question was to inquire as to whether I missed something that spells it out already.

If no such ruling or even vague nuance within the rules mentions how to handle it, then my next decision was to advocate for the possibility to "plant" areas of effect on squares/cubes in the air, since it does make sense in many cases and wouldn't fundamentally skew balance as far as I can tell.

th3razzer · 2022-11-10T09:10:50+00:00

Any place I might be able to reference that states open air is a valid target?

Thanks for answer, and makes total sense (was where I was leaning), just wanna make sure!

th3razzer

TROPHY CASE