vithigar

Who here do you think is suggesting otherwise?

They're not saying we are?

I'm sorry, did you just "no actually" someone who was espousing books as disconnected entertainment?

Yes, rogue could have a 100% chance of success. Obviously their chance isn't going to get any better than that, seems like an odd thing to bring up as a counter point though.

As for your suggested explanations for the assistance, none of that lines up with it being at worst non-impactful to do a paired group check. The rogue is completely unimpeded by helping the paladin, and in situations where their chance isn't already 100% they might even have a better chance, since any possibility for success from the paladin could potentially cover a failure from the rogue. If the rogue only fails on a 3 or less and the paladin needs a 19, that raises the success rate from 85% alone to 86.5% with the paladin tagging along.

Even it was a group comprised entirely of equally skilled rogues I don't think it makes sense to make them more stealthy in groups, which is what this rule does, for the simple fact that larger groups of people are enormously easier to spot.

If the simple fact that literally any pairing of two people is more stealthy then either of them alone isn't enough reason to not use this rule for stealth then I don't know what is.

So what, exactly, is the justification for how a rogue "covers for" a plate wearing paladin with no dex bonus? Keep in mind that that "half must succeed" rule means the rogue is very slightly more likely to succeed with a noisy partner than alone, assuming that success and failure are possible outcomes for both participants. Even if it's impossible for the other to succeed the rogue is at worst unimpeded.

VAC bans are manually reviewed and supposedly get reversed when they are false positives.

The 2024 rules specifically clarify that stealth is not typically a suitable skill to be rolled in such a way.

Could be something other than D&D. +18 is pretty easily achievable in mid-level Pathfinder 2e.

Debate is about convincing your audience, not the people you're arguing against.

One factor in this might be that it's traditionally more socially acceptable for a woman to adopt masculine habits than vice versa. There isn't as much social pressure to change how you identify if you're a tomboy.

I'm in a similar boat. Pledged but it's been years since I gave them money and I'm not really following it closely anymore. Can't say I ever felt like a rube though, backing a crowdfunded project is always a gamble to some degree, and that money was so long ago that any impact on my situation from having it or not has long since faded.

I'm a little disappointed in the date potentially being pushed back, but it's not like I marked it on my calendar or anything. If they had said nothing and the date just slipped by I probably wouldn't even notice if no one else brought it up.

I'll play S42 if/when it comes out, and probably even enjoy it, but I'm not chomping at the bit.

People continuing to give them additional money now are simply deranged though.

In theory yes, but once you have multiple particles interacting things get really complicated really fast and nice tidy interference patterns like in the double slit experiment become much less common.

All atoms are multiple particles at quantum scales, even a single hydrogen atom is comprised of four.